Join us now at the IRC channel.
| schestowitz | http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2020/10/hague-court-of-appeal-sets-dutch.html?showComment=1604307148895#c3237108687640730423 | Nov 04 00:37 |
|---|---|---|
| schestowitz | " | Nov 04 00:37 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | Hague Court of Appeal sets Dutch approach to equivalence, reversing District Court in pemetrexed saga - The IPKat | Nov 04 00:38 | |
| schestowitz | The key question for the doctrine of equivalents here is whether this limitation, clearly on the basis of art. 123(2) EPC, also limits the scope of protection. The CoA explains why not, and I think the reasoning is persuasive: after all, all patent documents (including the PCT application) must be interpreted on the basis of Art. 69 EPC, whereas the test for art. 123(2) EPC is novelty. Those methods of interpretation are different, with | Nov 04 00:38 |
| schestowitz | novelty being much more literal than scope of protection. Hence, a PCT application, and the patent subsequently filed on the basis thereof, will have a certain scope of protection, but because of the more literal test applied for the purposes of at. 123(2) EPC, that scope of protection might not be capable of being claimed as such. | Nov 04 00:38 |
| schestowitz | The CoA held here that this means a 123(2) EPC limitation cannot be an indication that the scope of protection is limited accordingly. I think that's right. | Nov 04 00:38 |
| schestowitz | It's not clear to me from your comment whether you disagree with that finding: you think this is a case of poor drafting. My question to you is: where was the drafting error made? | Nov 04 00:38 |
| schestowitz | I could see the argument that it happened already in the PCT stage, i.e. the original application should have disclosed more specific examples than just pemetrexed disodium (which was Eli Lilly's own product and therefore mentioned as a preferred embodiment). But at that stage, the application related to antifolates generally: was the patent holder nonetheless obligated to write down every single salt that could be used with pemetrexed? | Nov 04 00:38 |
| schestowitz | What about other antifolates? The purpose of art. 69 EPC is to avoid imposing such strict conditions on patentees, so long as the proper breadth of the inventive concept is clearly disclosed, and satisfies all material requirements for patentability. I think that is the case here, so I think the case was properly decided. | Nov 04 00:38 |
| schestowitz | And, having disclosed the invention in a manner that makes clear that it would work with any salt, the next question is: what reasonable expectation can third parties entertain that Eli Lilly nevertheless wanted to limit its scope of protection to pemetrexed disodium, specifically? This happened explicitly in the context of art. 123(2) EPC, so for the reasons set out above, it doesn't imply a willful limitation of the scope of | Nov 04 00:38 |
| schestowitz | protection. | Nov 04 00:38 |
| schestowitz | Returning to the example of Bayer/Sandoz, the case was decided differently there because the invention as initially claimed was limited to a SPECIFIC COMPOUND, even if there had been a disclosure that it would work with others as well. Here, it was not limited in that way: a general class of compound (antifolates) was disclosed and claimed, then narrowed down to pemetrexed generally, then -- on the basis of a formal objection -- | Nov 04 00:38 |
| schestowitz | narrowed down to pemetrexed disodium. It's a fine line, but I think it can clearly be drawn: in the first case the patentee signalled interest in a limited scope of protection by failing to claim the other compound as well, but here Lilly did no such thing. | Nov 04 00:38 |
| schestowitz | You're right that I don't have a lot of experience drafting pharmaceutical patents--I'm not a patent attorney by training. But I did think about this problem as I wrote the post, and I'd be curious to hear where you think my analysis is wrong. | Nov 04 00:38 |
| schestowitz | Lastly, on your point of inviting litigation. If I may, I would criticize your post for posing a false dichotomy: courts don't face just the two options you present, but instead must come to a balanced and fair decision given the circumstances. Of course I don't think that increased legal uncertainty and, as a consequence, a rise in litigation rates are a good thing. But I also don't think that fair protection for patentees should be | Nov 04 00:38 |
| schestowitz | sacrificed to maximize legal certainty. If maximum legal certainty were the purpose of the patent system, it would look very different. But instead art. 69 EPC directs us to find a middle ground, and I think the CoA did so properly in this case. | Nov 04 00:38 |
| schestowitz | " | Nov 04 00:38 |
| schestowitz | " | Nov 04 00:38 |
| schestowitz | Dear Max, thanks for your thoughts--and I appreciate you being outspoken, even provocative. | Nov 04 00:38 |
| schestowitz | I agree with you that the doctrine of equivalence should not be relied upon to correct sloppy drafting. The patent social contract places great power in the hands of patentees by allowing them to draft their own claims, and I think they should be subject to strict scrutiny when doing so. This has been recognized in Dutch case law for a long time, and a 2016 decision by the Supreme Court serves to illustrate this (Bayer/Sandoz, ECLI:NL: | Nov 04 00:38 |
| schestowitz | HR:2016:196). There, the patent claimed a method and the claims specified that it should be performed with an acid. But the description mentioned it could just as well have been applied with a base. The Supreme Court (and the CoA before it) refused to apply the doctrine of equivalents in this case, since an acid is simply not a base, and if the patentee would have wanted to claim protection for both, they should have done so. | Nov 04 00:38 |
| schestowitz | Now, let's take a look at what happened in the present case. | Nov 04 00:38 |
| schestowitz | The initial claim 1 read as follows: 1. Use of a methylmalonic acid lowering agent in the preparation of a medicament useful in lowering the mammalian toxicity associated with an antifolate, and the medicament is administered in combination with an antifolate. | Nov 04 00:38 |
| schestowitz | This claim therefore generally covered antifolates, but because a combination of vitamin B12 and an antifolate was not novel, the claim was subsequently amended to cover only pemetrexed, which was understood to mean pemetrexed in combination with any acceptable salt, including (as specified in claim 4), pemetrexed disodium: | Nov 04 00:38 |
| schestowitz | 1. Use of pemetrexed in the manufacture of a medicament for use in combination therapy for inhibiting tumor growth in mammals wherein said medicament is to be administered in combination with vitamin B12 or a pharmaceutical derivative thereof. | Nov 04 00:38 |
| schestowitz | 4. Use according to any one of claims 1 to 3 wherein pemetrexed is pemetrexed disodium. | Nov 04 00:38 |
| schestowitz | Now comes the crucial part. The examiner raised a 123(2) objection because the only working example of pemetrexed that had been disclosed was pemetrexed disodium: | Nov 04 00:38 |
| schestowitz | The subject matter of present claims 1 reading “use of pemetrexed…” and claim 13 “a product containing pemetrexed…” do not find base in the application documents as filed. The term “pemetrexed” in the wording of these claims and the corresponding passages on amended description is certainly a distinct compound (CAS Registry number 137281-23-3) of the “pemetrexed disodium” (CAS Registry number 150399-23-8) expressed | Nov 04 00:39 |
| schestowitz | on original document description page 2, line 6 and page 6, line 16. Said amendment beyond the content of the original document is therefore not allowable (Art. 123 (2) EPC). | Nov 04 00:39 |
| schestowitz | Consequently, the claims had to be limited to pemetrexed disodium. However, the CoA held (and I understand that this was not really disputed) that (i) the skilled person would, on the basis of the common general knowledge, know that the invention would also work with different salts; and (ii) the application clearly said so much, even as filed in the PCT stage. | Nov 04 00:39 |
| schestowitz | " | Nov 04 00:39 |
| schestowitz | " | Nov 04 00:39 |
| schestowitz | WARNING: I'm going to be provocative here. But I do it deliberately, to stimulate further debate, because I think that would be beneficial. | Nov 04 00:39 |
| schestowitz | I welcome the exchange of views prompted by my Comment #1 but have an uneasy feeling that Mr Dijkman lacks long years of experience drafting pharmaceutical patents and so is not in a position to judge what an elementary goof occurred in the drafting of the patent here in suit. | Nov 04 00:39 |
| schestowitz | What I'm suggesting is that it is not a good idea for the courts to rescue Applicants who make egregious drafting errors. It is not good for the health of the patent system to excuse such grotesque failures of drafting. | Nov 04 00:39 |
| schestowitz | The point is that in the invention we have here there is an anion and a cation, of which the anion is the active complex organic principle (pemetrexed) and the cation is merely a necessary but trivial electrical charge-balancing positively charged inorganic counterpart particle (sodium ion, potassium ion, or something similar). Nothing could have been more self-evident or obvious than to claim at the level of generality of "pemetrexed | Nov 04 00:39 |
| schestowitz | salt". Had Applicant claimed that invention, the true invention, at that level of generality ie precisely the level of generality supported by the disclosure and rendered plausible by the disclosure, litigation would not have been needed. No hindsight was needed, to see that a claim to pemetrexed was indicated, right from the get go, the blank sheet of paper on which the claims are first drafted. Any qualified European Patent Attorney | Nov 04 00:39 |
| schestowitz | would have seen that instantly. The problem here is that the case was drafted and filed in the USA, which when it comes to patent drafting is "on a different planet" from the rest of the world. | Nov 04 00:39 |
| schestowitz | Now, Mr Dijkman, and other readers, my question to you. Should the courts be in the business of fomenting more patent litigation or should they instead concern themselves with efforts to damp down the amount of patent litigation? I ask because the way this case has turned out is, in my opinion, a potent generator of more litigation, arising from a reduced level of legal certainty about how claims are to be construed in Europe, and what | Nov 04 00:39 |
| schestowitz | counts as an infringement. | Nov 04 00:39 |
| schestowitz | I see you are an associate of a leading patent litigation firm. Your assessment then as to what attitude the patent courts of Europe should take towards levels of quality in patent drafting interests me greatly. | Nov 04 00:39 |
| schestowitz | " | Nov 04 00:39 |
| *schestowitz has quit (Quit: Konversation term) | Nov 04 00:51 | |
| *schestowitz (~schestowi@host81-154-169-118.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes | Nov 04 00:51 | |
| *schestowitz has quit (Changing host) | Nov 04 00:51 | |
| *schestowitz (~schestowi@unaffiliated/schestowitz) has joined #techbytes | Nov 04 00:51 | |
| *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds) | Nov 04 01:12 | |
| *rianne__ has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds) | Nov 04 01:13 | |
| *rianne__ (~rianne@host81-154-169-118.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes | Nov 04 01:14 | |
| *liberty_box (~liberty@host81-154-169-118.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes | Nov 04 01:15 | |
| *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds) | Nov 04 01:22 | |
| *rianne__ has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds) | Nov 04 01:22 | |
| *rianne__ (~rianne@host81-154-169-118.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes | Nov 04 01:22 | |
| *liberty_box (~liberty@host81-154-169-118.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes | Nov 04 01:22 | |
| schestowitz | https://joindiaspora.com/posts/19347102#8ff09bc0ffc1013875d1722ef41c0a88 | Nov 04 01:33 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@linux@joindiaspora.com: The 11 Best Linux Distros for Programmers • 𝕿𝖚𝖝 𝕸𝖆𝖈𝖍𝖎𝖓𝖊𝖘 ☞ http://www.tuxmachines.org/node/143951 •●• #GNU #Linux #TuxMachines #News | Nov 04 01:33 | |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes--> www.tuxmachines.org | The 11 Best Linux Distros for Programmers | Tux Machines | Nov 04 01:33 | |
| schestowitz | " | Nov 04 01:33 |
| schestowitz | I would most certainly not put Manjaro on that list. Though it is nice and sleek for your average desktop user, they are borderline hostile to programmers, not supporting cross-compatibility with Arch - and not supporting the vast Arch distribution library. Furthermore, Manjaro has no Build System to substitute for the one present in Arch. So, you cannot use the build system from Arch, nor is there any other option. | Nov 04 01:33 |
| schestowitz | https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_Build_System | Nov 04 01:33 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-wiki.archlinux.org | Arch Build System - ArchWiki | Nov 04 01:33 | |
| schestowitz | And Raspian is an odd choice. You are going to spend quite a lot of time waiting for your big project to compile on a Pi computer. | Nov 04 01:33 |
| schestowitz | " | Nov 04 01:33 |
| schestowitz | https://joindiaspora.com/posts/19340808#2c82dce0ff360138e06b101b0efced44 | Nov 04 01:33 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@linux@joindiaspora.com: GNOME Sushi Doesn’t Work in Ubuntu 20.10, But There is a Fix http://www.tuxmachines.org/node/143917 | Nov 04 01:33 | |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes--> www.tuxmachines.org | GNOME Sushi Doesn’t Work in Ubuntu 20.10, But There is a Fix | Tux Machines | Nov 04 01:33 | |
| schestowitz | " | Nov 04 01:33 |
| schestowitz | ue sushi is so my favorite ! | Nov 04 01:33 |
| schestowitz | Loom loreillelœiletlamain viddac.fr | Nov 04 01:33 |
| schestowitz | Loom loreillelœiletlamain viddac.fr - a day ago | Nov 04 01:33 |
| schestowitz | because space bar | Nov 04 01:33 |
| schestowitz | " | Nov 04 01:33 |
| *GNUmoon (~GNUmoon@gateway/tor-sasl/gnumoon) has joined #techbytes | Nov 04 01:36 | |
| schestowitz | >>> Attached is how the new layout renders on Firefox. I've cropped out the | Nov 04 01:45 |
| schestowitz | >>> FF menus and such leaving just what is otherwise visible. I think it | Nov 04 01:45 |
| schestowitz | >>> could use some tweaks, especially in the pulldown menu. | Nov 04 01:45 |
| schestowitz | >> Seems like a CSS out-of-date issue. Can you flush out the existing CSS? | Nov 04 01:45 |
| schestowitz | >> Or go directly to its URL, press CTRL+F5 (IIRC for Firefox).? | Nov 04 01:45 |
| schestowitz | >> | Nov 04 01:45 |
| schestowitz | >> http://techrights.org/wp-content/themes/ocadia/style.css?BLAH | Nov 04 01:45 |
| schestowitz | >> http://techrights.org/wp-content/themes/ocadia/style.css | Nov 04 01:45 |
| schestowitz | >> | Nov 04 01:45 |
| schestowitz | >> I saw the same layout before I forced the CSS to be flushed out. | Nov 04 01:45 |
| schestowitz | >> | Nov 04 01:45 |
| schestowitz | > Ok. It seems fixed now that I have cleared the browser cache. | Nov 04 01:45 |
| schestowitz | > [snip] | Nov 04 01:47 |
| schestowitz | > | Nov 04 01:47 |
| schestowitz | > http://techrights.org/irc-archives/irc-log-techrights-011120.html#tNov%2001%2011:25:48 | Nov 04 01:47 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-techrights.org | IRC: #techrights @ FreeNode: Sunday, November 01, 2020 | Nov 04 01:47 | |
| schestowitz | > | Nov 04 01:47 |
| schestowitz | > That is a request for a development machine. It could eventually be | Nov 04 01:47 |
| schestowitz | > converted to production as services are moved over but in the early | Nov 04 01:47 |
| schestowitz | > stages, that is experimentation. If that approach is interesting then, | Nov 04 01:47 |
| schestowitz | > maybe rent a VPS for a fixed amount of time? | Nov 04 01:47 |
| schestowitz | > | Nov 04 01:47 |
| schestowitz | > chroot is only a superficial separation of only the file system. If we | Nov 04 01:47 |
| schestowitz | > had been on FreeBSD we could have set up a simple jail instead. That | Nov 04 01:47 |
| schestowitz | > would have provided isolation, but chroot does not. | Nov 04 01:47 |
| schestowitz | If uptime isn't critical, why not run it off a laptop here (with remote access). Would upstream speeds or ISPs be obstacles at this scale? | Nov 04 01:47 |
| schestowitz | > There's no way he's "afraid" of hacks unless someone connected to the | Nov 04 01:48 |
| schestowitz | > FSF coup is still making him afraid of hacks-- saying it's bad for rms, | Nov 04 01:48 |
| schestowitz | > bad for FSF, or bad for him "coming back" and to "be careful" (i.e. silent.) | Nov 04 01:48 |
| schestowitz | > | Nov 04 01:48 |
| schestowitz | > The way they got rms to go along with the coup against him was to play | Nov 04 01:48 |
| schestowitz | > up the threat-- we know the people who did that were not being honest, | Nov 04 01:48 |
| schestowitz | > they were betraying him. | Nov 04 01:48 |
| schestowitz | > | Nov 04 01:48 |
| schestowitz | > They're obviously still doing it. The FSF is still compromised, or | Nov 04 01:48 |
| schestowitz | > someone connected is. | Nov 04 01:48 |
| schestowitz | He has just told me he cannot make a decision on whether to do an interview with us or not. Sometimes talks to him about it, I assume... | Nov 04 01:49 |
| schestowitz | context: | Nov 04 01:49 |
| schestowitz | schestowitz | Nov 04 01:49 |
| schestowitz | Interview with RMS work in progress | Nov 04 01:49 |
| schestowitz | Nov 01 22:07 | Nov 04 01:49 |
| schestowitz | schestowitz | Nov 04 01:49 |
| schestowitz | "Will a Q&A be a possibility this month?" | Nov 04 01:49 |
| schestowitz | Nov 01 22:08 | Nov 04 01:49 |
| schestowitz | schestowitz | Nov 04 01:49 |
| schestowitz | seems he's afraid of what some hacks might say | Nov 04 01:49 |
| schestowitz | -------- | Nov 04 01:49 |
| schestowitz | > As much as I expected to find fault with BurntSushi's note on copyleft, | Nov 04 01:49 |
| schestowitz | > it's for reasons I've PARTIALLY defended even recently. | Nov 04 01:49 |
| schestowitz | > | Nov 04 01:49 |
| schestowitz | > I don't assume he's sincere and I do note he works for one of the worst | Nov 04 01:49 |
| schestowitz | > shill factories, but at the moment I'm talking about the argument itself. | Nov 04 01:49 |
| schestowitz | > | Nov 04 01:49 |
| schestowitz | > I would probably file it under trolling, but the closest I can do to | Nov 04 01:49 |
| schestowitz | > that is file it under "likely shill, argument is probably a troll". | Nov 04 01:49 |
| schestowitz | > Thanks to an unconstitutional law similar to one Biden wrote, the USA | Nov 04 01:50 |
| schestowitz | > broke most of its promises in October of 2001. | Nov 04 01:50 |
| schestowitz | > | Nov 04 01:50 |
| schestowitz | > Donald Trump, who would not have won the 2016 election if the DNC had | Nov 04 01:50 |
| schestowitz | > not betrayed its own voters by defrauding Sanders, is an openly fascist | Nov 04 01:50 |
| schestowitz | > leader. But that only make the country half-fascist. | Nov 04 01:50 |
| schestowitz | > | Nov 04 01:50 |
| schestowitz | > As of today, the so-called "left" of the half-fascist USA will most | Nov 04 01:50 |
| schestowitz | > likely replace a republican fascist president with a democratic one, | Nov 04 01:50 |
| schestowitz | > making the former USA into the Fascist States of America. | Nov 04 01:50 |
| schestowitz | > | Nov 04 01:50 |
| schestowitz | > It's one thing to have one prominent side supporting fascist traitors, | Nov 04 01:50 |
| schestowitz | > it's quite another for both prominent sides to. | Nov 04 01:50 |
| schestowitz | > | Nov 04 01:50 |
| schestowitz | > As of tomorrow, pretty much every American you greet will be fascist. | Nov 04 01:50 |
| schestowitz | > But they'll be fascists with the /best intentions/, of course! Not | Nov 04 01:50 |
| schestowitz | > including what they did to Sanders, twice. Elections have been fake for | Nov 04 01:50 |
| schestowitz | > a long time anyway. But the voters still think it's real, and (nearly) | Nov 04 01:50 |
| schestowitz | > all support fascism, once you cynically narrow things down to two | Nov 04 01:50 |
| schestowitz | > fascist choices. If that's not a fake election, there is no such thing. | Nov 04 01:50 |
| schestowitz | > Well, you got it in before noon on the East coast. You didn't have to | Nov 04 01:53 |
| schestowitz | > but it's even better, cheers. | Nov 04 01:53 |
| schestowitz | > | Nov 04 01:53 |
| schestowitz | > Obviously the prediction of who wins could technically go either way, | Nov 04 01:53 |
| schestowitz | > that is the point, isn't it? But if I'm wrong, let's hope it's one of | Nov 04 01:54 |
| schestowitz | > many things Americans can prove me wrong about. Let's hope. | Nov 04 01:54 |
| schestowitz | > | Nov 04 01:54 |
| schestowitz | > I support America's constitutional prohibition against British rulers | Nov 04 01:54 |
| schestowitz | > (or rulers from other countries) but apart from that, there is no real | Nov 04 01:54 |
| schestowitz | > significance today regarding the old differences between the States and | Nov 04 01:54 |
| schestowitz | > the remainder of the British Empire. I know we share (as neither of have | Nov 04 01:54 |
| schestowitz | > any) joy in the fall of the USA-- but I mark its date today, November | Nov 04 01:54 |
| schestowitz | > 3rd, 2020. 1776-2020 is a very good run indeed, perhaps it should have | Nov 04 01:54 |
| schestowitz | > been longer. I am of course, not joking at all. This is by far one of | Nov 04 01:54 |
| schestowitz | > the most historical days in centuries, at least in the Western hemisphere. | Nov 04 01:54 |
| schestowitz | > | Nov 04 01:54 |
| schestowitz | > We could say it was October of 2001, but in all fairness I think it | Nov 04 01:54 |
| schestowitz | > still had a chance. I was hoping for a president Feingold-- the ONE | Nov 04 01:54 |
| schestowitz | > senator who opposed flushing the Constitution down the toilet. Take | Nov 04 01:54 |
| schestowitz | > note: Democrat. | Nov 04 01:54 |
| schestowitz | > | Nov 04 01:54 |
| schestowitz | > As I've explained before, we know that HMTW/E (she's "a pretty nice | Nov 04 01:54 |
| schestowitz | > girl") is just a figurehead now, and that's where she will stay without | Nov 04 01:54 |
| schestowitz | > provoking a crisis to rid her of that status as well. Symbolically, she | Nov 04 01:54 |
| schestowitz | > holds ALL power which she bestows on the rest. She derives it | Nov 04 01:54 |
| schestowitz | > (symbolically) from God. | Nov 04 01:54 |
| schestowitz | > | Nov 04 01:54 |
| schestowitz | > God -> Royalty -> Government | Nov 04 01:54 |
| schestowitz | > | Nov 04 01:54 |
| schestowitz | > In the USA, it is like this: | Nov 04 01:54 |
| schestowitz | > | Nov 04 01:54 |
| schestowitz | > The People -> The Constitution -> Government | Nov 04 01:54 |
| schestowitz | > | Nov 04 01:54 |
| schestowitz | > In the former American system, The Constitution takes symbolic place of | Nov 04 01:54 |
| schestowitz | > the Queen and the people take the place of God. Of course this only | Nov 04 01:54 |
| schestowitz | > means the system is agnostic, if that (I think that's fair to say but | Nov 04 01:54 |
| schestowitz | > some will argue-- "In God We Trust" of course came later) but if more 1 | Nov 04 01:54 |
| schestowitz | > in 7 people on Earth believe in the God of Abraham then they're welcome | Nov 04 01:54 |
| schestowitz | > to say: | Nov 04 01:54 |
| schestowitz | > | Nov 04 01:54 |
| schestowitz | > God -> The People -> The Constitution -> Government | Nov 04 01:54 |
| schestowitz | > | Nov 04 01:54 |
| schestowitz | > But that isn't how the State actually works, which isn't say that it's | Nov 04 01:54 |
| schestowitz | > "Godless" but that it's most certainly NOT a theocracy. (And thank God | Nov 04 01:54 |
| schestowitz | > for that...) | Nov 04 01:55 |
| schestowitz | > | Nov 04 01:55 |
| schestowitz | > So what you have now is more like: | Nov 04 01:55 |
| schestowitz | > | Nov 04 01:55 |
| schestowitz | > Corporate Military -> PATRIOT Act -> Fascist figureheads -> Private law | Nov 04 01:55 |
| schestowitz | > | Nov 04 01:55 |
| schestowitz | > (IowaOhm should have fun with this one, but thanks to v1rshkhnfkjnf I | Nov 04 01:55 |
| schestowitz | > had to agree with him earlier today.) | Nov 04 01:55 |
| schestowitz | > | Nov 04 01:55 |
| schestowitz | > That's not the USA, the USA no longer exists. More's the pity, it | Nov 04 01:55 |
| schestowitz | > honestly had its charms. | Nov 04 01:55 |
| schestowitz | > | Nov 04 01:55 |
| schestowitz | > Switching figureheads in this system changes not a thing. It's still | Nov 04 01:55 |
| schestowitz | > fascists running it all. Freedom it ain't. | Nov 04 01:55 |
| schestowitz | > | Nov 04 01:55 |
| schestowitz | > Would that this were only true of America, but we don't ignore the trend. | Nov 04 01:55 |
| schestowitz | > | Nov 04 01:55 |
| schestowitz | > **Smedley Butler was right**, even before rms was born. RMS of course, | Nov 04 01:55 |
| schestowitz | > was right too. | Nov 04 01:55 |
| schestowitz | > | Nov 04 01:55 |
| schestowitz | > Happy Hacking. | Nov 04 01:55 |
| schestowitz | > | Nov 04 01:55 |
| schestowitz | > | Nov 04 01:55 |
| schestowitz | > P.S. The picture was fine, but I'd love to know what the real name of | Nov 04 01:55 |
| schestowitz | > that building is, or least where it's from. Given the title, it probably | Nov 04 01:55 |
| schestowitz | > works no matter what. | Nov 04 01:55 |
| schestowitz | It is called "freedom", apparently.... | Nov 04 01:55 |
| *rianne__ has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds) | Nov 04 02:08 | |
| *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds) | Nov 04 02:09 | |
| *rianne__ (~rianne@host81-154-169-118.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes | Nov 04 02:09 | |
| *liberty_box (~liberty@host81-154-169-118.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes | Nov 04 02:11 | |
| *rianne__ has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds) | Nov 04 02:16 | |
| *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds) | Nov 04 02:17 | |
| *rianne__ (~rianne@host81-154-169-118.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes | Nov 04 02:18 | |
| *liberty_box (~liberty@host81-154-169-118.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes | Nov 04 02:19 | |
| *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds) | Nov 04 02:38 | |
| *rianne__ has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds) | Nov 04 02:39 | |
| *rianne__ (~rianne@host81-154-169-118.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes | Nov 04 02:42 | |
| *liberty_box (~liberty@host81-154-169-118.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes | Nov 04 02:42 | |
| *rianne__ has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds) | Nov 04 02:48 | |
| *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds) | Nov 04 02:49 | |
| *rianne__ (~rianne@host81-154-169-118.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes | Nov 04 02:51 | |
| *liberty_box (~liberty@host81-154-169-118.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes | Nov 04 02:52 | |
| *GNUmoon has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds) | Nov 04 04:42 | |
| *rianne__ has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds) | Nov 04 05:16 | |
| *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds) | Nov 04 05:16 | |
| *rianne__ (~rianne@host81-154-169-118.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes | Nov 04 05:26 | |
| *liberty_box (~liberty@host81-154-169-118.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes | Nov 04 05:27 | |
| *Ascavasaion (~Edhelheru@101.189.47.15) has joined #techbytes | Nov 04 06:20 | |
| *GNUmoon (~GNUmoon@gateway/tor-sasl/gnumoon) has joined #techbytes | Nov 04 06:52 | |
| schestowitz | >>> I'll know over the next few days if it is possible or not. | Nov 04 07:25 |
| schestowitz | >> Thanks for the thought. It is much appreciated. | Nov 04 07:25 |
| schestowitz | > No problem. So I'm guessing the smaller form factor is more appealing? | Nov 04 07:25 |
| schestowitz | > | Nov 04 07:25 |
| schestowitz | >> Right now I'm not sure how to use an extra machine, as I'm already | Nov 04 07:25 |
| schestowitz | >> surrounded by 4, 3 of which dual screened. At a cost like this maybe we | Nov 04 07:25 |
| schestowitz | >> can turn it into a shared server of some kind? I assume it uses not so | Nov 04 07:25 |
| schestowitz | >> much power, no more than a laptop, probably a lot less. | Nov 04 07:25 |
| schestowitz | > They use a lot less and they can run headless just fine, too. If you | Nov 04 07:25 |
| schestowitz | > have wireless then a model 3A+ would use the least amount of power. | Nov 04 07:25 |
| schestowitz | > It'd be quite feasible to host mirrors a gopher or an Onion service. | Nov 04 07:25 |
| schestowitz | > The latter won't even need any ports opened on the router or depend on | Nov 04 07:25 |
| schestowitz | > being at any particular location or IP address. | Nov 04 07:25 |
| schestowitz | > | Nov 04 07:25 |
| schestowitz | > Or it could be used as a development server before pushing out big | Nov 04 07:25 |
| schestowitz | > changes to the production server. Back in the "old days" one had a | Nov 04 07:25 |
| schestowitz | > development server and only pushed changes to the production sites after | Nov 04 07:25 |
| schestowitz | > testing. | Nov 04 07:25 |
| schestowitz | > | Nov 04 07:25 |
| schestowitz | >> Maybe serve some of techrights (like text-only versions) from home only, | Nov 04 07:25 |
| schestowitz | >> directly? If ISP permits? | Nov 04 07:25 |
| schestowitz | > The ISP account would have to be for Bytesmedia for some of the choices, | Nov 04 07:25 |
| schestowitz | > if I understand correctly. Around here at least the ISPs are fussy | Nov 04 07:25 |
| schestowitz | > about business use even if it is low traffic. | Nov 04 07:25 |
| schestowitz | Thanks, I will look into this. Maybe IPFS might be a fit for that, but I need to check terms of use. | Nov 04 07:25 |
| schestowitz | >>> http://techrights.org/irc-archives/irc-log-techrights-011120.html#tNov%2001%2011:25:48 | Nov 04 07:26 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-techrights.org | IRC: #techrights @ FreeNode: Sunday, November 01, 2020 | Nov 04 07:26 | |
| schestowitz | >>> | Nov 04 07:26 |
| schestowitz | >>> That is a request for a development machine. It could eventually be | Nov 04 07:26 |
| schestowitz | >>> converted to production as services are moved over but in the early | Nov 04 07:26 |
| schestowitz | >>> stages, that is experimentation. If that approach is interesting then, | Nov 04 07:26 |
| schestowitz | >>> maybe rent a VPS for a fixed amount of time? | Nov 04 07:26 |
| schestowitz | >>> | Nov 04 07:26 |
| schestowitz | >>> chroot is only a superficial separation of only the file system. If we | Nov 04 07:26 |
| schestowitz | >>> had been on FreeBSD we could have set up a simple jail instead. That | Nov 04 07:26 |
| schestowitz | >>> would have provided isolation, but chroot does not. | Nov 04 07:26 |
| schestowitz | >> If uptime isn't critical, why not run it off a laptop here (with remote | Nov 04 07:27 |
| schestowitz | >> access). Would upstream speeds or ISPs be obstacles at this scale? | Nov 04 07:27 |
| schestowitz | > The speeds would be more than adequate. If the ISP allows incoming SSH | Nov 04 07:27 |
| schestowitz | > then that is all that is needed. If not then at minimal risk a | Nov 04 07:27 |
| schestowitz | > dedicated key or certificate could be used to bounce through the main | Nov 04 07:27 |
| schestowitz | > server using a reverse tunnel or WireGuard VPN. | Nov 04 07:27 |
| schestowitz | > | Nov 04 07:27 |
| schestowitz | > An IFPS-nbased mirror would be one use-case for a Raspberry Pi. | Nov 04 07:27 |
| schestowitz | > Depending on the router it is connected to, it can be isolated on the | Nov 04 07:27 |
| schestowitz | > network. It could probably be connected to the main systems by a | Nov 04 07:27 |
| schestowitz | > WireGuard VPN, if that becomes relevant. | Nov 04 07:27 |
| schestowitz | > | Nov 04 07:27 |
| schestowitz | > Speaking of isolating, on the Raspberry Pi, the whole system is | Nov 04 07:27 |
| schestowitz | > contained on the microSD card. So when that is removed and replaced or | Nov 04 07:27 |
| schestowitz | > erased, the result is an entirely new system. | Nov 04 07:27 |
| schestowitz | IFPS has been a pain to learn, but help is being offered. | Nov 04 07:27 |
| schestowitz | Re: This can't be accurate-- exit polls | Nov 04 07:29 |
| schestowitz | > White women for Trump?** 44% Biden, 55% Trump | Nov 04 07:29 |
| schestowitz | > | Nov 04 07:29 |
| schestowitz | > Note females in general 56% Biden, 43% Trump | Nov 04 07:29 |
| schestowitz | > | Nov 04 07:29 |
| schestowitz | > As of 10pm EST. | Nov 04 07:29 |
| schestowitz | > | Nov 04 07:29 |
| schestowitz | > Source: NBC https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-elections/exit-polls | Nov 04 07:29 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.nbcnews.com | Live exit polls 2020: Election Day exit polls for Trump vs. Biden | Nov 04 07:29 | |
| schestowitz | > <https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-elections/exit-polls> | Nov 04 07:29 |
| schestowitz | Re: Oh My God | Nov 04 07:29 |
| schestowitz | > Have you seen this? | Nov 04 07:29 |
| schestowitz | > | Nov 04 07:29 |
| schestowitz | > https://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/watch-and-share-rewind-to-help-explain-free-software | Nov 04 07:29 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.fsf.org | Watch and share "Rewind" to help explain free software — Free Software Foundation — Working together for free software | Nov 04 07:29 | |
| schestowitz | > <https://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/watch-and-share-rewind-to-help-explain-free-software> | Nov 04 07:29 |
| schestowitz | > | Nov 04 07:29 |
| schestowitz | > What a goddamned, delusional, masturbatory fucking FARCE! This is PURE | Nov 04 07:29 |
| schestowitz | > bullshit. What's the reality here? NO, FSF, this has fuck-all to do with | Nov 04 07:29 |
| schestowitz | > what's actually happening in the free software world, or the planet | Nov 04 07:29 |
| schestowitz | > Earth. You're just making shit up. They might as well say that | Nov 04 07:30 |
| schestowitz | > LibrePlanet is a real planet. | Nov 04 07:30 |
| schestowitz | > Unlike Roy, I don't do things strictly by RSS. In fact the main thing I | Nov 04 07:32 |
| schestowitz | > get by RSS is Techrights. | Nov 04 07:32 |
| schestowitz | > | Nov 04 07:32 |
| schestowitz | > However, I have my own means of "removing feeds from my RSS" like Roy does. | Nov 04 07:32 |
| schestowitz | > | Nov 04 07:32 |
| schestowitz | > I said if the FSF did not talk about youtube-dl, I would stop talking | Nov 04 07:32 |
| schestowitz | > about them. At least, I will "remove them from my RSS feed", the FSF | Nov 04 07:32 |
| schestowitz | > does not exist. | Nov 04 07:32 |
| schestowitz | > | Nov 04 07:32 |
| schestowitz | > The GNU front page happens to feature Hyperbola at the moment. That's | Nov 04 07:32 |
| schestowitz | > such a good sign (despite all the bad signs and the fact that they're | Nov 04 07:32 |
| schestowitz | > looking for people to help maintain Microsoft aspell and Bison) that I'm | Nov 04 07:32 |
| schestowitz | > going to keep the GNU website. | Nov 04 07:33 |
| schestowitz | > | Nov 04 07:33 |
| schestowitz | > But the FSF website, bye bye, the FSF is nothing but a TV show at this | Nov 04 07:33 |
| schestowitz | > point. It's the Kardashian Software Foundation, and it's a lot of | Nov 04 07:33 |
| schestowitz | > bullshit. I do not intend to visit the FSF website in the future. | Nov 04 07:33 |
| schestowitz | > *https://www.gnu.org/* <https://www.gnu.org/> | Nov 04 07:34 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes- ( status 404 @ https://www.gnu.org/* ) | Nov 04 07:34 | |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.gnu.org | The GNU Operating System and the Free Software Movement | Nov 04 07:34 | |
| schestowitz | > | Nov 04 07:34 |
| schestowitz | > *Can you help maintain a GNU package | Nov 04 07:34 |
| schestowitz | > <https://www.gnu.org/server/takeaction.html#unmaint>?* | Nov 04 07:34 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.gnu.org | Take Action - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation | Nov 04 07:34 | |
| schestowitz | > | Nov 04 07:34 |
| schestowitz | > * Also, *these packages are looking for co-maintainers*: *** aspell | Nov 04 07:34 |
| schestowitz | > <https://www.gnu.org/software/aspell/>, ***bison | Nov 04 07:34 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.gnu.org | GNU Aspell | Nov 04 07:34 | |
| schestowitz | > <https://www.gnu.org/software/bison/>, gnuae | Nov 04 07:34 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.gnu.org | Bison - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation | Nov 04 07:34 | |
| schestowitz | > <https://www.gnu.org/software/gnuae/>, gnubik | Nov 04 07:34 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.gnu.org | GnuAE - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation (FSF) | Nov 04 07:34 | |
| schestowitz | > <https://www.gnu.org/software/gnubik/>, metaexchange | Nov 04 07:34 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.gnu.org | Gnubik - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation | Nov 04 07:34 | |
| schestowitz | > <https://www.gnu.org/software/metaexchange/>, powerguru | Nov 04 07:34 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.gnu.org | The GNU Metadata Exchange Utilities Website | Nov 04 07:34 | |
| schestowitz | > <https://www.gnu.org/software/powerguru/>, xboard | Nov 04 07:34 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.gnu.org | PowerGuru - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation (FSF) | Nov 04 07:34 | |
| schestowitz | > <https://www.gnu.org/software/xboard/>. | Nov 04 07:34 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.gnu.org | XBoard - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation | Nov 04 07:34 | |
| schestowitz | > | Nov 04 07:34 |
| schestowitz | > | Nov 04 07:34 |
| schestowitz | > ** Maintained on**_Microsoft Github_* | Nov 04 07:34 |
| schestowitz | The GNU project needs YOUR HELP contributing to Microsoft | Nov 04 07:34 |
| schestowitz | > From the Fake Software, Muzzle Stallman homepage: | Nov 04 07:35 |
| schestowitz | > | Nov 04 07:35 |
| schestowitz | > "This community that we have, that we're building, that does so | Nov 04 07:35 |
| schestowitz | > much, has to grow. *We can't compete with Apple, we can't compete | Nov 04 07:35 |
| schestowitz | > with Google, directly, in the field of resources.* What we can | Nov 04 07:35 |
| schestowitz | > eventually do is head count and heart count.*We can compete on the | Nov 04 07:35 |
| schestowitz | > ground of ideology because ours is better."* | Nov 04 07:35 |
| schestowitz | > | Nov 04 07:35 |
| schestowitz | > -- Edward Snowden | Nov 04 07:35 |
| schestowitz | > <https://media.libreplanet.org/u/libreplanet/m/libreplanet-2016-the-last-lighthouse-3d51/>, | Nov 04 07:35 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-media.libreplanet.org | Libreplanet 2016: The Last Lighthouse — GNU MediaGoblin | Nov 04 07:35 | |
| schestowitz | > NSA whisteblower, speaking at LibrePlanet 2016. | Nov 04 07:35 |
| schestowitz | > | Nov 04 07:35 |
| schestowitz | > | Nov 04 07:35 |
| schestowitz | > The /fuck you say/, Ed! You have no idea how wrong you were! | Nov 04 07:35 |
| *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds) | Nov 04 08:14 | |
| *rianne__ has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds) | Nov 04 08:15 | |
| *rianne__ (~rianne@host81-154-169-118.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes | Nov 04 08:19 | |
| *liberty_box (~liberty@host81-154-169-118.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes | Nov 04 08:20 | |
| *GNUmoon has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds) | Nov 04 20:59 | |
| *GNUmoon (~GNUmoon@gateway/tor-sasl/gnumoon) has joined #techbytes | Nov 04 22:05 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.6 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!