●● IRC: #techbytes @ Techrights IRC Network: Thursday, February 01, 2024 ●● ● Feb 01 [00:41] schestowitz[TR] https://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2024/01/28/quality-at-the-epo-staff-and-industry-concerns-not-addressed/#comments [00:41] schestowitz[TR] " [00:41] schestowitz[TR] I agree with most of your comments and appreciate your detailed analysis. [00:41] schestowitz[TR] You stated: [00:41] schestowitz[TR] If patents which appear important for parties are not resisting oppositions very well, it allows to have doubts about the validity of patents which are not opposed. [00:41] schestowitz[TR] I think you overlook the bias introduced by the fact that a party wishing to challenge a granted patent usually first seeks advice as to whether there is a reasonable chance of a successful challenge. Only after an initial (positive) analysis would the party file an opposition (and be more likely to prevail in the opposition). If the attorney discourages filing an opposition (for lack of reasonable chances of success), the [00:41] schestowitz[TR] EP patent will not be included in the opposition statistics. [00:41] schestowitz[TR] However, I agree that looking at the (low) number of opposed patents compared to the total number of granted patents does not necessarily say much about the quality of the granted patents. [00:41] schestowitz[TR] It would be interesting to correlate the breadth of granted patents with the opposition rate. Typically, overly broad patents are opposed (and opposed more successfully). Whether the initial breadth was justified or not is a question of quality. However, there are many narrow patents where the limitations imposed were not justified (which also indicates a lack of quality of examination). So narrow patents should not be confused [00:41] schestowitz[TR] with high quality patents, even if they attract fewer oppositions (and are harder to oppose). [00:41] schestowitz[TR] The take-home message might be: numbers are difficult indicators for assessing substantive quality. This is a problem for both sides, including the EPO (which uses timeliness and products/time). It is therefore important to continue the dialog on substantive examination quality issues. [00:41] schestowitz[TR] Reply [00:41] schestowitz[TR] curious attorney [00:41] schestowitz[TR] January 30, 2024 at 9:21 pm [00:41] schestowitz[TR] EPO examiners only judge the arguments and submissions of the parties, so if the parties argue differently in the two instances, a different outcome is very plausible, in addition to a quite different level of judgement between the two instances. What about grants that have been revoked/amended in opposition and then the patentees appeal has been rejected? Should this not be the only real quality index? Are there any statistics o [00:41] schestowitz[TR] n this over time? [00:41] schestowitz[TR] " [00:41] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-patentblog.kluweriplaw.com | Quality at the EPO: staff and industry concerns not addressed - Kluwer Patent Blog ● Feb 01 [02:45] schestowitz[TR] shing-on-the-open-web-is-broken-how-gen [02:45] schestowitz[TR]
  • 5 Best Free and Open Source AppImage Desktop Integration Tools

    Here's our survey of tools which help integrate AppImages into your desktop. Only free and open source software is included.

    • [02:45] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-5 Best Free and Open Source AppImage Desktop Integration Tools - LinuxLinks ● Feb 01 [03:39] schestowitz[TR] Do you want to help me build the case for a manslaughter prosecution? [03:39] schestowitz[TR] These are the four points to prove: [03:39] schestowitz[TR] 1. who has a duty of care (the email from Shuttleworth proves that, his [03:39] schestowitz[TR] resignation from Debian also suggests he doesn't want to be in [03:39] schestowitz[TR] proximity. Proximity is the word used by the CPS) [03:39] schestowitz[TR] - can you identify any other suspects apart from Chris Lamb, Steve [03:39] schestowitz[TR] McIntyre and Mark Shuttleworth? [03:39] schestowitz[TR] 2. breach of duty (the toxic environment, sounds like you have evidence [03:39] schestowitz[TR] of that), can be any combination of acts or alternatively failures to [03:39] schestowitz[TR] act + evidence of the toxic environment that exists [03:39] schestowitz[TR] 3. causation - how did the toxic environment cause one or more of the [03:39] schestowitz[TR] deaths? [03:39] schestowitz[TR] 4. grossness of the breach of duty: regular negligence is not enough. [03:39] schestowitz[TR] What was gross about it? E.g. the Debian Christmas lynchings were [03:39] schestowitz[TR] extreme because they were perpetuated in a universally respected holiday [03:39] schestowitz[TR] period [03:39] schestowitz[TR] At the moment I have my hands full with other cases. Will FWD... ● Feb 01 [05:01] *u-amarsh04 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) [05:06] *u-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@dc77dxzcmjmaq.irc) has joined #techbytes [05:19] *u-amarsh04 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) [05:20] *u-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@dc77dxzcmjmaq.irc) has joined #techbytes [05:25] schestowitz[TR] http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2024/01/upc-and-italy-sign-milan-headquarters.html?showComment=1706558399471#c1131460480709062116 [05:26] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | UPC and Italy sign Milan headquarters Agreement - The IPKat [05:26] schestowitz[TR] "Could anybody tell me what is the legal basis of the formal agreement on the Headquarters of the third seat of the UPC Central Division in Milan?

    How can it be that a court purposedly ignores the terms of the treaty under which it has been set up?

    Art 87(2) UPCA has also been flagrantly misused. It was never concieved to adapt a treaty without any exit clause to the "withdrawal" of the UK!" ● Feb 01 [13:03] *psydroid2 (~psydroid@u8ftxtfux23wk.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Feb 01 [18:49] schestowitz[TR] x https://qz.com/microsoft-earnings-ai-cloud-services-1851210170 [18:49] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-qz.com | Microsoft earnings show AI driving cloud services revenue ● Feb 01 [19:58] *synapse has quit (Ping timeout: 120 seconds) [19:58] *synapse has quit (Ping timeout: 120 seconds) ● Feb 01 [20:05] *synapse (~synapse@freenode-2ue.6ih.pu7h8v.IP) has joined #techbytes [20:05] *synapse (~synapse@freenode-2ue.6ih.pu7h8v.IP) has joined #techbytes [20:06] *MinceR has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [20:06] *MinceR (~mincer@bringer.of.light) has joined #techbytes [20:06] *irc.techrights.org sets mode +a #techbytes MinceR ● Feb 01 [21:08] *lightbringer has quit (Ping timeout: 120 seconds) [21:08] *lightbringer has quit (Ping timeout: 120 seconds) [21:08] *lightbringer (~mincer@freenode/user/lightbringer) has joined #techbytes [21:08] *lightbringer (~mincer@freenode/user/lightbringer) has joined #techbytes [21:27] schestowitz[TR] sarcasm aside ● Feb 01 [22:29] *psydroid2 has quit (Quit: KVIrc 5.0.0 Aria http://www.kvirc.net/) ● Feb 01 [23:19] schestowitz[TR] "Back in the days when VHS was in its heyday, I used to collect VHS copies of classic (non-PC) cartoons. A couple consisted of early ones where the US copyright monopoly had evidently expired as they had not been released by their original film companies. The slip case of one had an image of one of the characters, and a notice stating that the image was taken from a frame of the film to indicate its contents and was not being us [23:19] schestowitz[TR] ed in a trade mark sense.

    I understand that, when television started affecting cinema attendances in the USA, many film companies sold their back catalogues to the TV companies or didn't bother renewing their copyrights in the less popular titles. Disney was an exception, maintaining ownership and normally refusing permission to broadcast them on TV. " [23:19] schestowitz[TR] http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2024/01/is-mickey-mouse-in-public-domain.html?showComment=1706655738546#c7404586033121493627 [23:20] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | Is Mickey Mouse in the Public Domain? - The IPKat