[07:15] schestowitz[07:15] schestowitzOne of the neat features of Thunderbird, the excellent free, open-source mail client, is the ability to create filters. You can define all sorts of rules by which your email will be managed - tag, star, forward, set priority, move to a different folder, and then some. To work, the rules usually process certain conditions, like the sender or recipient name or address, specific keyword, and similar. Grea [07:15] schestowitz t, except, it doesn't work. Anymore, that is.
[07:15] schestowitzAs I frequently test various programs, Thunderbird often comes up in my test set, and lately, I noticed the mail client does not seem to apply my message filters. At all. I cannot say when the problem started, but it's been present for at least several weeks. Namely, existing message filters seem to be ignored. They are not processed automatically, and even when you run them manually, nothing happens. [07:15] schestowitz Today, we shall rectify this problem. Follow me.
[07:15] schestowitz
[07:15] schestowitz[07:15] schestowitzAccording to the company's filings, Mitchell Baker's compensation went from $5,591,406 in 2021 [PDF] to $6,903,089 in 2022 [PDF]. It's quite the jump considering that revenues declined from $527,585,000 to $510,389,000 in the same period [PDF].
[07:15] schestowitz
# Introduction [10:08] schestowitz I wanted to share a list of hardening you can do on your OpenBSD workstation, and explaining the threat model of each change. [10:08] schestowitz => https://www.openbsd.org OpenBSD official project website [10:08] schestowitz Feel free to pick any tweak you find useful for your use-case, many are certainly overkill for most people, but depending on the context, these changes could make sense for others. [10:08] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-dataswamp.org | Solene'% : OpenBSD workstation hardening [10:08] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.openbsd.org | OpenBSD [10:27] schestowitz > Roy: [10:27] schestowitz > [10:27] schestowitz > Just realised that I'd already asked you this question ages ago. I fell [10:27] schestowitz > into a bit of a time slump this year but I'm getting back up to speed [10:27] schestowitz > now. Thanks for the article. I was actually wondering whether you'd come [10:27] schestowitz > across any *NEW *evidence of corporate attempts to influence the FSF [10:27] schestowitz > other than what's in your article on the police report. [10:27] schestowitz > [10:27] schestowitz > I also found a couple of other helpful articles on the subject at [10:27] schestowitz > TechRights. If you do come across any further information, please email me. [10:27] schestowitz 2019 NDA: [10:27] schestowitz http://techrights.org/o/2023/07/08/uk-home-office-sirius/ [10:27] schestowitz http://techrights.org/o/2023/07/01/non-disclosure-agreement-sirius/ [10:27] schestowitz http://techrights.org/o/2023/01/18/bill-gates-nda/ [10:27] schestowitz Older: [10:27] schestowitz http://techrights.org/o/2017/02/20/article-about-microsoft-cult-tactics/ [10:27] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-techrights.org | UK Home Office, Former Client of Sirius 'Open Source', Shows Just How High the Fraud Scandals Go [10:27] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-techrights.org | British Police May Also Need to Investigate the Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) Signed Between Sirius and the Gates Foundation in 2019 [10:27] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-techrights.org | [Meme] It Was Never the Same After Bill Gates Paid the Sirius CEO Under a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) [10:27] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-techrights.org | The 'New' Microsoft is Still Acting Like a Dangerous Cult in an Effort to Hijack and/or Undermine All Free/Open Source Software [10:35] *helslwed has quit (Ping timeout: 120 seconds) [10:35] *helslwed has quit (Ping timeout: 120 seconds) [10:38] *helslwed (~helslwed@freenode-2ue.6ih.pu7h8v.IP) has joined #techbytes [10:38] *helslwed (~helslwed@freenode-2ue.6ih.pu7h8v.IP) has joined #techbytes ● Jan 03 [13:32] *helslwed has quit (Ping timeout: 120 seconds) [13:32] *helslwed has quit (Ping timeout: 120 seconds) [13:38] *helslwed (~helslwed@freenode-2ue.6ih.pu7h8v.IP) has joined #techbytes [13:38] *helslwed (~helslwed@freenode-2ue.6ih.pu7h8v.IP) has joined #techbytes ● Jan 03 [14:12] *u-amarsh04 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) [14:35] *u-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@dc77dxzcmjmaq.irc) has joined #techbytes [14:39] *u-amarsh04 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) [14:42] *u-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@dc77dxzcmjmaq.irc) has joined #techbytes [14:48] *u-amarsh04 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) [14:59] *helslwed has quit (Ping timeout: 120 seconds) [14:59] *helslwed has quit (Ping timeout: 120 seconds) ● Jan 03 [15:01] *u-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@dc77dxzcmjmaq.irc) has joined #techbytes [15:07] *helslwed (~helslwed@freenode-2ue.6ih.pu7h8v.IP) has joined #techbytes [15:07] *helslwed (~helslwed@freenode-2ue.6ih.pu7h8v.IP) has joined #techbytes [15:08] *u-amarsh04 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) [15:14] *u-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@dc77dxzcmjmaq.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Jan 03 [16:07] *helslwed has quit (Ping timeout: 120 seconds) [16:07] *helslwed has quit (Ping timeout: 120 seconds) [16:12] *helslwed (~helslwed@freenode-2ue.6ih.pu7h8v.IP) has joined #techbytes [16:12] *helslwed (~helslwed@freenode-2ue.6ih.pu7h8v.IP) has joined #techbytes [16:44] *psydroid2 (~psydroid@u8ftxtfux23wk.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Jan 03 [17:49] schestowitz http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2024/01/will-we-have-referral-on-using.html?showComment=1704196263170#c4427994777742777444 [17:49] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | Will we have a referral on using the description for claim interpretation or is the Board of Appeal jumping the gun? (T 439/22) - The IPKat [17:49] schestowitz "Mr Justice Birss, an important UK patent monopoly judge, has talked in the past about the difficulties of making judgments where both case law is satisfied and justice to the parties is done. So there is an argument that the that the Enlarged Board should not be brought into too many matters, because too much detailed case law makes the system inflexible and more difficult to work with on a day to day basis. As an attorney I see claims [17:49] schestowitz all the time where individual terms are difficult to interpret with or without the description, and so it is clear there is an inherent problem with language which never goes away. At some point, we need to decide on each issue when we have enough case law, and we won't add to it. I suspect interpretation of claims is one of those issues when it would be better for us all to accept that we will never know what 'vertical' or any other t [17:49] schestowitz echnical term really means, and we just need to 'stumble' through whenever validity or infringement needs to be decided on." [17:49] schestowitz "Santa, I rush to support your viewpoint. In the drive towards ever more "legal certainty" we should be careful to leave open enough "wiggle room" for the courts to serve the interests of justice between parties in dispute over both infringement and validity. I cite Article 69 EPC. Every time an Examining Division scrutinises a prosecution amendment that I am making, I want the Division also to balance its zeal for l [17:49] schestowitz egal certainty with the imperative of delivering fair protection to a deserving inventor. After all, the EPO's statutory mission is to "grant patents".
I am guessing though that, in the case study here, the definition of "gathered" was in the application as filed, as well as the claim that recited "gathered". And I assume that this was because the application drafter was aware of the "spiral [17:49] schestowitz led" prior art when writing the as-filed claims. Definitions in the description as filed, that (whether deliberately or accidentally) muddy the water: they ought not to be tolerated by the EPO.
On the US blogs today there are reports of litigation about coffee capsules and the machines that operate on them, where the key word in the claim was "barcode" and the prior art was "bitcode". As Robin Jacob u [17:49] schestowitz sed to say "We can learn a lot from the Americans: watch what they do, and then avoid making the same mistakes". A classic example is to watch how claims get construed, in the USA and then do it better, here in Europe.' [17:50] schestowitz "At point 6 of their communication dated 5 December 2023, the Board makes what appears to be a reasonable point, which is essentially that if the EPO always interprets the claims without reference to the description, this can - where doing so results in a narrower claim scope - create an "Angora cat" situation. This is because, when dealing with patents granted by the EPO, national courts are of course obliged to interp [17:50] schestowitz ret the claims in accordance with Article 69 EPC, which may prompt them to afford the claims a broader extent of protection (eg in the light of unusually broad definitions of certain terms that are provided in the description of the patent).
To prevent the EPO from artificially creating too many "Angora cat" patents, various solutions can be envisaged.
Of course, the solution that the EPO currently favour [17:50] schestowitz s is to enforce incredibly strict standards for adapting the description, with a view to preventing any "unusual" (or allegedly "conflicting") definitions in the application as filed being used to interpret the claims after grant.
There is much that can be said (and that has been said) about the EPO's current approach. However, perhaps the most telling observation is that, if successful in its objective, t [17:50] schestowitz hat approach effectively renders otiose both Article 69 EPC and the Protocol to that Article. This is because, in such a scenario, the EPO will:
- interpret claims without applying either of those provisions; and then
- ensure that adaptations of the description prevent national courts from reaching "conflicting" interpretations.
As much as I have sympathy with the aim of preventing the grant of "Ango [17:50] schestowitz ra cat" patents, the problem highlighted by the Board is all of the EPO's own making, as it is due entirely to the EPO's approach to interpreting patent monopoly claims.
In this regard, I will permit myself one more observation. If one were to consider "description" in Article 69(1) to refer to that of the application as filed, then this would have the effects that:
(a) the EPO's description adaptation pra [17:50] schestowitz ctice would no longer serve any useful purpose; and
(b) terms given "unusual" definitions in the description will be interpreted (by national courts) accordingly unless narrower / different definitions are included in the claims.
This would not eliminate "Angora cat" patents, especially if the EPO continues its current approach to interpreting the claims. However, it would at least make it a lot easie [17:50] schestowitz r for third parties to determine, from an early stage, the extent of protection that national courts are likely to afford to the claims of such patents." ● Jan 03 [18:45] *helslwed has quit (Ping timeout: 120 seconds) [18:45] *helslwed has quit (Ping timeout: 120 seconds) [18:46] *helslwed (~helslwed@freenode-2ue.6ih.pu7h8v.IP) has joined #techbytes [18:46] *helslwed (~helslwed@freenode-2ue.6ih.pu7h8v.IP) has joined #techbytes ● Jan 03 [19:40] *psydroid2 has quit (Quit: KVIrc 5.0.0 Aria http://www.kvirc.net/) [19:46] *SaphirJD (~SaphirJD@3d4grvkztv9j4.irc) has joined #techbytes