Join us now at the IRC channel.
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/Gonzalo_VC23/status/1265319686260109314 | May 27 00:05 |
|---|---|---|
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@Gonzalo_VC23: @schestowitz (side comment: I hate the "heart" in twitter to like the post, but not the content in the inner news ;-) ) | May 27 00:05 | |
| schestowitz | yeah, I guess it's for people who use phones and can't type anything meaningful fast | May 27 00:05 |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/zoobab/status/1265299341348147207 | May 27 00:06 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@zoobab: @schestowitz Pretty much the reason why the software patent directive was rejected. | May 27 00:06 | |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/Gonzalo_VC23/status/1265294980026949633 | May 27 00:06 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@Gonzalo_VC23: @schestowitz They serve "the evil one", I'm sure. X-( | May 27 00:07 | |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/Gonzalo_VC23/status/1265286462637039619 | May 27 00:07 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@Gonzalo_VC23: Empires are evil. Period. https://t.co/0hffu7d7kd | May 27 00:07 | |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@schestowitz: Embrace, Extend, Extinguish 2020 Edition https://t.co/iP21Uyqxbc #gnu #linux #microsoft #boycottAzure #deleteGithub | May 27 00:07 | |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/zoobab/status/1265254157956628480 | May 27 00:07 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@zoobab: @schestowitz It's dead when it does not breathe anymore. | May 27 00:07 | |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/zoobab/status/1265253925441228800 | May 27 00:07 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@zoobab: @schestowitz Still no mention of patents on GMOs. | May 27 00:07 | |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/rahulitblog/status/1265253789843492864 | May 27 00:07 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@rahulitblog: @schestowitz Hello | May 27 00:07 | |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/Nuke_Bloodaxe/status/1265243977789259778 | May 27 00:08 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@Nuke_Bloodaxe: Unfortunately, I see this all the time. It is as if the whirring cogs in the mind of the listener break free, leav… https://t.co/NaXJyObb3T | May 27 00:08 | |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@Nuke_Bloodaxe: Unfortunately, I see this all the time. It is as if the whirring cogs in the mind of the listener break free, leav… https://t.co/NaXJyObb3T | May 27 00:08 | |
| schestowitz | "Unfortunately, I see this all the time. It is as if the whirring cogs in the mind of the listener break free, leaving behind a clapping spring, repeating the same thing as if it will change reality. #linux #MinistryOfEducation #NZ 1/3" | May 27 00:08 |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/Nuke_Bloodaxe/status/1265243979446013952 | May 27 00:08 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@Nuke_Bloodaxe: This is especially true for individuals employed in government, they are unable to answer childish questions. And… https://t.co/cgGV1rKbt1 | May 27 00:08 | |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@Nuke_Bloodaxe: This is especially true for individuals employed in government, they are unable to answer childish questions. And… https://t.co/cgGV1rKbt1 | May 27 00:08 | |
| schestowitz | " | May 27 00:08 |
| schestowitz | This is especially true for individuals employed in government, they are unable to answer childish questions. And while they claim supremacy in their subject field, their inability to hold an intelligent conversation on the same reveals their inferiority. 2/3 | May 27 00:08 |
| schestowitz | " | May 27 00:08 |
| schestowitz | "When confronted by the truth, and factual information, they go silent and then repeat their same argument which has been disproven. I believe there is something truly wrong with such individuals, and expect nothing of them, as that is all they can deliver. 3/3" | May 27 00:08 |
| *rianne__ (~rianne@host81-154-174-226.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell | May 27 00:45 | |
| *liberty_box (~liberty@host81-154-174-226.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell | May 27 00:46 | |
| *oiaohm has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer) | May 27 00:50 | |
| *oiaohm (~oiaohm@unaffiliated/oiaohm) has joined #boycottnovell | May 27 00:51 | |
| schestowitz | http://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2020/05/15/enlarged-board-of-appeal-plants-and-animals-cannot-be-patented-after-all/?doing_wp_cron=1590539493.9361629486083984375000 | May 27 01:31 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-patentblog.kluweriplaw.com | Enlarged Board of Appeal: plants and animals cannot be patented after all - Kluwer Patent Blog | May 27 01:31 | |
| schestowitz | 27 comments | May 27 01:32 |
| schestowitz | LightBlue | May 27 01:32 |
| schestowitz | MAY 15, 2020 AT 2:28 PM | May 27 01:32 |
| schestowitz | I wonder how the German Federal Constitutional Court would react if the legislators came up with a law requiring the constitution to be interpreted in a particular manner, contrary to earlier decisions of the FCC. That is effectively the situation which the EBA has indicated is an acceptable one. | May 27 01:32 |
| schestowitz | Concerned observer | May 27 01:32 |
| schestowitz | MAY 15, 2020 AT 2:37 PM | May 27 01:32 |
| schestowitz | Whilst this decision might bring “greater legal certainty” with respect to the patentability of plants, it generates numerous other areas of legal uncertainty. | May 27 01:32 |
| schestowitz | Firstly, how can the Boards of Appeal of the EPO demonstrate that they are an INDEPENDENT judicial instance, as required, for example, by TRIPS? | May 27 01:32 |
| schestowitz | The members of the Boards of Appeal are subject to the disciplinary and reappointment authority of the AC. This calls into question whether it is possible for any decision of a Board of Appeal that finds an absence of conflict (in the sense of Article 164(2) EPC) to avoid perceptions of partiality in favour of the AC … who will, of course, have authored the allegedly “conflicting” Implementing Regulation. | May 27 01:32 |
| schestowitz | Secondly, as the EBA correctly observes, the Court of Justice of the EU has not yet interpreted Article 4(1)(b) of the Biotech Directive. Thus, in view of the appeal decision in the Taste of Nature case, Article 267 TFEU means that any “final” judicial instance that is inclined to reach a contrary conclusion (that is, to reach the same conclusion as in G 3/19) MUST make a preliminary reference to the CJEU. | May 27 01:32 |
| schestowitz | Thus, given that the Boards of Appeal have previously decided that they are unable to participate in the preliminary reference procedure, how can the Boards apply the ruling in G 3/19 without contravening EU law? | May 27 01:32 |
| schestowitz | In other words, the ruling in G 3/19, whilst “resolving” a point of law that will be of relevance to a vanishingly small percentage of applicants, has simultaneously drawn attention to fundamental weakness of the EPC that now require urgent attention. Perhaps this can serve as a reminder of the danger of unintended consequences. | May 27 01:32 |
| schestowitz | LightBlue | May 27 01:32 |
| schestowitz | MAY 15, 2020 AT 3:38 PM | May 27 01:32 |
| schestowitz | Maybe it is a Machiavellian plot by the EBA – writing a decision which is apparently in line with the wishes of the President and the EU legislators but is phrased to cause such an outcry that the system of the boards of appeal has to be revised once and for all, taking the boards out of reach of the EPOffice. | May 27 01:32 |
| schestowitz | Concerned observer | May 27 01:32 |
| schestowitz | MAY 15, 2020 AT 5:55 PM | May 27 01:32 |
| schestowitz | Perhaps. However, it is much more likely that, in view of the (nearly) unanimous support for Rule 28(2), the EBA saw no reason to risk upsetting the President and the AC simply because they had chosen the wrong mechanism for amending Article 53(b). | May 27 01:32 |
| schestowitz | Of course, by showing a distinct lack of backbone in standing up for a “technicality” such as picking the correct mechanism to amend the law, the EBA has rendered Article 164(2) EPC otiose, and has overridden the voting requirements set out in Article 35(3) EPC. Whilst I can understand the EBA’s desire to avoid inflaming the situation, I think that setting a precedent that ignores or overrides provisions that are fundamental | May 27 01:32 |
| schestowitz | to the rule of law at the EPO is a very high price to pay for a quiet life. I had honestly hoped for much better from the EBA. | May 27 01:32 |
| schestowitz | Attentive Observer | May 27 01:32 |
| schestowitz | MAY 15, 2020 AT 6:28 PM | May 27 01:32 |
| schestowitz | Concurring with Concerned Observer, it is necessary to say goodbye to the independence of the EBA, and hence to that of the BA. The EBA played the game wanted by the administrative council and the president. | May 27 01:32 |
| schestowitz | I cannot imagine the CJEU rewriting a prejudicial question referred to it in order to give a politically correct reply wished by the commission or a member state. | May 27 01:32 |
| schestowitz | I always thought that a court cannot decide ultra petita, but that is exactly what the EBA did. This decision is disastrous to say the least. | May 27 01:32 |
| schestowitz | That laws may be amended with time in order to bring it in line with evolving societal criteria is not at stake. That the interpretation of the EPC by the EBA might not have been the best one in its decision about broccoli and tomatoes, is one thing. At the time it was accepted. But to behave as the EBA did now is flabbergasting. | May 27 01:32 |
| schestowitz | The only clean way to deal with the problem raised was an amendment of Art 53, b). So rather than do what would have been legally necessary, the EBA is now accomplice of those wanting to amend the EPC without using the proper mechanism. Was the fear of its members not being reappointed so great that the EBA gave in? | May 27 01:32 |
| schestowitz | I can see such changes also being adopted for other fundamental aspects. At least the members of the EBA ruling in G 3/08 had the guts to resist the then president. | May 27 01:32 |
| schestowitz | I would not see any Machiavellian plot followed by the EBA, rather sheer lack of spine. But at least the question of the independence of the Boards is now on the table, and the problem has to be tackled urgently. The reforms introduced in 2016 have to be scrutinised again. Rather than increasing the independence of the Boards they did the contrary as we have now seen with G 3/19. | May 27 01:32 |
| schestowitz | By the way, when will a conference of ministers in charge of IP as provided in Art 4a EPC2000 be summoned? This could have been a perfect topic for such a conference. That the previous president did not like it, and the new one even so, is not a compelling reason. But for this the tail should not be wagging the dog. | May 27 01:32 |
| schestowitz | Techrights and zoobab: FINGERS OFF!! | May 27 01:32 |
| schestowitz | MaxDrei | May 27 01:32 |
| schestowitz | MAY 15, 2020 AT 7:05 PM | May 27 01:32 |
| schestowitz | Is there, I wonder, any cross-talk between those in contact with the BVG, that is, the Constitutional Court of Germany, and the Enlarged Board of Appeal at the EPO. Will this new EBA Decision accelerate the ongoing deliberations at the BVG about the independence (or otherwise) of the Boards of Appeal? The Grand Plan: a push for a Mk II version of a Convention to establish a (perhaps Paris-based) pan-European patent court system | May 27 01:32 |
| schestowitz | uncluttered by the presence at the discussions of the increasingly absurd British. How many members of the EBA have any appetite to remain at their posts? They all want out, don’t they? | May 27 01:32 |
| schestowitz | Anon Y. Mouse | May 27 01:33 |
| schestowitz | MAY 19, 2020 AT 11:12 AM | May 27 01:33 |
| schestowitz | MaxDrei – what, if anything, does the position of the UK government vis-a-vis the EU (which is what I assume you refer to when you talk about the “increasingly absurd British”; and I don’t disagree with you there) have to do with the EPO or the independence of its Boards of Appeal? | May 27 01:33 |
| schestowitz | Anyway, if the Boards are swept away and replaced by UPC Mark 2 (which I think is what you’re suggesting) let us not forget that there are other EPC members besides the UK which are not members of the EU, nor even the EEA. Where would such a system leave them, and why should they agree to it? | May 27 01:33 |
| schestowitz | MN | May 27 01:33 |
| schestowitz | MAY 15, 2020 AT 6:42 PM | May 27 01:33 |
| schestowitz | What happened to any notion of Stare decisis! | May 27 01:33 |
| schestowitz | Nothing in the Vienna Convention about “dynamic” interpretation. | May 27 01:33 |
| schestowitz | MaxDrei | May 27 01:33 |
| schestowitz | MAY 15, 2020 AT 6:56 PM | May 27 01:33 |
| schestowitz | Nice to read you again, NM. This thread started with a thought about how the Bundesverfassungsgericht would like it if another court, or even the EBA, were to stray into its territory. But only this week, that same court has handed down a Decision telling the European Central Bank, sorry but your COVID stabilising measures are ultra vires. | May 27 01:33 |
| schestowitz | The notion of stare decisis looks to me, these days in mainland Europe, more than a bit wobbly. But this is not the first time that the EBA has corrected itself. And national supreme courts can do the same, can they not? | May 27 01:33 |
| schestowitz | Savigny | May 27 01:33 |
| schestowitz | MAY 17, 2020 AT 11:37 AM | May 27 01:33 |
| schestowitz | “The members of the Boards of Appeal are subject to the disciplinary and reappointment authority of the AC. ” | May 27 01:33 |
| schestowitz | Not only that. Since December 2015 and the adoption of CA/D 18/15, Board of Appeal members can be *suspended* for up to two years (with the possibility of an extension “in exceptional cases” whatever that is supposed to encompass …). | May 27 01:33 |
| schestowitz | See here: | May 27 01:33 |
| schestowitz | https://www.epo.org/modules/epoweb/acdocument/epoweb2/194/en/CA-D_18-15_en.pdf | May 27 01:33 |
| schestowitz | According to ILOAT case law a suspension is supposed to be an interim and precautionary measure so a two-year suspension is in itself already a highly questionable legal construct. | May 27 01:33 |
| schestowitz | However, when you consider that the term of office is five years and a suspension can be imposed by a simple majority vote of the AC without any “safety catch” such as provided by Article 23 (1) EPC then it’s clear that the AC has provided itself with a mechanism for carrying out the removal from office of an “irksome judge” unilaterally. | May 27 01:33 |
| schestowitz | The “independence” of the EPO Boards of Appeal is looking increasingly like an elaborate legal fiction. | May 27 01:33 |
| schestowitz | Will be interesting to see if they can push it past Karlsruhe … | May 27 01:33 |
| schestowitz | industry observer | May 27 01:33 |
| schestowitz | MAY 17, 2020 AT 11:57 AM | May 27 01:33 |
| schestowitz | Previous comments are critical of the EBA for a supposed submission to the President and the AC’s requests. But the independence of the EBA should not be assessed only vis-à-vis the President and the EBA. There is a broad spectrum in termes of sources of influence : the Commission, the Parliament, the Member States, corporate players, in this case the agribusiness on one side and the seed industry on the other side. | May 27 01:33 |
| schestowitz | I would welcome comments dealing with the substance i.e. whether the decision of the EBA denying patent protection for plants is welcome or not. | May 27 01:33 |
| schestowitz | Anon Y. Mouse | May 27 01:33 |
| schestowitz | MAY 17, 2020 AT 5:15 PM | May 27 01:33 |
| schestowitz | Whether or not the effect of the decision (i.e. in denying patent protection for plants produced by “essentially biological processes”) is right, or welcome, will vary depending on each player’s perspective. Had the EPC been amended to achieve this end via the proper legal route which is provided in the Convention, some players may have disagreed with the policy shift but there could have been no serious question about the | May 27 01:33 |
| schestowitz | legitimacy or wider consequences of the method employed. | May 27 01:33 |
| schestowitz | What worries us here is not necessarily the outcome, rather it is the route taken to achieve it. The ends do not justify the means, and the whole process sets a worrying precedent in terms of the independence of the Boards and the powers of the executive to change the interpretation of the EPC on a whim. | May 27 01:33 |
| schestowitz | Concerned observer | May 27 01:33 |
| schestowitz | MAY 17, 2020 AT 6:20 PM | May 27 01:33 |
| schestowitz | I am not aware of any objective reason to perceive that one or more members of the EBA might be partial towards the Commission, the Parliament, the Member States and/or corporate players? Are you? | May 27 01:33 |
| schestowitz | The objective reasons for questioning partiality towards the President and the AC are: (1) the AC has the (re)appointment and disciplinary powers that I and Savigny have previously outlined; and (2) the AC has repeatedly demonstrated that it is happy to follow the President’s lead, even if that requires retroactively “rubber-stamping” the President’s ultra vires imposition of a “house ban” on a member of the Boards of | May 27 01:33 |
| schestowitz | Appeal. | May 27 01:33 |
| schestowitz | Of course, this does not mean that the result in G 3/19 is definitely attributable to partiality of the members of the EBA. The problem, however, is that a reasonable suspicion of partiality hangs over the judgement … especially as the EBA’s reasoning stretches credulity somewhat. | May 27 01:33 |
| schestowitz | With regard to whether the end result is welcome or not, I think that you are not seeing the wood for the trees. There are doubtless arguments that could be made for and against what appears to be a rather arbitrary distinction between (non-variety) plants that are GMOs and those that are the products of essentially biological processes. Also, it is notable that TRIPS allows WTO member states to decide whether they wish to draw that | May 27 01:33 |
| schestowitz | distinction. However, this is not the aspect of G 3/19 that will exercise many legal scholars. Instead, their attention will be drawn to the fact that G 3/19 provides a way for the AC to short-circuit the safeguards in the EPC and, with nothing more than a three quarters majority of votes (at a meeting at which not all of Contracting States need be represented), to position itself above the Boards of Appeal as the highest authority | May 27 01:33 |
| schestowitz | regarding interpretation of the EPC. | May 27 01:33 |
| schestowitz | In other words, G 3/19 will be remembered because it trashed the separation of powers at the EPC and handed far greater authority to the AC (and, by extension, to the President) than the founding fathers ever intended. | May 27 01:34 |
| schestowitz | André Schumacher | May 27 01:34 |
| schestowitz | MAY 17, 2020 AT 12:28 PM | May 27 01:34 |
| schestowitz | They could have said GMOs are patentable, that would have clarified what is patentable. | May 27 01:34 |
| schestowitz | Change a few ATGC, and hop, new patents! | May 27 01:34 |
| schestowitz | Attentive Observer | May 27 01:34 |
| schestowitz | MAY 17, 2020 AT 2:43 PM | May 27 01:34 |
| schestowitz | In fact, there is only one time when the EBA changed its case law. According to G 1/84, the proprietor could oppose its patent; in G 1/93 this case law was reversed. In the meantime we have had G 9/91 and G 10/91. Under EPC 2000 this question has become moot as the proprietor can file a request for limitation or revocation during the whole life of its patent. | May 27 01:34 |
| schestowitz | In G 2/08, the EBA has decided that Swiss-type claims were not allowable from a certain date, but in the meantime EPC 2000 had entered into force. Swiss-type claims under G 1/83 had become moot. I do not consider this a change of case law, as the EPC had changed. | May 27 01:34 |
| schestowitz | In G 2/07 the EBA noted: “There can be no “legitimate expectation” that an interpretation of a substantive provision governing patentability given in a decision of the boards of appeal will not be overruled in the future by the Enlarged Board, since recognising such an expectation as legitimate would undermine the function of the Enlarged Board of Appeal”. This statement is certainly correct, and one cannot blame the EBA for | May 27 01:34 |
| schestowitz | amending its case law. | May 27 01:34 |
| schestowitz | What is at stake in the present case, is the way in which the EBA did come to this change of case law. Without the questions from the president, things would have remainedas they were. By rewriting the questions put to it in order to give the reply the president and the AC wished, it has himself shown being obedient to the wishes of the latter two. What guarantees do we have that the EBA will not redo the same? Think for instance of | May 27 01:34 |
| schestowitz | Art 52(2, b or c). | May 27 01:34 |
| schestowitz | This amounts in effect to giving the EBA full power to change the interpretation of the EPC without going through the democratic processes set out in the Convention, like a diplomatic conference or a decision under Art 33(1,b). | May 27 01:34 |
| schestowitz | That there is apparently a general wish within society for the non-patentability of seeds obtained by essentially biological processes, the decision is quite understandable. What it is not, is the way it came to this new interpretation of the EPC. | May 27 01:34 |
| schestowitz | I would not put it past to some applicants in the field, to make an attempt to bring one or more contracting states before an international arbitration chamber, as they can claim that all the investments they made in the field were in vain and cannot be recouped as patent protection is denied. May be one will even be daring to cite the EPO before such an arbitration chamber. | May 27 01:34 |
| schestowitz | As far as the members of the BA are concerned, all those having applied for a job of judge at the UPC have apparently not even received a letter acknowledging their candidature. So there is no risk that they will have the possibility to migrate. And before all, the UPC has to come to life, which is anything but certain. | May 27 01:34 |
| schestowitz | The decision in Karlsruhe about the independence of the BA will be very interesting. I fear however that under the new chairman of the Court, the GFCC will not touch the question even with a barge pole. He is a lawyer having acted in a large lawyer’s firm specialised in litigation and is a strong supporter of the UPC. By putting into question the position of the members of the BA, he would indirectly put into question the position | May 27 01:34 |
| schestowitz | of the judges of the UPC. | May 27 01:34 |
| schestowitz | But wait and see: in front of court you are in the hands of god, but certainly not at the EBA. There you are in the hands of the AC and of the president. | May 27 01:34 |
| schestowitz | Techrights and zoobab: FINGERS OFF!!!! | May 27 01:34 |
| schestowitz | Anonymous | May 27 01:34 |
| schestowitz | MAY 18, 2020 AT 12:34 PM | May 27 01:34 |
| schestowitz | Also, did anyone think about how Rule 28(2) is supposed to work in practice? | May 27 01:34 |
| schestowitz | The method of making a product (a plant) is now decisive for the patentability of that product, while at the same time this method of making the product has no direct impact on the features of the product. | May 27 01:34 |
| schestowitz | A plant is patentable if the causal mutation was induced. The same plant is not patentable if the causal mutation was “merely” identified in an existing plant. In the latter case, the causal mutation could still originally have been the result of induced mutagenesis, since untargeted mutagenesis techniques have been common in plant breeding for decades and have induced countless background mutations. | May 27 01:34 |
| schestowitz | Just to give a practical example: say I have identified a new and inventive trait in an existing plant. This plant is not patentable under Rule 28(2). I subsequently identify the causal mutation and file a patent application claiming the same plant and provide an enabling disclosure to obtain said plant by induced mutagenesis. Now, exactly the same plant claim is patentable under the EPC. There is no obligation to disclose how a | May 27 01:34 |
| schestowitz | given trait was originally obtained (provided that the plant is not regulated as a GMO). There is only an obligation to provide an enabling disclosure. The disclosure requirement is met by describing the mutagenesis method. The knowledge that a native trait exists which has the same effect as the man-made trait can be kept secret without further ado. | May 27 01:34 |
| schestowitz | The blessing of Rule 28(2) by the Enlarged Board is a bad joke, which will only lead to creative patent drafting and subsequent outcries by NGOs that the agrochemical industry is still patenting plants that should not be patentable (“because there should be no patents on life”). | May 27 01:34 |
| schestowitz | A requirement to disclaim plants exclusively obtained by an essentially biological method does not remove the fundamental flaws in Rule 28(2). A claim directed to a plant “with the proviso that the plant is not exclusively obtained by means of an essentially biological process” only disclaims plant that do not comprise any induced mutations. Who can realistically argue that a given domesticated plant does not comprise any | May 27 01:34 |
| schestowitz | induced mutations? (I refer to the decades-long use of untargeted mutagenesis techniques in plant breeding.) | May 27 01:34 |
| schestowitz | And what about patent infringement? An assumed infringer can (and will) state to his or her defense that he/she did not use induced mutagenesis. He/she simply crossed plants (likely obtained from the patent holder) and obtained a new plant variety exclusively by using an essentially biological method. It is simply not possible to determine whether a given mutation was originally induced or occurred spontaneously. Would this scenario | May 27 01:34 |
| schestowitz | be confirmed in infringement proceedings, all plant patents have become worthless even if the patented trait has been obtained by technical mutagenesis techniques like gene editing. I sometimes believe that this scenario is exactly the objective of certain supporters of Rule 28(2) since they truly believe that patents in general and particularly plant patents are bad for society. | May 27 01:34 |
| schestowitz | Plant breeding has developed from an unreproducible process of chance to a technical process that is reproducible, and which can be described in such way that it can be reworked by a person skilled in the art. The IP right to protect technical processes and the products obtained by technical processes are patents. I do not see any valid reasons why (bio)technology in plant breeding should be regarded differently than, let’s say, | May 27 01:34 |
| schestowitz | in medicine. Despite the fact that the development of plant breeding into a biotechnology process is regarded undesirable by many, this can neither be negated nor reversed. Certainly not by the implementation of Rule 28(2). | May 27 01:34 |
| schestowitz | Another anonymous practitioner | May 27 01:34 |
| schestowitz | MAY 19, 2020 AT 9:13 AM | May 27 01:34 |
| schestowitz | I cannot more agree with your view, to which we also came in the company I’m working for when the “disclaimer” approach started to be introduced by the examining divisions right after R. 28(2) entered into force. Indeed, the most concerning effect of this mandatory disclaimer approach now justified by R.28(2) is that it will in practice render almost unenforceable patents that would be granted on plants that are not obtained | May 27 01:34 |
| schestowitz | by an essentially-biological process (e.g. targeted mutagenesis), that anyone will then be free to use and copy as they like without risk, for the simple reason that the infringer would only have practiced non-essentially-biological steps for copying the plants, and such steps are excluded from the claims by the disclaimer. There remains the possibility to comment on the open survey on the Guidelines to further point the EPO to the | May 27 01:34 |
| schestowitz | consequences of this detrimental examining practice, but I place very little hope on the effects of such comments… | May 27 01:34 |
| schestowitz | kenavo | May 27 01:35 |
| schestowitz | MAY 18, 2020 AT 6:53 PM | May 27 01:35 |
| schestowitz | The reform of the Boards of Appeal initiated by Mr Battistelli has effectively deprived the members of the Boards of their independence, since their reappointment is now subject to production and other requirements. When this reform was adopted by the Administrative Council, the former Vice-President in charge of the Boards of Appeal reportedly said: “This is the end of the Boards of Appeal.” History proves him right. The poison | May 27 01:35 |
| schestowitz | was in the tree. Now the appearance of the tree is beginning to change. This decision of the Enlarged Board shows that the poison has reached the treetop. There are strange-colored leaves. The supreme organ of the EPC is bending to the wind of the moment. We are entering the dynamic age. For those who knew the Enlarged Board when there were still people who could withstand the pressure, it is quite sad to see. Now opportunism and | May 27 01:35 |
| schestowitz | pragmatism reign. Thus passes the glory of the world. | May 27 01:35 |
| schestowitz | Attentive Observer | May 27 01:35 |
| schestowitz | MAY 18, 2020 AT 10:52 PM | May 27 01:35 |
| schestowitz | Thanks to Anonymous of Monday, 18 May 2020 at 12:34 PM, for giving the view of a specialist in the matter. | May 27 01:35 |
| schestowitz | Your comment resembles a lot to your comment in IPKat. | May 27 01:35 |
| schestowitz | I would like to add some further points, as I have started doing in IPKat, | May 27 01:35 |
| schestowitz | In view of your explanations, I wonder whether R 28(2) is at all compatible with the TRIPPS agreement. | May 27 01:35 |
| schestowitz | As a whole lot of patents have become worthless, so citing contracting states or even the EPO before an international arbitration chamber has become even more likely. | May 27 01:35 |
| schestowitz | Should tomorrow the European parliament decide that any patents on CII are to be proscribed, not just merely purely software patents as it previously decided under the lobbyism of free software groups, it can be expected that, should the European Commission and the AC endorse this position, the president will again put a question to the EBA in order for it to “dynamically” adapt its interpretation of Art 52(2, b and c)? | May 27 01:35 |
| schestowitz | I would say the lobby to be faced then is probably much stronger than the one presently having acted in order to bring in R 28(2). | May 27 01:35 |
| schestowitz | One can only concur with Kenavo when he states that the reform of the BA and the creation of the BOAC has deprived them of their independence. Their rules of procedure are not any longer decided by the boards. They are simply heard. This has led for example to a first version of Art 11 RPBA2020 in which remittal was forbidden unless there was a substantial procedural violation in the first instance. This new Art 11 had been imposed | May 27 01:35 |
| schestowitz | by the members of the BOAC. It is one of the few amendments following the presentation of the new RPBA in December 2018. | May 27 01:35 |
| schestowitz | Independently of the question of the reappointment problem. one thing is clear: as long as the BA will not have their own budget, they will never be truly independent as they have still to go through the president to ask for their budget. It is still the president of the EPO who will provide the president of the boards of appeal with the necessary resources, as set out in the adopted budget which the former will have agreed. | May 27 01:35 |
| schestowitz | The president of the boards of appeal will only ever exercise the functions and powers delegated to him by the President of the European Patent Office. As the president has its say in the designation of the president of the boards of appeal, he will certainly never agree to a candidate he could fear will not follow his instructions. A prime example has been given in G 3/19. | May 27 01:35 |
| schestowitz | Now the EBA has bowed to the pressure of the AC and of the president, the the dam gave in. If tomorrow the UPC, should it ever come to life, issues decisions which are contrary to those of the EBA, will the latter have to adapt its position by using a “dynamic interpretation of its own case law”. I hope not, but the subservient attitude of the EBA in the present matter has created a dangerous precedent. | May 27 01:35 |
| schestowitz | Dynamite and dynamic are very close. Let’s hope that the whole situation it has created will not backfire on the EBA. | May 27 01:35 |
| schestowitz | Techrights and zoobab: FINGERS OFF!!! | May 27 01:35 |
| schestowitz | Savigny | May 27 01:35 |
| schestowitz | MAY 19, 2020 AT 12:41 PM | May 27 01:35 |
| schestowitz | Quite frankly I fail to see what all the fuss is about. | May 27 01:35 |
| schestowitz | The latest “dynamic interpretation” spiel of the EBA is merely a continuation of the trend established under Baddystelli which turns the “hierarchy of legal norms” on its head and uses lower ranking regulations to circumvent (or subvert) the primary law. | May 27 01:35 |
| schestowitz | So for example: | May 27 01:35 |
| schestowitz | – Article 23 (1) EPC is circumvented by means of Article 95 of the EPO Service Regulations (as amended by CA/D 18/15 of 17 December 2015). | May 27 01:35 |
| schestowitz | – The need to convene a conference of Ministers or a diplomatic conference in order to reform the primary law governing the Boards Appeal is obviated by amendments of the Implementing Regulations. Thus while the majority of “dependent” EPO units have Vice Presidents appointed pursuant to Article 11 EPC, the “independent” Boards are governed by a “President” whose position is established under the Implementing | May 27 01:35 |
| schestowitz | Regulations (and which can at any time be “dynamically” revised by the AC acting on a proposal of the President …). | May 27 01:35 |
| schestowitz | Given the general trend which was already clearly taking root under Baddystelli the latest development is hardly surprising. | May 27 01:35 |
| schestowitz | It may all seem unsound and unhealthy from a rigorous legal perspective but the attitude among those who are at the helm seems to be “so what?” | May 27 01:35 |
| schestowitz | And there is apparently nobody to shout “stop” … | May 27 01:35 |
| schestowitz | What exactly do you expect from the AC which is basically a quango of national civil servants who are acting in an environment where they are effectively immune from any kind of meaningful oversight or scrutiny, whether ministerial, parliamentary or judicial. | May 27 01:35 |
| schestowitz | This may all seem unsound and unhealthy from a “democratic” perspective but once again, the prevalent attitude seem to be “so what?” | May 27 01:35 |
| schestowitz | industry observer | May 27 01:35 |
| schestowitz | MAY 20, 2020 AT 7:25 AM | May 27 01:35 |
| schestowitz | The MOU signed on February 20 between the AC and the EPO president has defined a relationship which could be dubbed subservience. The AC relies on the EPO resources for its operations, and its has no independence even as to the appointment of its Head of Secretariat : the Chair of the AC is only entitled to be consulted on the selection of the president. If the AC wants external expert advice, it has no independence either since it | May 27 01:35 |
| schestowitz | must consult with the president for the choice of the expert. | May 27 01:35 |
| schestowitz | Peter Parker | May 27 01:35 |
| schestowitz | MAY 19, 2020 AT 12:51 PM | May 27 01:35 |
| schestowitz | What we should keep in mind though is that the outcome is what most people think is right. Neither the EPO nor the BA nor anyone can act against the wishes of the majority of the people for a long time, and it is wise to give in on these niche topics. | May 27 01:36 |
| schestowitz | I wonder what would happen if a large part of the electorate in e.g. Germany would ever really take notice what the patent system is and what it does. Imagine a mass movement like “Fridays against Patents” or the like. A lot of people would not like the outcome when they see how quickly the patent system can get disbanded when there is a majority and a persistent will in the electorate to do so. | May 27 01:36 |
| schestowitz | A video showing how a cute little baby cow gets killed based on a court order because it infringes a patent might be all it takes… | May 27 01:36 |
| schestowitz | Concerned observer | May 27 01:36 |
| schestowitz | MAY 19, 2020 AT 8:19 PM | May 27 01:36 |
| schestowitz | Peter, it sounds very much as if you are arguing that the ends justify the means. | May 27 01:36 |
| schestowitz | If the Contracting States really were of a mind to change the law, then they were perfectly capable of doing so by a completely non-controversial route. For example, they could have amended the EPC (at a Diplomatic Conference, or under Article 33(1)(b) EPC). Even better, they could have amended the Biotech Directive, perhaps by way of a stand-alone “clarification” having the force of law. Indeed, given that the political push | May 27 01:36 |
| schestowitz | behind Rule 28(2) EPC started with the European Parliament and Commission, it is bizarre that the latter option never seems to have been considered. | May 27 01:36 |
| schestowitz | As a result of that “strategic” decision by European politicians we now have a situation that, at least in normal times, would be viewed by those having responsibility for the EPO as being an unmitigated disaster. That is, numerous well-informed commentators are raising serious questions regarding the independence of the Enlarged Board. Absent any serious moves to address the concerns raised by those commentators, there is no | May 27 01:36 |
| schestowitz | way that this can end well for the EPO. | May 27 01:36 |
| schestowitz | Still, whilst the ship that is the EPO slowly sinks into the mire, at least the politicians (and EPO management and AC delegates) that had a hand in creating this mess will be able to comfort themselves by repeating the mantra that they delivered the outcome that “most people” wanted. | May 27 01:36 |
| schestowitz | Politcratus | May 27 01:36 |
| schestowitz | MAY 19, 2020 AT 4:19 PM | May 27 01:36 |
| schestowitz | @Peter Parker | May 27 01:36 |
| schestowitz | That sounds like a dystopian recipe for ochlocracy … government by the tabloid press … | May 27 01:36 |
| schestowitz | Attentive Observer | May 27 01:36 |
| schestowitz | MAY 19, 2020 AT 11:22 PM | May 27 01:36 |
| schestowitz | @Peter Parker | May 27 01:36 |
| schestowitz | I do not think that keeping “in mind [though is] that the outcome is what most people think is right”. On the contrary. | May 27 01:36 |
| schestowitz | I guess that most people would not accept abrogation of capital punishment or would like its re-introduction. Is this necessarily right? I am not sure, as capital punishment has never withheld some people to kill others. | May 27 01:36 |
| schestowitz | There are already numerous groups against any form of “patents on life”. I am not saying they are right or wrong. It is a matter of fact. No need to come up with the story of a baby cow culled by order of a court. | May 27 01:36 |
| schestowitz | What should be kept in mind, is that it is not for a court to decide by a “dynamic” interpretation of its case law to abide by the wishes of the executive. | May 27 01:36 |
| schestowitz | There are proper mechanisms to amend the EPC. None of those have been used, but the EBA has opened “the door to the AC to change the EPC by amending the Rules, without unanimous agreement from the contracting states or a diplomatic conference”, cf. Rose Hughes from IPKat in her blog of today. | May 27 01:36 |
| schestowitz | That is what matters, and not a possible horrible story by a tabloid. | May 27 01:36 |
| schestowitz | @Politcratus | May 27 01:36 |
| schestowitz | Thanks for enriching our knowledge and vocabulary! | May 27 01:36 |
| schestowitz | Techrights and zoobab: FINGERS OFF!!! | May 27 01:36 |
| schestowitz | Savigny | May 27 01:36 |
| schestowitz | MAY 20, 2020 AT 11:33 AM | May 27 01:36 |
| schestowitz | One again it is necessary to reiterate that the rot had already set in a long time ago. | May 27 01:36 |
| schestowitz | The whole Board of Appeal “reform” project was predicated on the assumption that there was no need to call a diplomatic conference. The job could be done by the AC fiddling around with the Implementing Regulations under the “guidance” of the President of the Office. Why bother with the inconvenience of ministerial or governmental interference … | May 27 01:36 |
| schestowitz | And it was waved through without a peep of dissent. | May 27 01:36 |
| schestowitz | So after that resounding “success” why is anybody surprised that the same approach is now being used to secure a “dynamic” interpretation of the EPC ? | May 27 01:36 |
| schestowitz | Get used to it folks … there is nobody around to shout “stop” ! | May 27 01:36 |
| schestowitz | MaxDrei | May 27 01:36 |
| schestowitz | MAY 20, 2020 AT 1:46 PM | May 27 01:36 |
| schestowitz | So let’s zoom in on the notion of the separation of powers between the legislative, judicative and executive branches of government. The EPC’s EPO is not the legislative branch. It should confine itself to the other two pillars of the Rule of Law, right? | May 27 01:36 |
| schestowitz | And yet. | May 27 01:36 |
| schestowitz | Each of the seats on the AC is occupied by a representative of a national government that has a working majority in the Parliament of a sovereign State that is ruled as a representative democracy. If these States wish to set up a multi-national, supra-national agency for granting patents, what’s to stop them? So long as that agency does nothing more than filter what gets through to grant, all it is doing is confining within limits | May 27 01:36 |
| schestowitz | what can be patented. | May 27 01:36 |
| schestowitz | Patents are a restraint of trade. Some say that the patent system has had its day and that patents should be abolished. Not me. But public acceptance (and my acceptance) requires that any “creep” of patent rights into areas where the harm they do outweighs the good work they do (in promoting the progress of technology) should be blocked. | May 27 01:37 |
| schestowitz | Worse things can happen, than that the EPO acts to hold patent rights within limits. It is not as if the current President of the EPO is, on this particular occasion, abusing any basic human rights (for example, those of an employee that he disapproves of). | May 27 01:37 |
| schestowitz | https://joindiaspora.com/posts/18215452 | May 27 01:49 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@freemedia@framasphere.org: > what I was trying to get across is that “we the people” can make our own difference, but we will only be successful if we work together and commit to each other. thats going to be tricky. its probably ultimately necessary, but it has so many pitfalls that i feel like we are fooling ourselves if we dont take more notice. after all, there are people falling into them everywhere around us. what im not saying is | May 27 01:49 | |
| schestowitz | " | May 27 01:49 |
| schestowitz | what I was trying to get across is that “we the people” can make our own difference, but we will only be successful if we work together and commit to each other. | May 27 01:49 |
| schestowitz | thats going to be tricky. its probably ultimately necessary, but it has so many pitfalls that i feel like we are fooling ourselves if we dont take more notice. after all, there are people falling into them everywhere around us. what im not saying is that its hopeless. though its not too hopeful short-term. i do think we should try. | May 27 01:49 |
| schestowitz | For example: if you, Paul and I decided to start some project then we should commit to it and work together through it all…we should all start on the same page from the ethos of the project to the hows of the project…but what we should not do is get mad at the others over silly stupid stuff like fonts or background colors or icon sizes and then split up and now have 2 or 3 smaller competing against each other groups instead of | May 27 01:49 |
| schestowitz | working those details out with each other so that we keep focused on making something better and stronger for us | May 27 01:49 |
| schestowitz | im pretty sure thats not what goes wrong though. i mean if people know how to make a project work, they dont really care about that sort of thing. some ui person does-- and i think thats the reality of it too-- you dont have everybody working on ui, you have few people designing that. | May 27 01:49 |
| schestowitz | I am not telling you that I do not see or know how the big boys bully their way into EVERYTHING…but that is more reason to try instead of quitting! | May 27 01:49 |
| schestowitz | i agree with you there. | May 27 01:49 |
| schestowitz | Or worse not playing with or trusting anyone! | May 27 01:49 |
| schestowitz | thats a tricky one-- because im not going to be playing on githubs playground, and most people are like “why not?” because if youre going to do that-- go ahead, there are thousands of people there. but theyre all being trapped and exploited by microsoft. im good, you go ahead. im trying to figure out how to get out of there. and as for mapping the pitfalls, ive worked extensively on that: http://techrights.org/2020/05/17/gnuhub- | May 27 01:49 |
| schestowitz | pt-5 | May 27 01:49 |
| schestowitz | this is the very foundation of free software, and ive been listening to “open source” talking about playing together since before 2007-- it always leads to the same place, you know. where we are now. so youll forgive me if i dont want to work real hard just to go in a big circle. | May 27 01:49 |
| schestowitz | Hopefully, I have done a better job of explaining my original thoughts, if I have not, I propose that we have highjacked Paul’s post long enough and we can open discussions in the future on some other post where our paths are sure to cross | May 27 01:49 |
| schestowitz | maybe we are highjacking it, and maybe this is the best paul could hope for. (ok, i wont go that far) | May 27 01:49 |
| schestowitz | i guess the thing is, we SHOULD do something, no matter what. but ignoring the pitfalls will probably cost all the effort put into it. | May 27 01:49 |
| schestowitz | i want to know who im working for. and despite my passion about this, i know my place is on the sidelines. i write code all the time, and i do project design, while my friend has done professional software management for large companies. | May 27 01:49 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell--> techrights.org | Microsoft GNU-Hub (Part 5) | Techrights | May 27 01:49 | |
| schestowitz | whats changing faster than anything else, is What People Want-- or what they think they want. | May 27 01:49 |
| schestowitz | theyre on a roller coaster designed to make them constantly consume whatever garbage is thrown at them. and free software used to be a way off that roller coaster. but it isnt anymore-- its just a different line for the same ride. | May 27 01:49 |
| schestowitz | where do you want to go today?™ the answer matters. if you want to be on splash mountain, and i want to sit at home and read a book, its going to be difficult to find a compromise that makes us both happy. | May 27 01:49 |
| schestowitz | " | May 27 01:49 |
| schestowitz | > I'm wondering if/how the monitoring and adjustments can be automated. | May 27 07:49 |
| schestowitz | > See, that's the thing! ;-) | May 27 07:49 |
| schestowitz | You did a fantastic job setting up a trigger for htaccess swapping, but it's harder to assess which substitution to make and when. Right now it's a moving target. apachetop helps find the patterns very fast. | May 27 07:49 |
| schestowitz | We could of course swap to a file like "lockdown mode" which is 'catch all..." (common attack vectors) | May 27 07:49 |
| schestowitz | Varnish and fail2ban might have utils for this... | May 27 07:50 |
| schestowitz | <li> | May 27 08:09 |
| schestowitz | <h5><a href="https://www.techradar.com/news/this-is-the-first-amd-ryzen-laptop-to-come-with-linux-making-it-easier-than-ever-to-ditch-windows-10">This is the first AMD Ryzen laptop to come with Linux – making it easier than ever to ditch Windows 10</a></h5> | May 27 08:09 |
| schestowitz | <blockquote> | May 27 08:09 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell- ( status 404 @ https://www.techradar.com/news/this-is-the-first-amd-ryzen-laptop-to-come-with-linux-making-it-easier-than-ever-to-ditch-windows-10">This ) | May 27 08:09 | |
| schestowitz | <p>Want a Linux laptop with an AMD Ryzen processor? Then you might be interested in the latest creation from a German PC maker, which is claiming a ‘world first’ with its Tuxedo Book BA15 having an AMD chip and Linux pre-installed. </p> | May 27 08:09 |
| schestowitz | <p> While you can install Linux on many laptops if you so wish, having it arrive with the operating system already on the machine and fully configured means you don’t have to go through the hassle of wiping the portable of Windows 10 and installing (then setting up) the alternative OS. Also, those laptops which do come with Linux on-board run with Intel processors.</p></blockquote></li> | May 27 08:09 |
| schestowitz | x https://www.forbes.com/sites/udinachmany/2020/05/26/the-biggest-impact-of-open-source-on-enterprises-might-not-be-the-software-itself/ | May 27 10:21 |
| schestowitz | # snyk | May 27 10:21 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-www.forbes.com | The Biggest Impact Of Open Source On Enterprises Might Not Be The Software Itself | May 27 10:21 | |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/JZA/status/1265574436859711489 | May 27 11:20 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@JZA: @schestowitz I never blame it all on balmer, I blame it on everybody, from the fanboys to kill bill. | May 27 11:20 | |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/jamesinparis/status/1265573506605088768 | May 27 11:21 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@jamesinparis: If the @NSAGov @GCHQ and allies are walking roughshod over our rights, then so will we (walk roughshod over our peo… https://t.co/QjKRnTkfKh | May 27 11:21 | |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@jamesinparis: If the @NSAGov @GCHQ and allies are walking roughshod over our rights, then so will we (walk roughshod over our peo… https://t.co/QjKRnTkfKh | May 27 11:21 | |
| schestowitz | " | May 27 11:21 |
| schestowitz | If the @NSAGov | May 27 11:21 |
| schestowitz | @GCHQ | May 27 11:21 |
| schestowitz | and allies are walking roughshod over our rights, then so will we (walk roughshod over our people’s rights) | May 27 11:21 |
| schestowitz | " | May 27 11:21 |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/AlanJohnson1959/status/1265554865180336140 | May 27 11:22 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@AlanJohnson1959: @schestowitz If commentary is to regarded as promotion, you must be one of the world’s top 10 UPC promoters. Howeve… https://t.co/K18sCs7faX | May 27 11:22 | |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@AlanJohnson1959: @schestowitz If commentary is to regarded as promotion, you must be one of the world’s top 10 UPC promoters. Howeve… https://t.co/K18sCs7faX | May 27 11:22 | |
| schestowitz | "If commentary is to regarded as promotion, you must be one of the world’s top 10 UPC promoters. However, to comment on something (especially when noting it is not now likely to happen) is not in fact to promote it at all, but to say that the UK system would thrive nonethess." | May 27 11:22 |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/polyp2000/status/1265544571074891777 | May 27 11:22 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@polyp2000: @schestowitz @LlnuxBot Why does an #AMD #Ryzen laptop make it easier to switch to Linux over say an all Intel laptop ? (genuine question) | May 27 11:22 | |
| schestowitz | "Why does an #AMD #Ryzen laptop make it easier to switch to Linux over say an all Intel laptop ? (genuine question)" | May 27 11:22 |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/Mauthor/status/1265515646307176451 | May 27 11:23 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@Mauthor: @schestowitz Check out the latest news on J.K.Rowling's children book along with the late Kobe Bryant's YA book on… https://t.co/Vc4YAW69WA | May 27 11:23 | |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@Mauthor: @schestowitz Check out the latest news on J.K.Rowling's children book along with the late Kobe Bryant's YA book on… https://t.co/Vc4YAW69WA | May 27 11:23 | |
| schestowitz | "Check out the latest news on J.K.Rowling's children book along with the late Kobe Bryant's YA book on Novelpro Junkie: https://novelpro.weebly.com/celebrity-chap" | May 27 11:24 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell- ( status 404 @ https://novelpro.weebly.com/celebrity-chap ) | May 27 11:24 | |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/gregfullmoon/status/1265507204960079873 | May 27 11:24 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@gregfullmoon: @schestowitz Not a worry so much an indication of the infectivity, and 'relatively' low morbidity of #SARSCoV2 It… https://t.co/N3VmsqRYhj | May 27 11:24 | |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@gregfullmoon: @schestowitz Not a worry so much an indication of the infectivity, and 'relatively' low morbidity of #SARSCoV2 It… https://t.co/N3VmsqRYhj | May 27 11:24 | |
| schestowitz | " | May 27 11:24 |
| schestowitz | Not a worry so much an indication of the infectivity, and 'relatively' low morbidity of #SARSCoV2 | May 27 11:24 |
| schestowitz | It's become a circulating human coronavirus and will continue to circulate ad infinitum | May 27 11:24 |
| schestowitz | Also this not enough Covid19 vaccine test candidates | May 27 11:24 |
| schestowitz | #lockdown? | May 27 11:24 |
| schestowitz | " | May 27 11:24 |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/CouldYouSeeIt/status/1265463399774912519 | May 27 11:24 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@CouldYouSeeIt: حتى جهاز التحكم عن بُعد الخاص "الريموت" بالتلفزيون أصبح بشكل متزايد جهاز استماع ليس به ميكروفون فحسب ، بل عدة كامير… https://t.co/yy7RpcWFHv | May 27 11:24 | |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@CouldYouSeeIt: حتى جهاز التحكم عن بُعد الخاص "الريموت" بالتلفزيون أصبح بشكل متزايد جهاز استماع ليس به ميكروفون فحسب ، بل عدة كامير… https://t.co/yy7RpcWFHv | May 27 11:24 | |
| schestowitz | " | May 27 11:25 |
| schestowitz | حتى جهاز التحكم عن بُعد الخاص "الريموت" بالتلفزيون أصبح بشكل متزايد جهاز استماع ليس به ميكروفون فحسب ، بل عدة كاميرات أيضًا | May 27 11:25 |
| schestowitz | Translated from Arabic by | May 27 11:25 |
| schestowitz | Even the TV's "remote control" has become increasingly a listening device that has not only a microphone, but several cameras as well | May 27 11:25 |
| schestowitz | " | May 27 11:25 |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/pythonconverter/status/1265463261950074880 | May 27 11:25 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@pythonconverter: @schestowitz for simple codes, you can use https://t.co/t9x84YtWXn and convert you #python code online | May 27 11:25 | |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell--> pythonconverter.com | Python 2 to 3! | May 27 11:25 | |
| *rianne__ has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) | May 27 13:29 | |
| *rianne__ (~rianne@host81-154-174-226.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell | May 27 13:29 | |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/Gonzalo_VC23/status/1265319686260109314 | May 27 16:59 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@Gonzalo_VC23: @schestowitz (side comment: I hate the "heart" in twitter to like the post, but not the content in the inner news ;-) ) | May 27 16:59 | |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/zoobab/status/1265668508375015426 | May 27 16:59 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@zoobab: @schestowitz "come the entry into force of the European Patent Package." patent attorneys recycled in patent judges without a law degree. | May 27 16:59 | |
| schestowitz | "come the entry into force of the European Patent Package." patent attorneys recycled in patent judges without a law degree. | May 27 16:59 |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/zoobab/status/1265664573203517441 | May 27 17:00 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@zoobab: @schestowitz Now it's AzureAzureAzure TeamsTeamsTeams Office365Office365 SubcriptionsSubscriptionsSubscriptions | May 27 17:00 | |
| schestowitz | "Now it's AzureAzureAzure TeamsTeamsTeams Office365Office365 SubcriptionsSubscriptionsSubscriptions" | May 27 17:00 |
| schestowitz | With kickbacks (bribes) | May 27 17:00 |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/MoreSocialism/status/1265651285828739072 | May 27 17:01 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@MoreSocialism: @schestowitz A vaccine is a long ways off. | May 27 17:01 | |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/24hoursalove1/status/1265649279428956160 | May 27 17:02 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@24hoursalove1: the entire theory makes no rational sense, same with "essential vs unessential business designations " cc… https://t.co/zW64ghWiFO | May 27 17:02 | |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@24hoursalove1: the entire theory makes no rational sense, same with "essential vs unessential business designations " cc… https://t.co/zW64ghWiFO | May 27 17:02 | |
| schestowitz | "the entire theory makes no rational sense, same with "essential vs unessential business designations " cc #contacttracing #heroesact .. all this is a push for economic collapse, and than surveillance police state. its crystal clear. we must rebel. and save our countries values" | May 27 17:02 |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/PamelaDrew/status/1265612827961831427 | May 27 17:03 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@PamelaDrew: @schestowitz No Trump fan but in my lifetime there's never been a situation where lives lost is a concern w Washing… https://t.co/KBCfQro8Lz | May 27 17:03 | |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@PamelaDrew: @schestowitz No Trump fan but in my lifetime there's never been a situation where lives lost is a concern w Washing… https://t.co/KBCfQro8Lz | May 27 17:03 | |
| schestowitz | "No Trump fan but in my lifetime there's never been a situation where lives lost is a concern w Washington. Missing from sudden concern is over 200,000 dead yearly w respiratory. Is 599,000 #cancer deaths w tons of carcinogens dumped & most widely used #chemicals untested a worry?"\ | May 27 17:03 |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/SleepyPenguin1/status/1265604472912449537 | May 27 17:03 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@SleepyPenguin1: I think if I wanted to promote better digital trust @schestowitz I would be using PGP. I definitely wouldn't trust… https://t.co/3REIf3FoIK | May 27 17:03 | |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@SleepyPenguin1: I think if I wanted to promote better digital trust @schestowitz I would be using PGP. I definitely wouldn't trust… https://t.co/3REIf3FoIK | May 27 17:03 | |
| schestowitz | " | May 27 17:03 |
| schestowitz | I think if I wanted to promote better digital trust @schestowitz | May 27 17:03 |
| schestowitz | I would be using PGP. I definitely wouldn't trust these people... | May 27 17:03 |
| schestowitz | " | May 27 17:04 |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/sallyforthe/status/1265591108446322689 | May 27 17:04 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@sallyforthe: @schestowitz We avoid buying the most expensive, latest tech for that reason. We have a friend with homeland that… https://t.co/zjG7GP1XYU | May 27 17:04 | |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@sallyforthe: @schestowitz We avoid buying the most expensive, latest tech for that reason. We have a friend with homeland that… https://t.co/zjG7GP1XYU | May 27 17:04 | |
| schestowitz | "We avoid buying the most expensive, latest tech for that reason. We have a friend with homeland that tapes the camera on her phone and laptop. Trust no one." | May 27 17:04 |
| schestowitz | https://pleroma.site/notice/9vRcTo31NlqNkGAHT6 | May 27 17:34 |
| schestowitz | "@schestowitz I can see a deadly 2nd wave if we are not careful." | May 27 17:34 |
| schestowitz | 400+ dead today | May 27 17:34 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-pleroma.site | Pleroma | May 27 17:34 | |
| schestowitz | https://pleroma.site/notice/9vRiI7aPVozkaoasRU | May 27 17:36 |
| schestowitz | " | May 27 17:36 |
| schestowitz | @schestowitz This is an interesting read. Shows how deep one aspect of the problem is buried. People are purposely taught to not think too thoroughly. | May 27 17:36 |
| schestowitz | https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-history/silicon-revolution/how-programmable-calculators-and-a-scifi-story-brought-soviet-teens-into-the-digital-age | May 27 17:36 |
| schestowitz | ...The U.S. computer scientist and entrepreneur Edward Fredkin argued that his country’s experience should inform the Soviets: | May 27 17:36 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-pleroma.site | Pleroma | May 27 17:36 | |
| schestowitz | " We now understand that computer literacy is not knowing how to program. It is not understanding how [a] computer works. It is not knowing about bits and bytes and flip-flops and gates.... We now know that true computer literacy means having the skills to use the advanced application programs, such as word processing and spreadsheet systems." | May 27 17:36 |
| schestowitz | ... In stark contrast to Fredkin, he (Andrei Ershov - edit) viewed computer literacy as nurturing a set of intellectual habits, which he called “algorithmic thinking.” | May 27 17:36 |
| schestowitz | " | May 27 17:36 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-spectrum.ieee.org | Full Page Reload | May 27 17:36 | |
| schestowitz | https://pleroma.site/notice/9vSECVClyyVqdmtz4i | May 27 17:38 |
| schestowitz | "not really, but ideologues manufacture these delusions"\ | May 27 17:38 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-pleroma.site | Pleroma | May 27 17:39 | |
| schestowitz | https://pleroma.site/notice/9vSGvUa5LhPVe3O2U4 | May 27 17:39 |
| schestowitz | " | May 27 17:39 |
| schestowitz | “Get in the car.” | May 27 17:39 |
| schestowitz | And the car is a motorcycle.  | May 27 17:39 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-pleroma.site | Pleroma | May 27 17:39 | |
| schestowitz | "\ | May 27 17:39 |
| schestowitz | https://pleroma.site/notice/9vSPkh1PeZVOdD5uBk | May 27 17:39 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell- ( status 404 @ https://pleroma.site/notice/9vSPkh1PeZVOdD5uBk ) | May 27 17:39 | |
| schestowitz | "Nice! Is GNU Project aware of this problem? Is it trying to do something about it?" | May 27 17:39 |
| schestowitz | There is chatter about it | May 27 17:39 |
| schestowitz | https://pleroma.site/notice/9vTKvAWcVhESPwpLFY | May 27 17:40 |
| schestowitz | " | May 27 17:40 |
| schestowitz | the judge may have a slight problem with understanding the english language: | May 27 17:40 |
| schestowitz | "The Court reminds Counsel for Plaintiff[] that, as an officer of the Court, he may be sanctioned for engaging in conduct unbefitting of this Court. " | May 27 17:40 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-pleroma.site | Pleroma | May 27 17:40 | |
| schestowitz | "\ | May 27 17:40 |
| schestowitz | https://pleroma.site/notice/9vTLuGsZV5YRmyEMN6 | May 27 17:41 |
| schestowitz | "@schestowitz Countering so-called conspiracy theories with so-called conspiracy theories." | May 27 17:41 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-pleroma.site | Pleroma | May 27 17:41 | |
| schestowitz | https://pleroma.site/notice/9vTM1wckgzjPHkURnc | May 27 17:41 |
| schestowitz | "can't you do any better than being a political hack?" | May 27 17:41 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-pleroma.site | Pleroma | May 27 17:41 | |
| schestowitz | https://pleroma.site/notice/9vTT7fcNX5d7xUzblo | May 27 17:42 |
| schestowitz | "@schestowitz Yeah it's pretty dumb. The more I take a look at these "smart" devices, the more I wonder why people think they're smart." | May 27 17:42 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-pleroma.site | Pleroma | May 27 17:42 | |
| schestowitz | https://pleroma.site/notice/9vTTGsHtnRWhrKnoci | May 27 17:42 |
| schestowitz | " | May 27 17:42 |
| schestowitz | If you ask people whether money-printing should be permitted for the #corporations, they are basically unanimously opposed - but our leaders don't actually believe in #democracy or listen to #WeThePeople. | May 27 17:42 |
| schestowitz | They answer to their #politicalDonors, #advertisers and #lobbyists (5 per elected representative). | May 27 17:42 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-pleroma.site | Pleroma | May 27 17:42 | |
| schestowitz | Get #NEOed | May 27 17:42 |
| schestowitz | Network. Educate. Organise. We don't have much time left. | May 27 17:42 |
| schestowitz | " | May 27 17:42 |
| schestowitz | https://pleroma.site/notice/9vTY5FFN6mHrMUtVUO | May 27 17:43 |
| schestowitz | "🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣" | May 27 17:43 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-pleroma.site | Pleroma | May 27 17:43 | |
| schestowitz | https://pleroma.site/notice/9vTdyXiscGw6MUsroW | May 27 17:43 |
| schestowitz | "surely they meant million, the universe is less than 15 billion years old." | May 27 17:43 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-pleroma.site | Pleroma | May 27 17:43 | |
| *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds) | May 27 18:11 | |
| *rianne__ has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds) | May 27 18:11 | |
| *liberty_box (~liberty@host81-154-174-226.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell | May 27 19:30 | |
| *rianne__ (~rianne@host81-154-174-226.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell | May 27 19:30 | |
| *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds) | May 27 20:22 | |
| *rianne__ has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds) | May 27 20:23 | |
| *rianne__ (~rianne@host81-154-174-226.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell | May 27 20:59 | |
| *liberty_box (~liberty@host81-154-174-226.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell | May 27 20:59 | |
| *rianne__ has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds) | May 27 22:07 | |
| *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds) | May 27 22:07 | |
| *rianne__ (~rianne@host81-154-174-226.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell | May 27 22:25 | |
| *liberty_box (~liberty@host81-154-174-226.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell | May 27 22:26 | |
| *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds) | May 27 23:44 | |
| *rianne__ has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds) | May 27 23:44 | |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/Julio_McAnally/status/1265760440329609217 | May 27 23:55 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@Julio_McAnally: So peodpizza still goin strong https://t.co/t3Mmz506Z5 | May 27 23:55 | |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell--> techrights.org | Mansion of Pedophilia – Part IX: Arrest for Pedophilia Made, Conviction (Guilty Plea) Affirmed, and Search Conducted While the Pedophile Was at the Home of Bill Gates | Techrights | May 27 23:56 | |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/BrideOfLinux/status/1265745846328602624 | May 27 23:59 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@BrideOfLinux: Personally, I was interested in learning about Torvalds switch to AMD. Besides, it sells papers: 'Journalism' in 2… https://t.co/UPUN3R3ssc | May 27 23:59 | |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@BrideOfLinux: Personally, I was interested in learning about Torvalds switch to AMD. Besides, it sells papers: 'Journalism' in 2… https://t.co/UPUN3R3ssc | May 27 23:59 | |
| schestowitz | "Personally, I was interested in learning about Torvalds switch to AMD. Besides, it sells papers: 'Journalism' in 2020: Far More Articles About What Computer Linus Torvalds Bought Than About Linux Releases"\ | May 27 23:59 |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/eliasp/status/1265748493320302592 | May 27 23:59 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@eliasp: @BrideOfLinux @acruiz Ragefood for @knurd42 😊 | May 27 23:59 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.6 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!