IRC: #boycottnovell @ FreeNode: Thursday, March 25, 2021

schestowitz

# windoze tco

schestowitz

-TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-yle.fi | Court extends €10m asset seizure of troubled psychotherapy firm's founder | Yle Uutiset | yle.fi

x https://www.newsweek.com/bill-gates-dim-block-sun-chalk-dust-climate-change-1578410

schestowitz

-TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-www.newsweek.com | Bill Gates-funded Study to Dim Sunlight May Be Needed Against 'Horrific' Climate Change

schestowitz

# bill sez

x https://fsfe.org/news/2021/news-20210324-01.html

schestowitz

schestowitz

x https://www.itnews.com.au/news/calls-grow-to-exile-stallman-from-free-software-movement-562585?utm_source=feed&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=iTnews+

schestowitz

-TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-fsfe.org | Statement on Richard Stallman rejoining the FSF board - FSFE

schestowitz

# trolls intentionally spreading disinformation, and taking the

-TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-www.itnews.com.au | Calls grow to exile Stallman from Free Software movement - Software - iTnews

schestowitz

# heat off of Bill

http://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2021/03/17/technicality-at-epo-after-g-1-19/

schestowitz

x https://odysee.com/@TheLinuxGamer:f/RMS-is-back-at-the-FSF--Proof-they-don't-care-about-free-software.:3

Mar 25 08:35

-TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-odysee.com | RMS is back at the FSF: Proof they don't care about free software.

Mar 25 08:35

*polxy (opticnerve@gateway/vpn/airvpn/opticnerve) has joined #boycottnovell

Mar 25 11:13

schestowitz

-TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-patentblog.kluweriplaw.com | Technicality at EPO After G 1/19 - Kluwer Patent Blog

schestowitz

schestowitz

It is to be hoped that this provocative piece attracts comment. I have only done one quick skim and have not yet read through G1/19 itself yet, but I offer a comment in an effort to get the thread up and running.

schestowitz

The author laments the absence of a definition of “technical” and asserts that this absence is to be regretted because an opportunity was lost, to increase legal certainty. I disagree. Those who wrote the EPC knew better than to include in it a definition of “invention” (or “obvious” or “inventive”) because they appreciated that no definition would be good enough to withstand the onward rush of “technology” for

schestowitz

the next 50 or a hundred years. Further, I am sceptical that any definition would raise legal certainty to a level higher than the one already attained. My gut feeling tells me that, to the contrary, any such definition, being expressed in mere words, will lack 100% clarity and will immediately be exploited by assiduous advocates to cast doubts and erode such legal certainty as we have already attained.

schestowitz

There is a good reason why Art 84, EPC is not a ground of attack on validity after issue. Every claim that was ever granted by the EPC can be attacked for its level of clarity being less than 100%. Any definition of “technical” should be abjured, for the same reason.

schestowitz

francis hagel

schestowitz

MARCH 19, 2021 AT 5:00 PM

schestowitz

Dear Max Drei, thanks for keeping this thread alive.

schestowitz

It seems the word « technical » is treated not just at the EPO, but within the entire patent sphere, much like this very important legal test, the elephant test, which goes like this : « I can’t describe an elephant, but I know one if I see one. »

schestowitz

It is noteworthy that the EPA in G3/08 turned down requests for a definition of « technical ». It can be said this was wise given the pace of changes in technology of this last decade. A more recent TBA decision (T 144/11 of August 2018) acknowledges that the distinction technical/non-technical is a « gray area », and recent TBA decisions struggle to provide insights to practitioners in terms of predictability as they mix

schestowitz

technical and non-technical factors in their analysis. Constant expansion of digitisation to all areas of activity is certain to multiply the technical/non-technical intrications.

schestowitz

I am skeptical of efforts toward a unified positive definition of what is « technical » or of a « technical character », for the simple reason that the term « technical » encompasses different meanings, if it is based on the negative definition in Article 52(2) which is a disparate list of exclusions grounded on different policy objectives.

schestowitz

Exclusion of mathematical methods aims to ensure free access to the public for the common good and relates to an abstract/concrete divide.

schestowitz

Exclusion of business methods can be justified by the perception that there is no need to create incentives for innovations in these field.

schestowitz

Exclusion of aesthetic creations, software and plant varieties is justified by the existence of separate legal instruments covering these creations and the concern about cumulative protections.

schestowitz

As to the definition of an invention quoted from the Rote Taube decision “instruction for planned action to achieve a calculable causal result through the application of controllable natural forces“, it is not clear it can cover inventions using AI, as the outputs generated by an AI system are considered unpredictable for the creators of the system, owing to the black box character of neural networks.

schestowitz

schestowitz

MaxDrei

schestowitz

MARCH 20, 2021 AT 11:21 AM

schestowitz

Dear francis hagel, I enjoyed reading your answer, especially its mention of unpredictability. It used to be supposed that the whole of chem/bio was “unpredictable” but it is becoming ever less so, right. So just as what has “technical character” is evolving, so is what is “predictable”.

schestowitz

The patent statute in the USA confines to “the useful arts” eligibility for grant of the exclusive right of a patent. Personally, I see that as more or less a synonym for the “all fields of technology” of GATT-TRIPS. But many US patent attorneys like to argue that it is much wider than that even though, as you point out, the case for patentability of business methods has yet to be made. Patents are restraints on free trade.

schestowitz

Any creep of patent rights into fields where they deliver no incentive to progress or prosperity should be resisted, I think.

schestowitz

The US Supreme Court is careful to avoid defining what is meant in the Statute by “useful arts”. Probably wise, I suppose.

schestowitz

francis hagel

schestowitz

MARCH 20, 2021 AT 3:35 PM

schestowitz

Dear Max Drei,

schestowitz

Thanks for your kind words.

schestowitz

The situation in the US tends to switch from an extreme to the other, this applies in particular to patent law. The CAFC has become pro-patent at the turn of the 1980’s because of the competition of Japan, and we have seen the grant of business method patents. NPEs in the 2000’s has logically targeted big industry and banks because of the expectation of big awards but this has triggered spectacular changes in all areas of US law

schestowitz

(eBay, KSR, Alice etc) very unfavourable to NPEs. This is just to say that the developments of patent law are deeply dependent on global factors. Compared to the US, patent law in Europe has shown remarkable stability (regrettably for some colleagues), and the EPO deserves credit for that.

schestowitz

MaxDrei

schestowitz

MARCH 21, 2021 AT 3:17 PM

schestowitz

Indeed. Swings from one extreme to the other. Just now, we read that Judge Wallach at the CAFC is to retire and the talk on the blogs is of whether his replacement will be a pro-patent or an anti-patent person. Hard to imagine such a debate in Europe (at least if it’s at the EPO or in England).

schestowitz

Perhaps it would be different if the EPO’s Boards were to decide infringement cases and if the members could write dissenting opinions, because the “global factors” you mention must inevitably influence thinking also in the patents courts of Europe.

schestowitz

André Frans

schestowitz

MARCH 17, 2021 AT 9:09 PM

schestowitz

“what are aesthetic creations and computer programs doing in the list when they can be technical?”

schestowitz

Juge Jacob once said that the “technical” excuse of the EPO was a restatement of the same problem. In other words, it’s a loophole to make software patentable anyway, despite the exclusion in the law.

schestowitz

Fabian Stanke

schestowitz

MARCH 18, 2021 AT 5:57 PM

schestowitz

In my view G 1/19 – fortunately – does not touch the overarching principles of technicality assessment discussed by the author. Those are well-defined and reliable since G 3/08. The further technical effect on the one hand and the any hardware approach on the other hand are complementary. They don’t need any link.

schestowitz

Applied to the question raised by the author in the one but last paragraph: If you need the further technical effect to pass the first hurdle, you anyway likely have no basis for Hitachi unter Article 56 (otherwise you would have used that for the first hurdle). More often – even for the process, and always for the product –, Hitachi will help you over the first hurdle and you will need some new ideas for the second.

schestowitz

What G 1/19 may (and was expected to) clarify was, whether the effects of a simulation can be technical – yes they can. And under what circumstances – I feel it’s slightly more generous than COMVIK, but yet have to sort it out for myself.

schestowitz

Attentive Observer

schestowitz

MARCH 19, 2021 AT 11:06 AM

schestowitz

I am not sure what the aim of the author of the blog wanted to reach when he wrote his blog.

schestowitz

I fully agree with Max Drei, and to be honest I find also the blog unnecessary provocative. It is a nice play on words but does not help whatsoever.

schestowitz

It reminds of a joke. What is the difference between a lawyer and a scientist? For the scientist the current flows or does not flow. For a lawyer it might flow or not depending on the intended result.

schestowitz

I do not think that by simply coming up with a new word like “technicality” the problems with CII will be solved. A bit of common sense when it comes to understanding what “technical” means could help a lot!

schestowitz

What is very often forgotten is the original reason as to why computer programs where considered not patentable. It is simply because no significant search can be carried out when the disclosure resumes itself to a program listing. There are so many different programing languages with all their own syntax and rules, that it is impossible for a search authority to make prior art searches for those types of inventions. For genes a

schestowitz

solution was found: electronic filing of sequence according to a specific format.

schestowitz

Only short excerpts of programs have ever been accepted at the EPO, cf. early editions of the Guidelines. Long listings of sometimes hundred pages had to be deleted before grant, exactly like the “clauses”. For all CII inventions, the inventive idea had to be clad in everyday language. Cryptography or error correcting codes are mainly mathematics, but they can have a direct technical effect, like requiring less bandwidth during

schestowitz

transmission or storage space. That is to me perfectly patentable.

schestowitz

I think the case law of the BA has brought a coherent set of conditions as how to protect CII. In my view I did not really understand the necessity of the referral in G 1/19. Over all it has not brought matters fundamentally forward.

schestowitz

Another point which should also not be forgotten is that Art 52(2) should have been revised in what was called a second basket after the Diplomatic conference of 2000. Nothing has happened in this respect and we have seen the EBA coming up with a dynamic interpretation in order not to have the necessity of amending Art 53(b) and simply allowing the introduction of R 28(2).

schestowitz

Last but not least, calling for the EU to solve the problem of the CII at the EPO is somehow surprising when it comes from a lawyer working in a firm of EP representatives. It is also ignoring that the EPO has many more member states as the EU.

schestowitz

It is for good reasons that the founders of the EPC took their distance with the EU as the member states of the EU, or the Common Market as it was called at the time, were unable to reach an agreement upon a “European” Patent for the common market. No less than four attempts were made, and it is only the pressure of the PCT which made them move and end up with the EPC. They did not achieve this goal either with the UPC which,

schestowitz

should it ever come into force, will not be valid for all EU member states.

schestowitz

André Frans

schestowitz

MARCH 19, 2021 AT 8:29 PM

schestowitz

“Cryptography or error correcting codes are mainly mathematics”

schestowitz

Or they are computer programs.

schestowitz

But whether it save CPU/bandwidth ressources of the computer does not matter at all. As they are just different mathematics (or a different computer program).

schestowitz

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26532125

schestowitz

-TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-news.ycombinator.com | IBM Is Destroying Red Hat and Red Hatters Are Leaving | Hacker News

schestowitz

schestowitz

I work for Red Hat.

schestowitz

This article doesn't match (my) reality. I can speak only for myself, but very little has changed, and what changes there have been, are more easily attributable to the leadership shuffles after Jim moved up, than anything else.

schestowitz

Two thing that they are absolutely wrong about, is the claim that there were layoffs last year which included Red Hat, which didn't happen... and the truly lol-worthy claim that (quote) "the Fedora project is being outsourced to Microsoft and AWS", because many repositories are on Github and some of the build infrastructure is hosted on Amazon.

schestowitz

"tech rights" has a bit of a ... reputation. I would perhaps take their claims with a shaker full of salt.

https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/4541p6/can_we_not_po...

schestowitz

schestowitz

-TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-www.reddit.com | Can we not post links to Techrights, please? : linux

schestowitz

schestowitz

cfcosta 3 days ago [–]

schestowitz

I left Red Hat less than a month ago. No relation at all with IBM, in my experience they have been welcoming and pretty aligned with the goals my team had. Great company.

schestowitz

Sorry if I gave them ammo by leaving and inflating the numbers, but it was only a coincidence, I swear.

schestowitz

schestowitz

schestowitz

choeger 3 days ago [–]

schestowitz

Thank you very much for this clarification.

schestowitz

schestowitz

schestowitz

rambojazz 2 days ago [–]

schestowitz

You have to read Techrights with a pinch of salt. They are often very hyperbolic.

schestowitz

schestowitz

schestowitz

marcodiego 3 days ago [–]

schestowitz

You work for Red Hat, nice! Would you give us any hint or bit of information if IBM has any plans to release an affordable POWER system similar to BlackBird entirely designed by IBM from processor to OS?

schestowitz

schestowitz

schestowitz

dralley 3 days ago [–]

schestowitz

I have no idea what IBM is up to, honestly. It doesn't impact me. It's not something I would be in any position to talk about even if I did, though.

schestowitz

schestowitz

schestowitz

wmf 3 days ago [–]

schestowitz

Former IBMer here. It would be impossible for IBM to release an affordable Power system for many reasons including culture and margins. If you want Blackbird go ahead and buy it.

schestowitz

schestowitz

schestowitz

als0 3 days ago [–]

schestowitz

IBM doesn't make workstations or PCs anymore. They gave that business (along with expertise) to Lenovo.

schestowitz

schestowitz

schestowitz

kbrwn 3 days ago [–]

schestowitz

I recently left Red Hat (Feb 2021). I joined from the CoreOS acquisition in 2018. For the most part I enjoyed working at Red Hat. Honestly the real reason I left because of GME but there where a few things that convinced me to move:

schestowitz

1) Killing CentOS/CoreOS. Replacing these two stable OSs with unstable upstreams in CentOS Stream/Fedora CoreOS.

schestowitz

2) So many container tools that have overlapping tasks yet perform in completely different manners (podman, buildah, cri-o, skopeo, tekton, openshift, quay, libpod). Interoperability between all these projects was a constant struggle.

schestowitz

3) Forced usage of IRC. I shouldn't have to run my own bouncer to get features like history, push notifications, identity services. I cannot comprehend how in 2021 at a major corporation I would receive irc messages from usernames like "cloudpizza9000" or "m0use" and be expected to know who these people are and take things seriously enough to work together. It seemed like I was in a 90s chat room with a bunch of strangers.

schestowitz

schestowitz

schestowitz

caskstrength 3 days ago [–]

schestowitz

> Forced usage of IRC. I shouldn't have to run my own bouncer to get features like history, push notifications, identity services. I cannot comprehend how in 2021 at a major corporation I would receive irc messages from usernames like "cloudpizza9000" or "m0use" and be expected to know who these people are and take things seriously enough to work together. It seemed like I was in a 90s chat room with a bunch of strangers.

schestowitz

That sounds great! Would love to work for company like that. Meanwhile in my company we are now migrating to Teams from Lync and Slack and general IT infrastructure is usual MS-shitshow...

schestowitz

schestowitz

schestowitz

dzsekijo 2 days ago [–]

schestowitz

I'm also in RH. Our team is on Google Chat for some years now. Ironically, I preferred IRC as I could run my own instance of Weechat continuosly on a server and logged all conversations, so could extract information from history by grep et al. The hist search UI in gchat is much more cumbersome.

schestowitz

schestowitz

schestowitz

anreadea 3 days ago [–]

schestowitz

Where did you work in RHT? In the openshift org everyone is on slack, i haven't touched to my IRC client for a long time (for work stuff at least)

schestowitz

schestowitz

schestowitz

dralley 2 days ago [–]

schestowitz

The older engineering orgs are on IRC, partially because many of the upstream communities were on IRC. It's slowly changing for the same reason (IRC falling out of favor in the broader community).

schestowitz

There's a mix of IRC, Slack, RocketChat, and GChat.

schestowitz

schestowitz

schestowitz

jhrozek 3 days ago [–]

schestowitz

(Disclaimer: I work for Red Hat)

schestowitz

Please pay attention to the previous submission about RH from this platform. The author seems to have an agenda and likes to stir controversy.

schestowitz

Nothing in his post matches my experience.

schestowitz

schestowitz

schestowitz

penguin_linux 3 days ago [–]

schestowitz

>AWS is about learning and memorising GUIs, not real skills, and those ‘skills’ become useless anyway as soon as you move to a customer/server that doesn’t have AWS

schestowitz

This is not my experience with AWS or Red Hat whatsoever. Most, if not all AWS users I've worked with use languages like terraform and emphasize importance of Infrastructure as Code, _not_using the GUI. Cloud concepts are more important than the GUI.

schestowitz

The same goes for the core concepts behind Ansible/Openshift. Both are not only available free, but they emphasize IaC over GUI.

schestowitz

schestowitz

schestowitz

prepend 3 days ago [–]

schestowitz

This was confusing to me. I’ve never met anyone who uses the GUI for anyone substantial. And know quite a few folks who never use the GUI and either solely use the API or use some framework that uses the API.

schestowitz

If anything AWS skills are more portable because of all the reverse engineered APIs and whatnot.

schestowitz

schestowitz

schestowitz

JoyrexJ9 3 days ago [–]

schestowitz

Yeah I was following along with the article up until that point. Pretty dumb thing to say by someone that probably has never run production workloads on a public cloud

schestowitz

schestowitz

schestowitz

chr15p 3 days ago [–]

schestowitz

I enjoyed the "Fedora is being outsourced to Microsoft and AWS" line, turns out they mean Fedora uses github and aws.

schestowitz

The "layoffs" link implies layoffs at Red Hat but the linked story talks about layoffs at microsoft(!) and IBM (ok at least thats closer but "IBM is gutting Red Hat by maybe possibly could-be laying off IBM staff" is a weird logical leap)

schestowitz

So just another attempt to drive clicks via a shock headline and a nothing story.

schestowitz

(Edit: my spelling is terrible)

schestowitz

schestowitz

schestowitz

marcodiego 3 days ago [–]

schestowitz

This is very very sad and may jeopardize the future of linux. IBM produces POWER processors, they could buy or mimic Raptor Computing Systems and offer an entirely IBM-designed system from processor to OS; something that today only apple can offer. It is very sad to see such great potential wasted.

schestowitz

When IBM bought Red Hat, many people were waiting an inverse buy out, something like when apple bought NeXT. It looks like that is not what is happening.

schestowitz

schestowitz

schestowitz

onli 3 days ago [–]

schestowitz

No, this would be likely positive for Linux. The centralization of decision power about the linux ecosystem via Redhat lead to net negative developments like systemd adoption, X11 being left to rot under Redhat leadership in favour of a Wayland solution that still does not work properly, and Gnome 3 being pushed as the mainstream linux solution. If Redhat really would implode the natural, likely more decentralized development

schestowitz

efforts would gain weight and prevent errors like those. The article even mentions that with the abstraction as sale argument remarks.

schestowitz

schestowitz

schestowitz

eldelshell 3 days ago [–]

schestowitz

Are you still salty about systemd? Let it go, let it go.

schestowitz

schestowitz

schestowitz

onli 3 days ago [–]

schestowitz

Does systemd still have binary logs? There is your answer.

schestowitz

schestowitz

schestowitz

corty 3 days ago [–]

schestowitz

Unsurprising, really. I wonder if they can ever pull a SuSE and get out of IBM again, just as SuSE got out of Novell.

schestowitz

schestowitz

schestowitz

toomuchtodo 3 days ago [–]

schestowitz

I don’t think there’s anything stopping Redhat folks from starting a new enterprise and building another commercial version off of CentOS. If successful, they could strip mine IBM for the useful Redhat talent and leave IBM with the cruft.

schestowitz

schestowitz

schestowitz

Shared404 3 days ago [–]

schestowitz

That might be difficult though, with IBM retaining the brand that people aren't fired for purchasing.

schestowitz

IT would know to go with the Redhat talent, but would management go with it?

schestowitz

schestowitz

schestowitz

dragonwriter 3 days ago [–]

schestowitz

RedHat has good enterprise relations, but it doesn't seem to be a no-brainer brand the way old school IBM was or the way Microsoft more recently has been.

schestowitz

If they can get some decent enterprise sales, support, and profesional services folks as well as developers, they’ll do fine.

schestowitz

schestowitz

schestowitz

corty 3 days ago [–]

schestowitz

I'm not so sure there. RedHat is what you pick to check a box somewhere that says "OS supported with this software/hardware/whatever". There isn't really a technical argument to pay for RedHat over CentOS, beyond box-ticking. Now a RedHat-replacement would first have to get all software and hardware vendors to support their new no-name distro. And given that this has even been hard on Oracle, I'm sceptical in general...

schestowitz

schestowitz

schestowitz

goatinaboat 3 days ago [–]

schestowitz

That might be difficult though, with IBM retaining the brand that people aren't fired for purchasing.

schestowitz

The MariaDB guys pulled it off

schestowitz

schestowitz

schestowitz

rstat1 3 days ago [–]

schestowitz

Not sure I really believe anything in this article. Especially given this site's reputation for Fox News style "reporting"(meaning made up BS).

schestowitz

schestowitz

schestowitz

eldelshell 3 days ago [–]

schestowitz

It's all bullshit.

schestowitz

schestowitz

schestowitz

anreadea 3 days ago [–]

schestowitz

My experience someone who work for Red Hat, I had only (engineering) good relationship with the IBM people, i never heard anything about lay off or projects that needs to be killed or other devil things IBM people may do because of IBM , they are rather nice most of them actually.....

schestowitz

schestowitz

schestowitz

tyingq 3 days ago [–]

schestowitz

The article talks quite a lot about comments here: https://www.thelayoff.com/t/17y7dQRz#replies

-TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-www.thelayoff.com | Let's double - post regarding Red Hat layoffs

schestowitz

But I don't see much of anything there. One negative comment from "anonymous".

schestowitz