Join us now at the IRC channel.
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/0xFreak71/status/1324443869380026371 | Nov 06 01:06 |
|---|---|---|
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@0xFreak71: @schestowitz Remove RedHat's code (systemd, polkit, consolekit) :P | Nov 06 01:06 | |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/realmrtj/status/1324441132382724104 | Nov 06 01:06 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@realmrtj: @schestowitz @LlnuxBot Debian itself is fast enough especially when you are using minimal release and after that in… https://t.co/Io8EQGn900 | Nov 06 01:06 | |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@realmrtj: @schestowitz @LlnuxBot Debian itself is fast enough especially when you are using minimal release and after that in… https://t.co/Io8EQGn900 | Nov 06 01:06 | |
| schestowitz | " | Nov 06 01:06 |
| schestowitz | Debian itself is fast enough especially when you are using minimal release and after that install your ideal DM, | Nov 06 01:06 |
| schestowitz | But generally was cool. | Nov 06 01:06 |
| schestowitz | Rose | Nov 06 01:06 |
| schestowitz | " | Nov 06 01:06 |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/iridesce57/status/1324425816206413824 | Nov 06 01:06 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@iridesce57: @schestowitz Happy Birthday and thanks !!! | Nov 06 01:06 | |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/agargmd/status/1324341629763768320 | Nov 06 01:06 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@agargmd: 🤦🏻♂️ https://t.co/kNqpMGbsSf | Nov 06 01:06 | |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@schestowitz: ● NEWS ● #CNBC #Politics ☞ #Trump campaign says it is suing to stop #Michigan and #Pennsylvania ballot counts https://t.co/KzQitF2IsU | Nov 06 01:06 | |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/thedigicat/status/1324304817578233857 | Nov 06 01:07 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@thedigicat: @schestowitz Thank you for retweeting it! I felt the need to collect some information that are clearly out there, b… https://t.co/UUEywEb0CM | Nov 06 01:07 | |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@thedigicat: @schestowitz Thank you for retweeting it! I felt the need to collect some information that are clearly out there, b… https://t.co/UUEywEb0CM | Nov 06 01:07 | |
| schestowitz | "Thank you for retweeting it! I felt the need to collect some information that are clearly out there, but so scattered that it took me 4 days to get my bearings =)" | Nov 06 01:07 |
| *rianne__ has quit (Remote host closed the connection) | Nov 06 01:57 | |
| *rianne__ (~rianne@host81-154-169-118.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes | Nov 06 01:58 | |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/Emilinehope/status/1323922130380201986 | Nov 06 02:31 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@Emilinehope: @schestowitz https://t.co/qjVTZoODLw | Nov 06 02:31 | |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@Emilinehope: @schestowitz https://t.co/qjVTZoODLw | Nov 06 02:31 | |
| schestowitz | > Hi Roy, | Nov 06 02:31 |
| schestowitz | > | Nov 06 02:31 |
| schestowitz | > Did you notice any further interest in the Outreachies? | Nov 06 02:31 |
| schestowitz | > | Nov 06 02:31 |
| schestowitz | > Have you seen anybody try to identify woman #2? | Nov 06 02:31 |
| schestowitz | > | Nov 06 02:31 |
| schestowitz | > The woman is young and she comes from a developing country so the $5500 | Nov 06 02:31 |
| schestowitz | > is a huge amount of money for her. I suspect any woman from a | Nov 06 02:31 |
| schestowitz | > developing country would be influenced by that sum so the story is not | Nov 06 02:31 |
| schestowitz | > about her personally, it is about the people giving her the money and | Nov 06 02:31 |
| schestowitz | > why did they do so. I think they like having that power over people. | Nov 06 02:31 |
| schestowitz | Many people mentioned your story (IRC, Twitter etc), but I know nothing about who it is about. | Nov 06 02:31 |
| *rianne__ has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds) | Nov 06 02:34 | |
| *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds) | Nov 06 02:34 | |
| *rianne__ (~rianne@host81-154-169-118.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes | Nov 06 03:37 | |
| *liberty_box (~liberty@host81-154-169-118.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes | Nov 06 03:37 | |
| *oiaohm has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer) | Nov 06 04:52 | |
| *oiaohm (~oiaohm@unaffiliated/oiaohm) has joined #techbytes | Nov 06 04:52 | |
| *GNUmoon has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds) | Nov 06 05:39 | |
| *GNUmoon (~GNUmoon@gateway/tor-sasl/gnumoon) has joined #techbytes | Nov 06 06:19 | |
| *Akee (~Akee@217.ip-137-74-196.eu) has joined #techbytes | Nov 06 09:46 | |
| schestowitz | http://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2020/11/03/a-few-thoughts-on-trust-and-judicial-independence/#comments | Nov 06 12:51 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-patentblog.kluweriplaw.com | A few thoughts on trust and judicial independence - Kluwer Patent Blog | Nov 06 12:51 | |
| schestowitz | " | Nov 06 12:51 |
| schestowitz | Thank you, Thorsten. You quote Snyder: Without trust, we can’t have the Rule of Law. For we patent attorneys, the Rule of Law is precious, and we should fight for it. So how do we preserve trust? | Nov 06 12:51 |
| schestowitz | For we patent attorneys, trust in “science” is fundamental to our profession. From time to time, corporate interests try to erode trust in science. In our age of human-induced climate change, this is itself a disaster which has to be resisted. One way to resist is to flag up the work of Harvard Professor Naomi Oreskes (link below) and her current book “Why Trust Science”, to anybody willing to listen. Impressive, in the book, is | Nov 06 12:51 |
| schestowitz | how she solicits views from other academics and then replies to them. Judge for yourself how convincingly she sees off her academic rivals. | Nov 06 12:51 |
| schestowitz | Perhaps the name Oreskes seems familiar? That would be because of her earlier book from 10 years ago “Merchants of Doubt” about how self-professed “scientists” promulgated corporate views, that there is no connection between smoking and cancer. | Nov 06 12:51 |
| schestowitz | It is fashionable to deplore the USA. But Oreskes is at Harvard. I salute those who support her research there and wonder whether there is anybody outside the USA who is doing as much to nurture the idea that, at least in science and the law, fact should trump fiction, and that being selective with the facts, making economies with the truth (never mind promulgating an “alternative truth” debases us all and so is something deeply to | Nov 06 12:51 |
| schestowitz | be deplored. | Nov 06 12:51 |
| schestowitz | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naomi_Oreskes | Nov 06 12:51 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-en.wikipedia.org | Naomi Oreskes - Wikipedia | Nov 06 12:51 | |
| schestowitz | REPLY | Nov 06 12:51 |
| schestowitz | Patent robot | Nov 06 12:51 |
| schestowitz | NOVEMBER 4, 2020 AT 12:02 PM | Nov 06 12:51 |
| schestowitz | G 2301/16, G 2302/15 and G 2301/15 are a coincidence. | Nov 06 12:51 |
| schestowitz | G 3/19 is a clue. | Nov 06 12:51 |
| schestowitz | Will G 4/19 be a proof? | Nov 06 12:51 |
| schestowitz | REPLY | Nov 06 12:51 |
| schestowitz | Concerned observer | Nov 06 12:51 |
| schestowitz | NOVEMBER 4, 2020 AT 5:56 PM | Nov 06 12:51 |
| schestowitz | Thorsten – thank you for drawing attention to this issue. | Nov 06 12:51 |
| schestowitz | Ever since digesting the reasoning of the opinion in G 3/19, my thought has been: how will the EPO’s Administrative Council utilise the power handed to them to essentially force a “dynamic” reinterpretation of pretty much ANY Article of the EPC? | Nov 06 12:51 |
| schestowitz | G 3/19 makes it clear that the restrictions imposed upon the AC’s legislative powers under Article 33(1)(b) EPC do NOT constrain the AC’s powers to interpret a provision of the EPC. This leaves two important questions unanswered. | Nov 06 12:51 |
| schestowitz | Firstly, what are the precise conditions that need to be satisfied in order for a new Implementing Regulation to demonstrate a “new legislative intent” that is capable of overriding even a ruling of the Enlarged Board? The opinion in G 3/19 is very woolly on this point, and so I fear that the bar for the AC could well be quite low. | Nov 06 12:51 |
| schestowitz | Secondly, which Articles of the EPC might the AC decide to “interpret” by way of new Implementing Regulations? Clearly, the provisions governing exclusions from patentability are on the table. But what about other patentability provisions? Or the right to be heard under Article 113 EPC? | Nov 06 12:51 |
| schestowitz | I hope that I am wrong to worry, but G 3/19 certainly lays the groundwork for all of this to happen. | Nov 06 12:51 |
| schestowitz | REPLY | Nov 06 12:51 |
| schestowitz | Attentive Observer | Nov 06 12:51 |
| schestowitz | NOVEMBER 5, 2020 AT 4:09 PM | Nov 06 12:51 |
| schestowitz | Thanks to Thorsten and Max Drei for two excellent contributions. | Nov 06 12:51 |
| schestowitz | When reading the contributions, it reminded me of a joke from a representative I meet at a CEIPI conference a long time ago. What is the difference between a scientist and a lawyer? For a scientist the current flows or it does not flow. For a lawyer the current might flow or might not flow depending on the outcome you wish. | Nov 06 12:51 |
| schestowitz | That this is perfectly acceptable for a lawyer representing a party, it has deleterious effects when such a stance is adopted by a judge or even a panel of judges. That is exactly what happened in G 3/19! | Nov 06 12:51 |
| schestowitz | That scientists can also fake results is an acquired fact. Just think of Lomonossov under Stalin. How many people died as consequence of a “scientific” study which was anything but faked to please the dictator in place? | Nov 06 12:51 |
| schestowitz | If judges are selected in view of their support for some specific views on some societal topic, it is a denial of the independence of the judiciary. It might even pay out in the non-distant future in the US, but it is a clear attack under what is called democracy and separation of powers. | Nov 06 12:51 |
| schestowitz | The decision G 3/19 is, to put it mildly, a disgrace. When you see how the rapporteur twists and turns to arrive at the decision wished by the AC and the President of the EPO you can but be disgusted. The idea of the “dynamic interpretation” is really flabbergasting. | Nov 06 12:52 |
| schestowitz | The EBA had in the past a different attitude when it simply did not want to rubber stamp the President’s decision about the effective dismissal of a member of the boards having allegedly misbehaved and who was fired under disregard of the separation of powers. | Nov 06 12:52 |
| schestowitz | If the EBA would have had the guts of his predecessor he should simply have declared the referral as not admissible. This was what the vast majority of people involved in EPO matters expected. | Nov 06 12:52 |
| schestowitz | The cynical comment about “increasing the perception of independence of the boards” should have brought about an outcry in the profession. What did one hear from epi: an astounding silence! | Nov 06 12:52 |
| schestowitz | It is abundantly clear that the boards of appeal at the EPO are by no means independent. The Chairman of the BA can only exercise the powers transferred to him by the president of the EPO. On top of this he might propose a budget, but that budget will be presented to the AC within the overall budget of the EPO, and only the president has the power to present a budget to the AC. Art 12a refers directly to Art 10(2) and Art 46, so there | Nov 06 12:52 |
| schestowitz | is not even the perception of true independence. Under independence I understand something different. | Nov 06 12:52 |
| schestowitz | The idea of reappointment, but only if the member has shown a required performance, is just the cherry on the cake. And the criteria for reappointment are not even public! R 12d should be scrapped at once. | Nov 06 12:52 |
| schestowitz | One does not have been studying at university to realise that the Board are under direct influence of the executive. The situation will not be different at the UPC. And this is not good as exemplified by G 3/19. | Nov 06 12:52 |
| schestowitz | The only way to force the EPO to provide the boards of appeal the necessary independence can only come from outside. For instance from the German Federal Constitutional Court before which there are no less than four complaints about the lack of independence of the boards of appeal of the EPO. | Nov 06 12:52 |
| schestowitz | Should something like the UP and the UPC come to light, another push could come from Luxembourg. After all, an opposition before the EPO against a UP is an action touching an asset valid in the EU, and it would be surprising that the CJEU would not have an opinion on the matter. | Nov 06 12:52 |
| schestowitz | Hope dies last, but all the problems touched upon in the blog should be tackled in a pro-active way. And it does not seem to go that way. Ever heard of Art 4a EPC? | Nov 06 12:52 |
| schestowitz | " | Nov 06 12:52 |
| *GNUmoon has quit (Remote host closed the connection) | Nov 06 16:22 | |
| *GNUmoon (~GNUmoon@gateway/tor-sasl/gnumoon) has joined #techbytes | Nov 06 16:23 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.6 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!