Join us now at the IRC channel.
| *rianne__ (~rianne@host81-154-169-96.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell | Apr 26 00:21 | |
| *liberty_box (~liberty@host81-154-169-96.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell | Apr 26 00:21 | |
| schestowitz | http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2020/04/no-european-qualifying-examination-will.html?showComment=1587732850295#c963851998436534077 | Apr 26 03:19 |
|---|---|---|
| schestowitz | " | Apr 26 03:19 |
| schestowitz | Wednesday, 22 April 2020 at 12:11:00 BST | Apr 26 03:19 |
| schestowitz | What is worrying is that they appear to allow pre-EQE to pass but are not providing anything for main EQE candidates. Not a pass but something for main EQEs so that all candidates to some extent can be treated fairly. | Apr 26 03:19 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Apr 26 03:19 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-ipkitten.blogspot.com | No European qualifying examination will be held in 2020 says EQE Supervisory Board - The IPKat | Apr 26 03:19 | |
| schestowitz | Replies | Apr 26 03:19 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousWednesday, 22 April 2020 at 12:55:00 BST | Apr 26 03:19 |
| schestowitz | It has to be considered that the pre-EQE and the EQE are of a fundamentally different nature. One is an intermediate exam, the other one actually grants you right to practise as professional representative. The difference of the two is huge. While I certainly understand the frustration of the EQE 2020 sitters, I can also understand why the EPO decided not to alter the unified standard for becoming a European patent attorney. | Apr 26 03:19 |
| schestowitz | Gilman GrundyWednesday, 22 April 2020 at 19:44:00 BST | Apr 26 03:19 |
| schestowitz | Yet, when candidates had to sit exams in excessively cold exam halls, they were given extra marks to compensate for the disadvantages they were under. I think 2020 candidates resitting in 2021 are under at least as much of a disadvantage given that many will have exhausted all relevant study material in the run up to this year's exams. | Apr 26 03:19 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousThursday, 23 April 2020 at 12:20:00 BST | Apr 26 03:19 |
| schestowitz | Any imagined disadvantage occasioned by exhausting study material would surely not outweigh the advantage of an extra year of professional development and ability to study. The EQE is a fitness to practise exam. If you are fit to practise this year, there is no reason that you should not be as fit or fitter to practise next year. | Apr 26 03:19 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Apr 26 03:19 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousWednesday, 22 April 2020 at 12:13:00 BST | Apr 26 03:19 |
| schestowitz | I would prefer that CIPA/PEB cancel this year's exam and let everyone know in June so they don't have to go through the pain of revision. Times are too uncertain and it is clear that they will be strict social distancing/less gatherings measures in place for a long period of time. | Apr 26 03:19 |
| schestowitz | Not to mention that many scientist are now expecting a second wave in the winter. Its too risky to hold one this year until a vaccine is produced and scaled up. | Apr 26 03:19 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Apr 26 03:19 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousWednesday, 22 April 2020 at 12:13:00 BST | Apr 26 03:19 |
| schestowitz | The only sensible interpretation of the decision is that the pre-EQE does not apply for the 2021 EQE. I fail to see any other way of understanding it. I do agree however that this could and should have been communicated in more clear and unambiguous terms. | Apr 26 03:19 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Apr 26 03:19 |
| schestowitz | Replies | Apr 26 03:19 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousWednesday, 22 April 2020 at 12:26:00 BST | Apr 26 03:19 |
| schestowitz | REE article 11(7) doesn't say when the pre-exam has to have been "held", isn't it arguably applicable to candidates if the pre-eqe is to be held in 2021? | Apr 26 03:19 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Apr 26 03:19 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousWednesday, 22 April 2020 at 12:36:00 BST | Apr 26 03:19 |
| schestowitz | The decision seems particularly (and perhaps unfairly) weighted towards pre-EQE candidates this year but does not take into account the loss year main EQE candidates face. It would (to me) make more sense to be fairer to main EQE candidates i.e. small number of discretionary marks to account for their loss year. | Apr 26 03:19 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Apr 26 03:19 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousWednesday, 22 April 2020 at 12:38:00 BST | Apr 26 03:19 |
| schestowitz | I would hate to cancel PEB but completely agree that they would have to cancel October. I wouldn't feel particularly comfortable allowing trainees and others to risk themselves for the sake of an exam. Perhaps this should also give us the opportunity to reconsider and improve the flexibility of exam system. | Apr 26 03:19 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Apr 26 03:19 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousWednesday, 22 April 2020 at 12:44:00 BST | Apr 26 03:19 |
| schestowitz | CIPA/PEB will not know what is going to happen in October. What is certain is the uncertainity of this pandemic in the next year or so. Much better to call this off early now rather than waste a lot of people's time. | Apr 26 03:20 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Apr 26 03:20 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousWednesday, 22 April 2020 at 13:10:00 BST | Apr 26 03:20 |
| schestowitz | Please note, trademark attorney professional exams are not being cancelled because of CORONA. | Apr 26 03:20 |
| schestowitz | Neither are professional law exams. They are just changing how candidates are assessed. | Apr 26 03:20 |
| schestowitz | Before cancelling the exams, can the CIPA/PEB please consider why they can't change the assessment methods like every other profession?? | Apr 26 03:20 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Apr 26 03:20 |
| schestowitz | Replies | Apr 26 03:20 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousWednesday, 22 April 2020 at 13:49:00 BST | Apr 26 03:20 |
| schestowitz | Good point. I know many foundation exams are being held online, open book. CIPA/PEB should seriously consider this but if they can't change in time then please do cancel exams and let everybody know in June. We don't want to waste so many trainees time and only to find out in before 2 weeks of the exam that they can't take it. | Apr 26 03:20 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousWednesday, 22 April 2020 at 13:50:00 BST | Apr 26 03:20 |
| schestowitz | I think coursework assessment is not a bad shout here. Or online testing. These are achievable especially in this modern age. | Apr 26 03:20 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousWednesday, 22 April 2020 at 14:15:00 BST | Apr 26 03:20 |
| schestowitz | Yeh i think this will all come down to the appetite of CIPA/PEB (i count these as the same body as one just seems to parrot the other) to change the format. Despite CITMA and CIPA both being regulated by IPREG, i would imagine that what is good enough for CITMA is not good enough for the high and mighty CIPA. | Apr 26 03:20 |
| schestowitz | The tech is clearly available and can be implemented quickly. | Apr 26 03:20 |
| schestowitz | I suspect exams will be considered the only suitable assessment methodology, even in these testing times, because mercer et al. need to make some money from selling their JDD exam preparation courses. | Apr 26 03:20 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousWednesday, 22 April 2020 at 15:23:00 BST | Apr 26 03:20 |
| schestowitz | Some people compare patent exams to that of actuary exams in level of difficulty. I've never really understood why we boast about the exams being difficult as I don't equate that with quality of assessing knowledge and skills. If you're only boast is that your exams are some of the hardest out there, it says to me that you don't have much else to say about the profession... | Apr 26 03:20 |
| schestowitz | Fairly straight forward to introduce digital examination alongside coursework, it is possible as other professions have done it years ago and it hasn't led to collapse of those UK professions. It's time to leave the 19th century. | Apr 26 03:20 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousThursday, 23 April 2020 at 07:41:00 BST | Apr 26 03:20 |
| schestowitz | As well as the professions listed above both the actuarial profession and accountants have moved to online delivery of this year's qualifying exams. | Apr 26 03:20 |
| schestowitz | I hope PEB consider this rather than cancelling | Apr 26 03:20 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Apr 26 03:20 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousWednesday, 22 April 2020 at 15:13:00 BST | Apr 26 03:20 |
| schestowitz | PEB/CIPA should ideally make a decision by the end of this month. We all know PEB exams takes a long time to prepare - 6-7 months and many candidates may have already started. If we can't be sure exams are going ahead in October (which I personally cannot see how we can be certain) then it needs to be cancelled or an alternative assessment needs to be announced and implemented. | Apr 26 03:20 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Apr 26 03:20 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousWednesday, 22 April 2020 at 15:14:00 BST | Apr 26 03:20 |
| schestowitz | Another thought - if exams are cancelled this year, it would give plenty of time for the Mercer review to be implemented. I hope that will be released soon. | Apr 26 03:20 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Apr 26 03:20 |
| schestowitz | Replies | Apr 26 03:20 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousWednesday, 22 April 2020 at 15:23:00 BST | Apr 26 03:20 |
| schestowitz | what if there are no changes to implement.... | Apr 26 03:20 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousWednesday, 22 April 2020 at 15:45:00 BST | Apr 26 03:20 |
| schestowitz | I'd be gobsmacked it that is the outcome of the review, it would mean that the majority of his 140 responses have said everything is alright, no problem here! If that's the case, the profession is for the dogs. | Apr 26 03:20 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousWednesday, 22 April 2020 at 15:48:00 BST | Apr 26 03:20 |
| schestowitz | Then it would be a hell of a waste of everybody's time in the profession. Why ask for a review and change nothing! | Apr 26 03:20 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Apr 26 03:20 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousWednesday, 22 April 2020 at 15:16:00 BST | Apr 26 03:20 |
| schestowitz | They can certainly make P2 open book this year. This is an easy change to make as P2 is all about "practice" so making it open book should be fine. | Apr 26 03:20 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Apr 26 03:21 |
| schestowitz | Replies | Apr 26 03:21 |
| schestowitz | Gilman GrundyWednesday, 22 April 2020 at 19:47:00 BST | Apr 26 03:21 |
| schestowitz | I honestly don't know what use making it open-book would be: in the exam I passed, and in all the past-papers I took preparing for it, there was nothing that required remembering much more than a basic principle - chapter and verse was not required. | Apr 26 03:21 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousThursday, 23 April 2020 at 08:38:00 BST | Apr 26 03:21 |
| schestowitz | So why not make it open book. Some parts of the law that is accessible should do no harm. After all - every attorney would now go and looks some stuff in the black book to confirm and then provide advice. It mirrors real life situations. | Apr 26 03:21 |
| schestowitz | Gilman GrundyThursday, 23 April 2020 at 09:27:00 BST | Apr 26 03:21 |
| schestowitz | But there's the rub - once the exam is made open book, then the examiners are free to ask questions about any of the material you have brought with you, and mark you down if chapter-and-verse is not given. It encourages laziness from the examiners. | Apr 26 03:21 |
| schestowitz | You end up with the absurd situation you get in the EQEs, with candidates having to bring in large suitcases filled with books just in case a question is asked about some obscure part of the rules regarding automatic debiting of accounts (as in last year's Paper D, in a question worth 8% of the total exam - the kind of thing which in P2 you might get a discretionary half-mark for knowing). | Apr 26 03:21 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Apr 26 03:21 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousWednesday, 22 April 2020 at 15:24:00 BST | Apr 26 03:21 |
| schestowitz | As a potential candidate, I would be more understandable if CIPA/PEB make a decision by early May (which is when I plan to start revision). | Apr 26 03:21 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Apr 26 03:21 |
| schestowitz | Replies | Apr 26 03:21 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousThursday, 23 April 2020 at 08:56:00 BST | Apr 26 03:21 |
| schestowitz | May makes sense. | Apr 26 03:21 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Apr 26 03:21 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousWednesday, 22 April 2020 at 18:19:00 BST | Apr 26 03:21 |
| schestowitz | It makes no sense to demand certainty about the UK exams now. Nobody can know what the Covid situation will be in October, so certainty can only mean cancelling them. It's only April, so (unless candidates are a lot more diligent than when I took them), they won't be starting work in earnest for a few months yet, so why not wait and see? Nobody is forced to take the exams, so anyone who wants certainty now for some reason can simply | Apr 26 03:21 |
| schestowitz | decide to sit them next year regardless. It is not fair to deny others the chance of qualifying this year. Anyway, knowledge is never wasted! | Apr 26 03:21 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Apr 26 03:21 |
| schestowitz | Replies | Apr 26 03:21 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousThursday, 23 April 2020 at 08:35:00 BST | Apr 26 03:21 |
| schestowitz | No one is saying to make a decision in April but a decision needs to be decided soon and early so that many candidates don't waste time revising and then to be told they can't do it. This would be 4-5 months before the exam if candidates are diligent enough to start. We see this with EQE this year although they did not know back in March about corona. | Apr 26 03:21 |
| schestowitz | PEB/CIPA know about the situation now so if they can't be certain things will go back to normal in October by June - it should be cancelled or have an alternative testing. | Apr 26 03:21 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousThursday, 23 April 2020 at 08:54:00 BST | Apr 26 03:21 |
| schestowitz | Yes as its April but by May (mid-end of May) if there is no certainty that candidates can travel freely and no social distancing in place and that things are back to normal then it should be postponed. They should let us know by May. Don't leave it late to tell everybody who will be involved. | Apr 26 03:21 |
| schestowitz | However, I think CIPA/PEB should be looking now to explore whether alternative assessments can be done instead. | Apr 26 03:21 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousThursday, 23 April 2020 at 08:55:00 BST | Apr 26 03:21 |
| schestowitz | I think May is a good time to let candidates know. Most will be starting around this time. | Apr 26 03:21 |
| schestowitz | It will also let courses such as JDD know too. | Apr 26 03:21 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousThursday, 23 April 2020 at 08:59:00 BST | Apr 26 03:21 |
| schestowitz | No one is forced to do the exam but we all know candidates will risk doing these exams even though they are putting themselves (potentially) in danger and others in danger too like inviligators and the general public. | Apr 26 03:21 |
| schestowitz | This is one of the reason why the EPO had to cancel March because they know candidates will risk to go. Some will be pressurised by their firms to take the exam even if they do feel uncomfortable from going to the exam venue. It is a difficult decision to take so that's why it needs to come from PEB/CIPA to cancel. | Apr 26 03:21 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousThursday, 23 April 2020 at 09:28:00 BST | Apr 26 03:21 |
| schestowitz | May seems like an appropriate time for PEB/CIPA to decide. If they can't know for certain that October is back to normal then it right to let everyone know. | Apr 26 03:21 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousThursday, 23 April 2020 at 13:55:00 BST | Apr 26 03:21 |
| schestowitz | Agreed. May date seems reasonable enough. Olympics, Euro2020, Wimbledon have all cancelled early to allow participates to adjust and PEB should do the same. Don't leave this until the summer when things are so uncertain. | Apr 26 03:21 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousThursday, 23 April 2020 at 15:07:00 BST | Apr 26 03:21 |
| schestowitz | Yes. May is the month to notify. | Apr 26 03:21 |
| schestowitz | I cannot see any restrictions lifting and hence there will be so much uncertainty In October. The governments around the world has shown that it will take action and they will NOT allow (at least try) for a second peak. So I don't expect people will be able to freely travel this year. | Apr 26 03:22 |
| schestowitz | Plus, its a lot of money at the moment (especially for those that needs to pay for the exams this year using their own money). | Apr 26 03:22 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Apr 26 03:22 |
| schestowitz | Gilman GrundyWednesday, 22 April 2020 at 23:20:00 BST | Apr 26 03:22 |
| schestowitz | I think I should explain why this situation has raised such ire amongst those who were due to sit the main EQEs in 2020. | Apr 26 03:22 |
| schestowitz | The practical effect on every one of them of the 2020 main EQEs being cancelled is essentially the same as it would have been had they completely failed every exam they were scheduled to take.The only difference is that they won't have to pay to sit the next year's exams, and won't have a fail mark recorded, and these are the effects of failure that candidates typically care least about. The effects they care most about - career | Apr 26 03:22 |
| schestowitz | progression, salary, and ultimately self-respect and getting very stressful exams out of the way - these are the same. | Apr 26 03:22 |
| schestowitz | This situation leaves them less well positioned to sit the EQEs in 2021. The training material available that is most relevant will have been basically exhausted in preparing for this year's EQEs, so they are left training on the material that is less relevant (e.g., past papers from 20+ years ago) whilst their training on the more relevant material becomes stale. Practical on-the-job experience that they may gain (if not furloughed | Apr 26 03:22 |
| schestowitz | in the mean time doesn't have that much application to the exams, unfortunately, since the exams often require candidates to do the opposite of what they do in practice (to take one obvious example, risking a slightly overly-broad claim in Paper A is fatal, but in real life, given a choice between possibly-a-bit-too-broad and definitely-too-narrow, it is better to err on the side of broadness). | Apr 26 03:22 |
| schestowitz | The exam board appear to be giving pre-EQE candidates a pass on the 2020 pre-EQE. I think almost no-one is opposed to doing this. What they are saying is that it is unfair to do this and then not give any consideration at all to the main EQE candidates. It is also unjust comapred to the consideration given to previous exam-sitters. | Apr 26 03:22 |
| schestowitz | In previous exams, when, due to cold temperatures in the exam hall, candidates were likely to have been disadvantaged in taking the exams, they were given extra marks to compensate. Just like them, the 2020 main EQE candidates have been disadvantaged in taking the exam - in fact I don't imagine that there is a single 2020 main EQE candidate who would not swap their present situation for taking the exam this year in a cold exam hall | Apr 26 03:22 |
| schestowitz | but no compensatory marks have been announced for this. | Apr 26 03:22 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Apr 26 03:22 |
| schestowitz | Replies | Apr 26 03:22 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousThursday, 23 April 2020 at 08:41:00 BST | Apr 26 03:22 |
| schestowitz | I would agree with you. If they are going to compensate pre EQE candidates by giving them all a free pass then it is only fair and just to give some compensatory marks for main EQE candidates this year for the exceptional circumstances. | Apr 26 03:22 |
| schestowitz | EPO have in the past awarded marks under exceptional circumstances. This is the most exceptional circumstance these candidates have all faced. | Apr 26 03:22 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousThursday, 23 April 2020 at 09:13:00 BST | Apr 26 03:22 |
| schestowitz | To be fair to my firm, they are compensating trainees like they had passed some (if not all) of the EQEs they were going to sit. Obviously the other downsides apply, but at least this reduces the negative effect. | Apr 26 03:22 |
| schestowitz | Appreciate this isn't possible for everyone but thought i would share what i think to be really great practice by the managing partner of our firm. I think that move alone has enamoured alot of people to the leadership, and the firm will probably save that money from recruitment consultant fees over the next few years. | Apr 26 03:22 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousThursday, 23 April 2020 at 11:01:00 BST | Apr 26 03:22 |
| schestowitz | What are your proposing though? | Apr 26 03:22 |
| schestowitz | As you have correctly said, "The practical effect on every one of them of the 2020 main EQEs being cancelled is essentially the same as it would have been had they completely failed every exam they were scheduled to take." | Apr 26 03:22 |
| schestowitz | Failing candidates in any other year would face the same disadvantage the following year of having exhausted relevant training material. Yet, as a profession, we seem content to fail FD2/FD4 candidates year after year with no compensation being applied for each subsequent year. | Apr 26 03:22 |
| schestowitz | The pre EQE isn't really in the same ball park since it only allows you to sit the EQEs. Such candidates still have to pass the EQEs. | Apr 26 03:22 |
| schestowitz | I think the current crisis exposes how harsh exams can be for some in any given year and the effects go way beyond passing or failing. | Apr 26 03:22 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousThursday, 23 April 2020 at 11:46:00 BST | Apr 26 03:22 |
| schestowitz | Let's be clear on why the compensatory marks sound ideal to Grundy on this page: because he thinks it will be easier. Or is flexibility in examinations only to be considered when it's an exam he is due to take? | Apr 26 03:22 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousThursday, 23 April 2020 at 13:53:00 BST | Apr 26 03:22 |
| schestowitz | Then why give free passes to pre-EQE candidates. Let's me clear, there should be no double standards! | Apr 26 03:22 |
| schestowitz | Let preEQE candidates do the pre-EQE next year and mainEQE candidates do the exam next year. Simply fair! | Apr 26 03:22 |
| schestowitz | Gilman GrundyThursday, 23 April 2020 at 14:37:00 BST | Apr 26 03:22 |
| schestowitz | Very drole anonymous, and were I calling for a total change in the way the exam is administered, rather than just for the EPO to do what it previously did for the candidates affected by cold, it might even be relevant. | Apr 26 03:22 |
| schestowitz | EG YabuiThursday, 23 April 2020 at 15:53:00 BST | Apr 26 03:22 |
| schestowitz | Okay, let's follow this through (I'm the same as Anonymous at 1146 by the way and for background I was registered to sit all 4 main papers this year for the first time). You think that additional marks should be given to 2020 main paper candidates (us) when they sit it next year, not, presumably, because you anticipate the examination hall being cold again, but because "many will have exhausted all relevant study material in the run | Apr 26 03:22 |
| schestowitz | up to this year's exams". | Apr 26 03:22 |
| schestowitz | Presumably this observation only applies to first time sitters, as 2nd+ time sitters will have already exhausted these in previous years. So are you suggesting these compensatory marks only be applied for first time sitters, and only for those exams for which they were registered? Or should 2nd+ time sitters be routinely awarded extra marks to reflect their exhaustion of useful learning materials? As you have said it is in most ways | Apr 26 03:22 |
| schestowitz | as if we have sat and failed all the exams we were scheduled to sit. | Apr 26 03:22 |
| schestowitz | I think setting a precedent for awarding extra marks on the basis that preparation was done a year earlier than needed would in fact amount to "a total change in the way the exam is administered". | Apr 26 03:22 |
| schestowitz | Even if we were to take what you've suggested as completely true and worthy of compensatory marks, awarding marks would basically amount to the powers that be admitting that the exams are arbitrary, detached from normal practice, and can only be effectively prepared for by doing all the recent past papers in a few months before the exams. I can't see them doing that. | Apr 26 03:22 |
| schestowitz | Don't get me wrong, I am sad that my preparation has been wasted and not looking forward to doing it all again next year, but these are the breaks. | Apr 26 03:23 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Apr 26 03:23 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousThursday, 23 April 2020 at 08:56:00 BST | Apr 26 03:23 |
| schestowitz | Completely agree. It needs to be balanced and fair for all candidates not just pre-EQE. | Apr 26 03:23 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Apr 26 03:23 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousThursday, 23 April 2020 at 09:25:00 BST | Apr 26 03:23 |
| schestowitz | Well - I think this article sum up what we've been discussing. Social distancing and severe travel restrictions are likely to be in place till end of the year. Pubs/bars likely to be last on the list to open this year. Large gatherings probably banned altogether. | Apr 26 03:23 |
| schestowitz | I personally don't think PEB exams should go ahead unless an alternative can be found to assess candidates. | Apr 26 03:23 |
| schestowitz | https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-52389285 | Apr 26 03:23 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Apr 26 03:23 |
| schestowitz | Replies | Apr 26 03:23 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousThursday, 23 April 2020 at 11:14:00 BST | Apr 26 03:23 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-www.bbc.co.uk | Coronavirus: Social restrictions 'to remain for rest of year' - BBC News | Apr 26 03:23 | |
| schestowitz | I agree with your analysis of the situation. But i would add that PEB would need to provide very compelling reasons why alternative assessment cannot take place, given that basically every other exam setting organisation (that has had time to react) has found a way around this. | Apr 26 03:23 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Apr 26 03:23 |
| schestowitz | An EQE2020 CandidateThursday, 23 April 2020 at 11:20:00 BST | Apr 26 03:23 |
| schestowitz | I am not sure why so many people are suggesting 'compensatory marks' as a solution for EQE 2020 candidates. The main issues affecting the candidates are delay in qualification and the need to update exam materials for the new law. Compensatory marks do not address these issues, only giving something nice to those of us caught in this situation out of sympathy. Sentiment is not a suitable basis for legal reasoning. | Apr 26 03:23 |
| schestowitz | Compensatory marks undermine the perception of the EQEs. (Previously they have been used for a cold venue to ensure fairness with candidates sitting the same exam in a more suitable venue. All candidates are equally disadvantaged under the present circumstances.) In addition, there are problems with applying compensatory marks. | Apr 26 03:23 |
| schestowitz | Should they be given to all candidates sitting the EQE in 2021? Even those who had not registered last year? Pre-EQE 2020 candidates as well? Those who registered for only some exams and will now sit all exams in one sitting? | Apr 26 03:23 |
| schestowitz | Should they be given only to those registered for EQE 2020? Leading to the situation where two candidates achieving the same mark, sitting the same exam, in the same conditions, receive different outcomes? Or, more absurd, a candidate achieving a worse mark passing while one with a better mark fails? This is not suitable for a professional examination certifying safeness to practice, and likely leaves the EPO open to a large number | Apr 26 03:23 |
| schestowitz | of appeals. | Apr 26 03:23 |
| schestowitz | The issue of updating texts has been addressed by allowing candidates to use either legal basis. | Apr 26 03:23 |
| schestowitz | The issue of the delay in qualification is not easy to address. A partial solution could be to hold an ‘exceptional resit’ in Autumn 2021, exclusively for those disadvantaged by the cancellation of the EQE in 2020. Four scenarios seem to be possible: | Apr 26 03:23 |
| schestowitz | Candidate A, who would have passed all EQEs in March 2020 and does pass them all in March 2021 to qualify in Summer 2021. This candidate is delayed by a year, sadly nothing can be done to improve their situation. | Apr 26 03:23 |
| schestowitz | Candidate B, who would have passed all EQEs in March 2020, fails an exam in March 2021, resits in March 2022 to qualify in Summer 2022. This candidate is delayed by two years (or more, if further resits are needed). An exceptional resit would allow qualification in Winter 2022, reducing the delay to 18 months. | Apr 26 03:23 |
| schestowitz | Candidate C, who would not have passed all EQEs in March 2020, but does pass them all in March 2021 to qualify in Summer 2021. This candidate has suffered no delay. | Apr 26 03:23 |
| schestowitz | Candidate D, who would not have passed all EQEs in March 2020, fails an exam in March 2021, and resits in March 2022 to qualify in Summer 2022. This candidate is delayed by one year. An exceptional resit would reduce the delay to six months. | Apr 26 03:23 |
| schestowitz | Unfortunately, I expect that even this ‘partial solution’ is not possible due to the administrative burden of preparing and marking additional papers, resourcing venues, and conflicts with national exams. | Apr 26 03:23 |
| schestowitz | I also do not understand the ire a small number of candidates are expressing for the fact that pre-EQE 2020 candidates are being given an exemption from the pre-EQE. The pre-EQE is purely an internal examination, intended to lighten the burden on markers of the EQE by removing candidates who are not ready for the main exams. It provides no legal rights to those who pass, so removing it does not risk any perception of the EQEs being | Apr 26 03:23 |
| schestowitz | watered down'. | Apr 26 03:23 |
| schestowitz | Allowing pre-EQE candidates to sit the main exams in 2021 prevents them from losing a year, minimising harm, and the only negative effect is on the administrators and markers of the main exam (which will happen regardless - at some point there will be a double year). This does not materially affect the EQE2020 candidates. | Apr 26 03:23 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Apr 26 03:23 |
| schestowitz | Replies | Apr 26 03:23 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousThursday, 23 April 2020 at 13:51:00 BST | Apr 26 03:23 |
| schestowitz | MainEQE candidates 2020 have been severely disadvantaged compared to all other years before them. No other year was forced to stop taking the exam (and essentially that feeling of failing). It is just to compensate for mainEQE candidates this year as well as pre-EQE. | Apr 26 03:23 |
| schestowitz | Gilman GrundyThursday, 23 April 2020 at 14:16:00 BST | Apr 26 03:23 |
| schestowitz | "It provides no legal rights to those who pass," | Apr 26 03:23 |
| schestowitz | Agree with the general direction of your argument in this part, but it clearly does confer the right to sit the main EQEs. I have not seen anyone actually calling for this not to be done. | Apr 26 03:23 |
| schestowitz | Gilman GrundyThursday, 23 April 2020 at 14:41:00 BST | Apr 26 03:23 |
| schestowitz | "All candidates are equally disadvantaged under the present circumstances" | Apr 26 03:23 |
| schestowitz | Clearly not the case. Half of the people taking the main EQEs in 2021 will be those who could not have taken them earlier, whilst half of them will have been those delayed (and thus their exam preparation disrupted). | Apr 26 03:23 |
| schestowitz | "Leading to the situation where two candidates achieving the same mark, sitting the same exam, in the same conditions, receive different outcomes?" | Apr 26 03:24 |
| schestowitz | Just as two examinees, one sitting in a "warm" room (~10 degrees from experience) and the other in the "cold" room, may give the same answers, but one may pass whilst the other fails. | Apr 26 03:24 |
| schestowitz | Gilman GrundyThursday, 23 April 2020 at 15:04:00 BST | Apr 26 03:24 |
| schestowitz | Here's another example - Paper C in 2007 had a viable alternative solution which the examiners had not foreseen, starting from an alternative closest prior art. The solution? An extra ten marks for everyone regardless of the answer given! | Apr 26 03:24 |
| schestowitz | http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2008/09/eqe-2007-mystery-10-marks-explained.html | Apr 26 03:24 |
| schestowitz | Anon Y MouseThursday, 23 April 2020 at 15:09:00 BST | Apr 26 03:24 |
| schestowitz | "Just as two examinees, one sitting in a "warm" room (~10 degrees from experience) and the other in the "cold" room, may give the same answers, but one may pass whilst the other fails." | Apr 26 03:24 |
| schestowitz | Surely that is just as much an argument against the awarding of compensatory marks for cold exam halls as it is an argument in favour of awarding compensatory marks for exam cancellation? | Apr 26 03:24 |
| schestowitz | That compensatory marks have been awarded in the past for cold rooms does not automatically mean that it was right to do so, nor that similar considerations apply in the present case. As you identify, it leads to absurd outcomes at the pass/fail boundary. Since the EQE is a pass/fail exam, and not otherwise graded, I would argue that awarding bonus marks (even for cold conditions) is a blunt tool which potentially does more harm | Apr 26 03:24 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-ipkitten.blogspot.com | EQE 2007 - the mystery 10 marks explained - The IPKat | Apr 26 03:24 | |
| schestowitz | than good since it fails adequately to discriminate between those who would have passed but for distraction created by the cold conditions, and those who were not distracted by the cold conditions and should rightly have failed, but passed simply due to indiscriminate awarding of bonus marks. The "compensable fail" system already exists to try to capture some of those at the borderline; why, in effect, should the examiners lower the | Apr 26 03:24 |
| schestowitz | pass threshold even further? | Apr 26 03:24 |
| schestowitz | That some candidates are inevitably going to be delayed by a year in the present circumstances is unfortunate but it is hardly the EPO's fault. These are unprecedented circumstances for everyone, not just EQE candidates. | Apr 26 03:24 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousThursday, 23 April 2020 at 15:19:00 BST | Apr 26 03:24 |
| schestowitz | *"Just as two examinees, one sitting in a "warm" room (~10 degrees from experience) and the other in the "cold" room, may give the same answers, but one may pass whilst the other fails."* | Apr 26 03:24 |
| schestowitz | On the basis that one's ability to achieve their best work during that exam was adversely affected by factors outside their control compared to the warm room candidate - seems fair enough. PEB did something similar for FD4 candidates in 2016 when one venue had loud construction work occurring. When this occurred, the examiners presumably had the full picture which might have shown an otherwise lower pass rate and overall lower marks | Apr 26 03:24 |
| schestowitz | in the cold/loud room that justified the change. | Apr 26 03:24 |
| schestowitz | This year no one has sat the exam and everyone is in the same boat so the above comparison does not work. | Apr 26 03:24 |
| schestowitz | What are you actually proposing though? Pass mark for 2021 lowered by x%? | Apr 26 03:24 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousThursday, 23 April 2020 at 15:31:00 BST | Apr 26 03:24 |
| schestowitz | If that is the case, they shouldn't willy nilly allow pre-EQE candidates free passes. | Apr 26 03:24 |
| schestowitz | But once they decide that, they clearly acknowledged that pre-EQE candidates are adversely affected by the exceptional circumstance. Out of fairness - they have to apply some consideration for main EQE candidates. | Apr 26 03:24 |
| schestowitz | An EQE2020 CandidateThursday, 23 April 2020 at 16:36:00 BST | Apr 26 03:24 |
| schestowitz | Anonymous @ 13:51: | Apr 26 03:24 |
| schestowitz | It would be just to compensate us, but there is no practical way for the EPO to do so. Sometimes life isn’t fair, and we just need to accept it. (“God grant me the will to change the things I can, the strength to bear those I cannot, and the wisdom to know the difference”) | Apr 26 03:24 |
| schestowitz | Gilman: | Apr 26 03:24 |
| schestowitz | Legal rights: Other than the right to sit the EQE yes, but out in the real world beyond the EQE it has no effect. Some people have been suggesting that the pre-EQE 2020 candidates should not be given a ‘free pass’, even if only to leverage their arguments for compensatory marks (see Anonymous @ 15:31). | Apr 26 03:24 |
| schestowitz | Equally disadvantaged: You are correct, I intended “All EQE 2020 candidates are equally disadvantaged”. | Apr 26 03:24 |
| schestowitz | Warm room/cold room: the candidates are not sitting the exam in the same conditions. If not for the discomfort, it would be expected for the cold candidate to score better, hence receiving compensatory marks. The conditions for EQE2020 and pre-EQE2020 cohorts will be the same on the day. | Apr 26 03:24 |
| schestowitz | Paper C 2007: An extra 10 marks for all, and the Examination Board were given a dressing down by the Disciplinary BoA as a result, which rather rules out this ‘solution’. | Apr 26 03:24 |
| schestowitz | Anonymous @15:31: | Apr 26 03:24 |
| schestowitz | Yes the Pre-EQE and EQE candidates are both adversely affected. For the former it is easily fixed (exemption from pre-EQE). For the latter there is no easy fix. It might, in some views, be considered “fair” not to fix the problem for first group because it cannot also be fixed for the second, but it is not just. | Apr 26 03:24 |
| schestowitz | It has occurred to me that a key complaint is from candidates who have ‘burnt’ the past papers. I was under the impression that the EPO prepare a ‘back-up’ paper each year, in case of last minute issues with the first paper. If these exist, they could be released with a mark scheme/marker’s comments, to provide an additional tranche of past papers for us to use in the ramp up to March 2021. | Apr 26 03:24 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Apr 26 03:24 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousThursday, 23 April 2020 at 13:58:00 BST | Apr 26 03:24 |
| schestowitz | I think this does expose how much we rely on exam in the profession which is NOT a healthy way of assessing and passing candidates. Can we please find a more balanced approach: one that takes into account experience, daily tasks of the profession, soft skills as well as exam-style skills. | Apr 26 03:24 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Apr 26 03:24 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousThursday, 23 April 2020 at 19:09:00 BST | Apr 26 03:24 |
| schestowitz | I know this is in Scotland but the rest of the UK is likely to follow suit. | Apr 26 03:24 |
| schestowitz | Gatherings at public events were likely to be banned or restricted for some time to come. | Apr 26 03:24 |
| schestowitz | Basically, it doesn't look like it will be credible to have the normal PEB exams this year. | Apr 26 03:24 |
| schestowitz | https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-52394685 | Apr 26 03:25 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Apr 26 03:25 |
| schestowitz | Graver TankFriday, 24 April 2020 at 13:54:00 BST | Apr 26 03:25 |
| schestowitz | One of the things that other exams (schools/universities) are doing are assessing people on the results they have achieved. It would ease the burden on the EQE organisation if they could promote out a lot of the resitters (candidates who have taken each paper at least once). | Apr 26 03:25 |
| schestowitz | There are a lot of people who are just a few points short on passing overall. See the discussion here: https://saltedpatent.blogspot.com/2020/04/eqe-2020-officially-cancelled-focus-on.html | Apr 26 03:25 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Apr 26 03:25 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousFriday, 24 April 2020 at 14:10:00 BST | Apr 26 03:25 |
| schestowitz | I assume we will know in May. | Apr 26 03:25 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-www.bbc.co.uk | Lifting of Scottish coronavirus lockdown 'likely to be phased' - BBC News | Apr 26 03:25 | |
| schestowitz | " | Apr 26 03:25 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-saltedpatent.blogspot.com | Salted Patent: EQE 2020 officially cancelled, focus on EQE 2021, e-EQE 2022 | Apr 26 03:25 | |
| schestowitz | x https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/watch/bill-gates-on-how-quickly-we-could-see-a-coronavirus-vaccine-82495045901 | Apr 26 07:51 |
| schestowitz | # still more spam from that politician | Apr 26 07:51 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-www.msnbc.com | Bill Gates on how quickly we could see a coronavirus vaccine | Apr 26 07:51 | |
| schestowitz | >> better than letting people contract deadly pathogens | Apr 26 08:13 |
| schestowitz | > Funny, the other person was talking about transmissible vaccines that help people build immunity, which you're against because it will kill some people, but you're ok with mandatory vaccinations, which are exactly the same thing, except they expose more individuals (all of them.) | Apr 26 08:13 |
| schestowitz | > | Apr 26 08:14 |
| schestowitz | > That guy: we should have vaccines in transmissible form, so people catch them. | Apr 26 08:14 |
| schestowitz | > | Apr 26 08:14 |
| schestowitz | > You: no, that will kill people. We should inject them instead. | Apr 26 08:14 |
| schestowitz | > | Apr 26 08:14 |
| schestowitz | > The only actual difference between your position in his is mode of transmission. His is from person to person, yours is from doctor to patient. | Apr 26 08:14 |
| schestowitz | > | Apr 26 08:14 |
| schestowitz | > I would agree with you, if the doctor was able to make life-saving decisions about it. When a vax is mandatory, and doctors aren't allowed to make those decisions (exceptions for pregnant mothers for example) then the effect of what you're against is actually less deadly than the effect of what you're in favour of. | Apr 26 08:14 |
| schestowitz | > | Apr 26 08:14 |
| schestowitz | > And as far as I can tell, the morality in each is identical. Except with his you can avoid the risk by never going outside, where with yours it would require actually leaving the country to be safe. | Apr 26 08:14 |
| schestowitz | > | Apr 26 08:14 |
| schestowitz | > It's possible I'm the one who's mistaken here, though I think you didn't get what that guy was saying. Vaccines are often are "often made from weakened or killed forms of the microbe" (wp: vaccine) and he was talking about a transmissible, weakened microbe. | Apr 26 08:14 |
| schestowitz | > | Apr 26 08:14 |
| schestowitz | > Near as I can tell, a mandatory weakened microbe for everybody is worse and more dangerous than a transmissible one that not everybody would get. | Apr 26 08:14 |
| schestowitz | > | Apr 26 08:14 |
| schestowitz | > Doing it his way would save more lives than yours. | Apr 26 08:14 |
| schestowitz | Re: oh boy | Apr 26 08:14 |
| schestowitz | > i may have one for you yet. | Apr 26 08:14 |
| schestowitz | > | Apr 26 08:14 |
| schestowitz | > personally i hate to bother unless it outdoes the previous one. | Apr 26 08:14 |
| schestowitz | > | Apr 26 08:14 |
| schestowitz | > this should do it! hold on tight. | Apr 26 08:14 |
| schestowitz | Cheers! | Apr 26 08:14 |
| *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds) | Apr 26 09:38 | |
| *rianne__ has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds) | Apr 26 09:38 | |
| *rianne__ (~rianne@host81-154-169-96.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell | Apr 26 13:09 | |
| *liberty_box (~liberty@host81-154-169-96.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell | Apr 26 13:10 | |
| *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds) | Apr 26 17:14 | |
| *rianne__ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds) | Apr 26 17:14 | |
| *rianne__ (~rianne@host81-154-169-96.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell | Apr 26 17:20 | |
| *liberty_box (~liberty@host81-154-169-96.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell | Apr 26 17:22 | |
| schestowitz | https://pleroma.site/notice/9uQ1HfbdbA84vljYCe | Apr 26 17:39 |
| schestowitz | " Agree. I tend to think the legendary "pee tape" is a red herring. He has plenty of real dirt that is out in the open." | Apr 26 17:39 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-pleroma.site | Pleroma | Apr 26 17:39 | |
| schestowitz | https://pleroma.site/notice/9uQ7gMM6uKcyBucw8u | Apr 26 17:39 |
| schestowitz | "well technically he is impeached just not removed from office" | Apr 26 17:39 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-pleroma.site | Pleroma | Apr 26 17:40 | |
| schestowitz | https://pleroma.site/notice/9uQB7piO9rSAvdq6qW | Apr 26 17:40 |
| schestowitz | "I'd be surprised if it wasn't set to self destruct on second wrong password!" | Apr 26 17:40 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-pleroma.site | Pleroma | Apr 26 17:40 | |
| schestowitz | if set to lock at all, maybe they got it when it was still 'warm', the police had practice runs... | Apr 26 17:40 |
| schestowitz | https://pleroma.site/notice/9uQFp0cDuCIZ0Mnb7Y | Apr 26 17:41 |
| schestowitz | " Human stupidity could not reach further levels." | Apr 26 17:41 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-pleroma.site | Pleroma | Apr 26 17:41 | |
| schestowitz | https://pleroma.site/notice/9uQMR4KDA4O1EruCmW | Apr 26 17:41 |
| schestowitz | "is that counting china or not" | Apr 26 17:41 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-pleroma.site | Pleroma | Apr 26 17:41 | |
| schestowitz | China is an enigma like NK | Apr 26 17:41 |
| schestowitz | https://pleroma.site/notice/9uQfvhUS0cduWY0ypM | Apr 26 17:41 |
| schestowitz | "sadly true: <<At this point, I hold the American people, the news media, the Republican Party and its voters ultimately responsible for the calamity that is Trump's reign>>." | Apr 26 17:41 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-pleroma.site | Pleroma | Apr 26 17:41 | |
| schestowitz | https://pleroma.site/notice/9uRCy7DE38DrGIDLPc | Apr 26 17:42 |
| schestowitz | " | Apr 26 17:42 |
| schestowitz | * Sarcasm On * | Apr 26 17:42 |
| schestowitz | Wow, they must be handling it so much better than the #USA! They are having far fewer deaths! | Apr 26 17:42 |
| schestowitz | " | Apr 26 17:42 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-pleroma.site | Pleroma | Apr 26 17:42 | |
| schestowitz | > Roy: | Apr 26 17:51 |
| schestowitz | > | Apr 26 17:51 |
| schestowitz | > | Apr 26 17:51 |
| schestowitz | > I have just read through the document. | Apr 26 17:51 |
| schestowitz | > | Apr 26 17:51 |
| schestowitz | > Thanks for sending it along. | Apr 26 17:51 |
| schestowitz | > | Apr 26 17:51 |
| schestowitz | > I want to ask, did you read (among others about the same topic) | Apr 26 17:51 |
| schestowitz | > http://techrights.org/2019/03/26/lf-define-support/ ? | Apr 26 17:51 |
| schestowitz | > | Apr 26 17:51 |
| schestowitz | > | Apr 26 17:51 |
| schestowitz | > Read it. The author isn't really hitting the nail hard on the head | Apr 26 17:52 |
| schestowitz | > though - much like BIT. | Apr 26 17:52 |
| schestowitz | > | Apr 26 17:52 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-techrights.org | Guest Post: The Linux Foundation Needs to Define “Support” | Techrights | Apr 26 17:52 | |
| schestowitz | > If you feel inclined please feel free to send me links at techrights.org | Apr 26 17:52 |
| schestowitz | > <http://techrights.org> that might interest me. | Apr 26 17:52 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-techrights.org | Techrights | People's rights in the digital age | Plutocracy threatened by freedom, democracy, privacy & civil rights | Apr 26 17:52 | |
| schestowitz | > | Apr 26 17:52 |
| schestowitz | > Time is a problem for everyone, I know. I have that problem big "time". :) | Apr 26 17:52 |
| schestowitz | > | Apr 26 17:52 |
| schestowitz | > I'll write something for publication at Tech Rights soon - once I get | Apr 26 17:52 |
| schestowitz | > some of this documentation out the door. It might just be an edited and | Apr 26 17:52 |
| schestowitz | > redacted version of one of the many docs I've already written. | Apr 26 17:52 |
| schestowitz | > | Apr 26 17:52 |
| schestowitz | > Please don't wash your hands (of the matter)!!! | Apr 26 17:52 |
| schestowitz | Thank you. | Apr 26 17:52 |
| schestowitz | We can really use material from more people | Apr 26 17:52 |
| schestowitz | To tell you a very short story or a long story in short, weeks ago we got an intern who studies in London and volunteered herself to do articles. She's a fan of the site. | Apr 26 17:52 |
| schestowitz | Just before she could publish her first article the university blocker her and smeared me if not defamed me. She felt afraid to participate. | Apr 26 17:52 |
| schestowitz | It was so disgusting that it actually enraged me for a whole day! | Apr 26 17:52 |
| schestowitz | I don't want to write about this in public as that might cause her more trouble. | Apr 26 17:52 |
| schestowitz | Re: RMS / FSFE comments | Apr 26 17:56 |
| schestowitz | > Hi Roy, | Apr 26 17:56 |
| schestowitz | > | Apr 26 17:56 |
| schestowitz | > I saw your comments about feedback from RMS | Apr 26 17:56 |
| schestowitz | > | Apr 26 17:56 |
| schestowitz | > Does he believe FSFE was sincere when they made the deal with him? | Apr 26 17:56 |
| schestowitz | > | Apr 26 17:56 |
| schestowitz | > Do you believe FSFE was sincere, or were they just telling RMS what he | Apr 26 17:56 |
| schestowitz | > wanted to hear so they could get some arbitrary agreement in writing and | Apr 26 17:56 |
| schestowitz | > use the name? In other words, did they deliberately fool him? | Apr 26 17:56 |
| schestowitz | > | Apr 26 17:56 |
| schestowitz | > I feel that being two-faced is quite common in FSFE. For example, they | Apr 26 17:56 |
| schestowitz | > use one face with the volunteers and they have a different face for the | Apr 26 17:56 |
| schestowitz | > Legal Network / LLW participants. Even as Fellowship representative and | Apr 26 17:56 |
| schestowitz | > being on the GA mailing list, I was never given any details about LN/LLW. | Apr 26 17:56 |
| schestowitz | > | Apr 26 17:56 |
| schestowitz | > I see this pattern quite frequently in business: somebody wants to steal | Apr 26 17:56 |
| schestowitz | > source code or client lists from some other department or business | Apr 26 17:56 |
| schestowitz | > entity. They pretend to be helpful and sympathetic until they get what | Apr 26 17:56 |
| schestowitz | > they want, then they just disappear. | Apr 26 17:56 |
| schestowitz | > | Apr 26 17:56 |
| schestowitz | > Regards, | Apr 26 17:57 |
| schestowitz | This sounds like what Microsoft did with companies like i4i (old court case). | Apr 26 17:57 |
| schestowitz | See http://techrights.org/wiki/index.php/I4i_vs_Microsoft | Apr 26 17:57 |
| schestowitz | I think you should contact RMS about the above. I don't think he would oppose CCing me. It would be good to know what's going on because even some FSF people did this to RMS (having one face on for him, stabbing him at the back in his absence, told me reliable sources...) | Apr 26 17:57 |
| schestowitz | Kind regards and happy hacking | Apr 26 17:57 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-techrights.org | I4i vs Microsoft - Techrights | Apr 26 17:57 | |
| schestowitz | Re: You'll have the option of using this | Apr 26 18:02 |
| schestowitz | > It's not as colourful as the previous one but whether you use it or not, it certainly makes the point. | Apr 26 18:04 |
| schestowitz | We can use both | Apr 26 18:05 |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/askmetutorials/status/1253014333895794688 | Apr 26 18:18 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@askmetutorials: @tuxmachines Hi @tuxmachines , not able to create an account in your site getting access denied , let me know how to do that | Apr 26 18:18 | |
| schestowitz | send us mail, we'd need to set one up manually if you want to submit stories | Apr 26 18:18 |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/mgrifftwit/status/1251440563477331968 | Apr 26 18:20 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@mgrifftwit: @tuxmachines ... Gnomes can stfu. | Apr 26 18:20 | |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/experimancer/status/1250598378825801728 | Apr 26 18:21 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@experimancer: @tuxmachines https://t.co/V2WxKdmZH4 #linux #ubuntu | Apr 26 18:21 | |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell--> www.omgubuntu.co.uk | Discover Ubuntu 20.04 LTS in 20 Screenshots - OMG! Ubuntu! | Apr 26 18:21 | |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/HollaNaija/status/1249509469219938306 | Apr 26 18:21 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@HollaNaija: @tuxmachines Why not? | Apr 26 18:21 | |
| schestowitz | system working already? | Apr 26 18:21 |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/experimancer/status/1249370744561287169 | Apr 26 18:22 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@experimancer: @tuxmachines https://t.co/oLaKLiU9cg #Linux #Ubuntu #ubuntu2004 #upgrade | Apr 26 18:22 | |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell--> www.omgubuntu.co.uk | Do You Plan to Upgrade to or Install Ubuntu 20.04 LTS? [Poll] - OMG! Ubuntu! | Apr 26 18:22 | |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/experimancer/status/1249137180871659523 | Apr 26 18:22 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@experimancer: @tuxmachines why? | Apr 26 18:22 | |
| schestowitz | says the author.. | Apr 26 18:22 |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/experimancer/status/1246246466060005382 | Apr 26 18:23 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@experimancer: @tuxmachines Exactly 👍 #covid19app #COVID19Pandemic #opensource #linux #COVID19Testing | Apr 26 18:23 | |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/Antonio17163039/status/1246009311127453697 | Apr 26 18:24 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@Antonio17163039: @tuxmachines Right back atcha | Apr 26 18:24 | |
| *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds) | Apr 26 19:15 | |
| *rianne__ has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds) | Apr 26 19:15 | |
| *rianne__ (~rianne@host81-154-169-96.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell | Apr 26 21:49 | |
| *liberty_box (~liberty@host81-154-169-96.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell | Apr 26 21:50 | |
| *rianne__ has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds) | Apr 26 21:55 | |
| *rianne_ (~rianne@host81-154-169-96.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell | Apr 26 21:55 | |
| *oiaohm has quit (Remote host closed the connection) | Apr 26 22:39 | |
| *oiaohm (~oiaohm@unaffiliated/oiaohm) has joined #boycottnovell | Apr 26 22:39 | |
| *rianne_ has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) | Apr 26 23:14 | |
| *rianne__ (~rianne@host81-154-169-96.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell | Apr 26 23:14 | |
| *oiaohm has quit (Remote host closed the connection) | Apr 26 23:46 | |
| *oiaohm (~oiaohm@unaffiliated/oiaohm) has joined #boycottnovell | Apr 26 23:47 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.6 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!