●● IRC: #techbytes @ FreeNode: Monday, February 08, 2021 ●● ● Feb 08 [01:07] *GNUmoon has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds) [01:38] *rianne__ has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds) [01:38] *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds) [01:41] *rianne__ (~rianne@host81-154-168-60.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes [01:42] *liberty_box (~liberty@host81-154-168-60.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes ● Feb 08 [03:57] *rianne__ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds) [03:57] *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds) ● Feb 08 [04:05] *rianne__ (~rianne@host81-154-168-60.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes [04:07] *liberty_box (~liberty@host81-154-168-60.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes ● Feb 08 [05:15] *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds) [05:15] *rianne__ has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds) [05:17] *rianne__ (~rianne@host81-154-168-60.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes [05:17] *liberty_box (~liberty@host81-154-168-60.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes ● Feb 08 [06:01] schestowitz http://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2021/02/02/top-5-changes-to-the-2021-epo-guidelines-for-examination/ [06:01] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-patentblog.kluweriplaw.com | Top 5 changes to the 2021 EPO Guidelines for Examination - Kluwer Patent Blog [06:01] schestowitz " [06:01] schestowitz So it seems that the EPO has decided that it can now refuse to grant an application unless and until any subject matter retained in the description is clearly indicated as being either within or without the scope of the claims. [06:01] schestowitz Why is it not enough for the applicant to clearly indicate that the invention relates solely to the subject matter defined by the claims? Why effectively force the applicant to make a binding and irrevocable decision on the extent of protection of the claims? If certain subject matter is stated as not representing the invention, would that not tie the hands of the national courts when interpreting the claims (ie effectively prevent them [06:01] schestowitz from affording the claims a broader interpretation that they might otherwise feel is justified)? [06:01] schestowitz And what about the protection afforded to equivalents? Can application of the Protocol to Article 69 EPC afford protection for embodiments that have either been deleted or marked as not forming part of the invention? Is the EPO even competent to decide upon which embodiments can be retained on the grounds of being equivalent to subject matter falling within the literal scope of the claims? [06:01] schestowitz Questions such as those above are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to potentially serious, permanent and unjustified harm to patentees that could be caused by the EPOs new approach to bringing the description into line with the claims. By way of contrast, the harm that could be caused by sticking to the previous, more liberal approach seems very tame indeed namely the need for third parties to seek professional [06:01] schestowitz advice before they can be certain that their proposed activities do not fall within the scope of the claims of a patent. [06:01] schestowitz Whilst the new approach no doubt reflects the decision in T 1808/06, why act now when that decision was issued more than a decade ago (and has been cited in only four subsequent decisions)? All of this strongly suggests that the EPO has not thought through the potential implications of their change of approach and has certainly not assessed whether that change is justified based upon a balance of relative benefits and harms. [06:01] schestowitz MaxDrei [06:01] schestowitz February 2, 2021 at 7:29 pm [06:01] schestowitz These days, I have the feeling that, inside the EPO, management doesnt give a toss about the law or the extent of protection given to the customers. All that interests them is efficiency, driving down cost and driving up profit. The writer of this useful blog post surmises that EPO management saw the high rate of rejection of Examiners scribbled amendments in the Druckexemplar as a drag on efficiency and profit, so resolved [06:01] schestowitz to do something about it. [06:01] schestowitz What should be our response? Perhaps invite our corporate clients all round the world to complain direct to the EPO about the absurd lengths that EPO managers are driven to go to, to conform the description to the claims to the satisfaction of management. Just like with Article 123(2) the situation is getting out of hand, and all because Examiner careers depend on pleasing EPO management, which finds it easier to monitor Examiner [06:01] schestowitz quality under Art 123(2) and 84 than 54 or 56, EPC. [06:01] schestowitz Anon Y. Mouse [06:01] schestowitz February 2, 2021 at 9:02 pm [06:02] schestowitz The change to practice with regard to description amendments feels to me like a solution in search of a problem. What on earth could be the justification for this? [06:02] schestowitz While it is well known that the EPO does not concern itself with matters of infringement, the management must surely be aware that claim interpretation is absolutely critical and that national courts may take different approaches. An embodiment falling outside the claims may not seem to the Examiner to be useful for highlighting specific aspects of the amended subject-matter, or for better understanding the invention, but it may [06:02] schestowitz turn out to be critical at some later stage in national litigation in the face of prior art which was unknown to the Patentee or the EPO at the time of grant. Indeed, this could potentially become problematic during EPO Opposition and Appeal proceedings too. [06:02] schestowitz This change has either not been thought through, or has been taken with a profound lack of care or interest in what happens outside the EPO, not to mention what might happen even within the EPO during Opposition and Appeal proceedings. [06:02] schestowitz Max Masni [06:02] schestowitz February 2, 2021 at 10:24 pm [06:02] schestowitz All that interests them is efficiency, driving down cost and driving up profit. [06:02] schestowitz EPO is driven by profit and self-financed, like the future UPC court. [06:02] schestowitz Thats why the EPO has a notation system, to push examiners to grant and get money out of renewal fees. [06:02] schestowitz Its a fraudulent institution. [06:02] schestowitz One of those... [06:02] schestowitz February 4, 2021 at 1:45 pm [06:02] schestowitz Yet, the renewal fees the EPO gets has been reducing. [06:02] schestowitz Due to the earlier grants, the member states now get a large share of the renewal fees. [06:02] schestowitz Less internal (pre-grant) renewal fees, slightly offset by a small increase in the external (post-grant) renewal fees. [06:02] schestowitz One of the reasons why the EPO management is ignoring any arguments against their reforms regarding employee remuneration, work pressure, increase in efficiency, [06:02] schestowitz (The EPO foresees a much larger drop in renewal fees income the next years.) [06:02] schestowitz On top, management has to increase member states incomes, or loose their own generous bonuses. [06:02] schestowitz And guess who decides on their bonuses? The member states. [06:02] schestowitz The renewal fees for pending applications going solely to the EPO was also seen as reducing any incentive to grant early, as it would reduce the EPOs share of the renewal fees. [06:02] schestowitz The pendency had to be reduced though, as that caused different issues again. [06:02] schestowitz There is no fair system, apparently. [06:02] schestowitz Attentive Observer [06:02] schestowitz February 2, 2021 at 11:21 pm [06:02] schestowitz The writers of the blog have to be thanked for their work! However, the proposed amendments to the Guidelines discussed in the blog lead to some comments. [06:02] schestowitz Whilst I fully understand the preceding comments, I would like to give a more differentiated view on the required amendments to the description. I am however not sure that the present management of the EPO, in its quest for efficiency and production figures, realised what those amendments of the Guidelines mean. [06:02] schestowitz Updated F-IV, 4.3(iii) will have the effect to make it more difficult for applicants/proprietors to refuse amending their description in order for later claiming much more than they have contributed to the art at the time of filing. [06:02] schestowitz Nothing against infringement by equivalents, but the original description needs to be in line with the requirements of the EPC. To take the example of pemetrexed there were no embodiments which had either to be deleted or marked as not forming part of the invention, as there was only a single one relating to pemetrexed disodium. It is the barely adapted description which allowed the proprietor of the pemetrexed patent to later [06:02] schestowitz claim things he had not realised on the day of filing. It is good that the screws are tightened in this respect. [06:02] schestowitz T 1806/06 might be an older decision, but it is in my eyes a good decision. It is also not an isolated decision as there are more recent ones requiring a correct amendment of the description: [06:02] schestowitz T 1883/11 See Point 5), [06:02] schestowitz T 1177/11 (see last of Point 4.3, the claims were clear but the description needs to be adapted), [06:02] schestowitz T 305/14, although the ED committed a SPV, the BA acknowledged that where an objection concerning an inconsistency between the claims on the one hand, and the description or the drawings on the other hand, has been raised in a communication from the EPO, failure to overcome that objection is as much a valid ground for a subsequent refusal as failure to comply with any other requirement of the EPC. [06:02] schestowitz T 1694/12 made clear that the claims have to be supported by the description; here the claims were broader than allowed by the description. The same applies in T 200/09. [06:02] schestowitz It is true that there is a relatively small proportion of European patents that end up in infringement proceedings but this is not a reason not to abide by the valid regulations at grant. One never knows in advance which patent will be opposed at the EPO or litigated later at national level. [06:02] schestowitz From all the cars leaving a manufacturer how many will end up in an accident? Probably very few, but this is not a reason not to abide there as well by the valid regulations. [06:02] schestowitz When the pemetrexed decision of the UKSC came out, the screams of horror from the profession about the near impossibility to make a FTO evaluation were hard to overhear. The need for third parties to seek professional advice before they can be certain that their proposed activities do not fall within the scope of the claims of a patent was always present, but was rendered much more complicated by this decision. [06:02] schestowitz The proportion of rejected texts intended for grant does not come as surprise. It has always been the lever used by ED to twist the arm of applicants so that a file could be closed by issuing the AGRA and the requested production marks achieved. I fear that summoning to OP, even in form of ViCos, will not really change the situation. Pressure will just be transferred to another place. [06:02] schestowitz In view of the RPBA 2020, not filing an AR, which on top has to be admitted in the procedure under R 137(3) and allowing a grant, might end up with a refusal in the absence of an agreed text and in appeal to the irrevocable death of the application. [06:02] schestowitz It is nothing new that every feature in an independent claim cannot be left as merely optional in the description. Such a claim would offend Art 84 and is not allowable. It is good that this point has been clarified. It is too easy to later claim that this feature might be in the claim but not essential and hence allow a much broader interpretation of the claim. See above. [06:03] schestowitz It should also not come as a surprise that The technical field and the summary of invention must correspond to the amended set of claims. Description and claims have to be coherent. [06:03] schestowitz Methods of using a medical device are more than often a disguised way to claim a medical method. It is absolutely correct to ensure that none of those claims are left at grant or after opposition. But this is nothing new either! [06:03] schestowitz Claim-like clauses have always been a nuisance and it is good that it now perfectly clear that ought to be deleted. It was again, an attempt to give some different interpretation to granted claims as very often the clauses were not amended, even if the claims were. [06:03] schestowitz The amendment in F-IV, 3.9.2 Cases where method steps define additional devices and/or specific data processing means deserves more than an honourable mention. The amendment specifies that These method steps may not always be fully performed by the computer and the method claim may recite specific technical means for carrying out some of the steps. [06:03] schestowitz In such a case, defining a computer program claim as in F-IV, 3.9.1(iii), will normally lead to an objection under Art. 84 if the step carried out by the specific technical means cannot be carried out by a generic data processing means. The examples given when a general purpose computer can be used or not are very clear (method of determining oxygen saturation in blood). [06:03] schestowitz Such claims are quite common, and have a problem. Such a program cannot be carried out on a general-purpose computer which is not connected with the controlling means necessary to carry out the method, for instance actuators and position detectors. [06:03] schestowitz Another example, based on EQE paper C 2004 could be as follows. [06:03] schestowitz 1. A method for the layerwise construction of an object (4), comprising: [06:03] schestowitz (a) selecting and irradiating portions of a solidifiable liquid (2) to form a solidified layer (4a), [06:03] schestowitz (b) moving the solidified layer (4a) to enable liquid (2) to fill the space left by the movement of the solidified layer (4a) and [06:03] schestowitz (c) repeating steps a) and b) to form further solidified layers (4b, 4c, 4d ) until the object (4) is complete. [06:03] schestowitz 2. The method of claim 1.. [06:03] schestowitz 3. The method of claim 2 wherein. [06:03] schestowitz 4. A computer program directly loadable into the memory of a computer for controlling the steps of claim 1 when said program is run on a computer. [06:03] schestowitz Just try to stick the program in your laptop and look whether you can carry out the method of claim1 and obtain an object constructed layerwise. Good luck! In that case I would even claim that the provisions of Art 83 are not fulfilled. [06:03] schestowitz As digitalisation makes inroads in lots of technical domains and contributory infringement is not something to be belittled, but we should be aware of the corresponding difficulties when merely claiming computer programs or carrier for a program. [06:03] schestowitz It is difficult to understand why it is necessary to complain that patents to be granted should abide by the valid regulations, even when it comes to the adaptation of the description. i [06:03] schestowitz Concerned observer [06:03] schestowitz February 3, 2021 at 12:09 pm [06:03] schestowitz Attentive, [06:03] schestowitz Well, it seems that you and I are just going to have to agree to differ on this point. [06:03] schestowitz I can understand the appeal of (potentially) increased certainty that may flow from the applicant explicitly identifying the embodiments of the description that are within the scope of the subject matter claimed (the invention), and those that are without that scope. However, it is important to remember that it will likely be impossible for any applicant to be 100% confident that all of their in and out allocations [06:03] schestowitz are correct. This is because it is almost always the case that the wording of the claims will be open to various different interpretations. It is also possible that the claim language deemed allowable by the EPO includes wording that is completely unclear, even (or especially) to subject matter experts. [06:03] schestowitz In my personal experience, there is also another issue that routinely crops up in connection with the exercise of adapting the description to the claims as allowed. That is: what to do with those passages that encompass both claimed and non-claimed embodiments? Especially where such passages use generic language that does not precisely map on to the wording used in the claims, it is not always easy (or even possible) to make [06:03] schestowitz amendments that identify those embodiments that fall within the claims and those that do not. Further, where amendments are possible, they often risk adding subject matter. [06:03] schestowitz So why force applicants to choose between deleting (partially) supportive subject matter and making amendments that could generate grounds for revocation (including, potentially, an inescapable 123(2) / 123(3) trap)? More to the point, why be so strict on support under Article 84 when it is almost certain that there will be doubts regarding the interpretation of the claims? [06:03] schestowitz Personally, I would be a lot happier if the EPO instead shifted its focus to the clarity aspect of Article 84 EPC even if that would result in fewer oppositions. [06:03] schestowitz Patent robot [06:03] schestowitz February 3, 2021 at 10:23 am [06:03] schestowitz The EPO and also some commenters of this blog suffer from the excessive prohibition virus (quite contagious nowadays). The EPO (executive power) cannot interpret the EPC to create new prohibitions which are not there. [06:03] schestowitz Does the EPC prohibit from leaving unclaimed matter in the description? Is this prohibition present also in other patent laws? [06:03] schestowitz MaxDrei [06:03] schestowitz February 3, 2021 at 12:44 pm [06:03] schestowitz Thanks, Attentive. I am one of those representatives who takes care to satisfy Art 84 EPC by myself conforming the description to the claims. I really dont like it when Examiners, thinking they are making further amendments necessary to meet the objective of clarity, make further and different amendments to the description, in the worst cases replacing my amendments with their own, which detract from clarity rather than [06:03] schestowitz enhancing it. When clients and Applicants see a Druckexemplar in which my carefully composed amendments are excised and replaced, they suppose I am incompetent, or ignorant of the law or the practice at the EPO, and that their payments to me for my time were a waste of money. I want to get to grant with a description and claims that I have written, in my own first language, not some EPO Examiner using English as a foreign language. Do [06:03] schestowitz you see why I find this behaviour by Examiners insulting, why it makes me so angry. [06:03] schestowitz Rightly or wrongly, i think they do this to signal to the in-house Quality Police how assiduous they are, how painstaking they are about compliance with Art 84, EPC. [06:03] schestowitz I accept the general objective, under Art 84, EPC, of conformity between what the claims define as the invention and what the description announces as the invention. But, quite frankly, some EPO Examiners are taking this to absurd lengths. Why is this, if it is not to please management? [06:03] schestowitz Patent robot [06:03] schestowitz February 3, 2021 at 1:46 pm [06:04] schestowitz I wrongly thought that under Art. 84 EPC the claims had to be supported by the description. [06:04] schestowitz Since when the description shall be supported by the claims? [06:04] schestowitz francis hagel [06:04] schestowitz February 3, 2021 at 2:49 pm [06:04] schestowitz Insightful comments have been provided esp. by Max Drei, Attentive Observer and Concerned Observer. I agree with Concerned Observer that the requirement to amend the description in line with the claims as accepte creates issues of its own making. Best can be the enemy of good when it involves additional complexity, time delays and legal expenses for no clear benefits . [06:04] schestowitz When several embodiments are disclosed as optional in the original application and then some are deleted to satisfy the requirement, this involves some change in substance and a potential 123(2) issue since the preference for the embodiment covered by the claim was missing in the original application. In addition i do not see a clear basis in the EPC for compelling the applicant to delete embodiments which are not covered by the [06:04] schestowitz accepted claims. [06:04] schestowitz I also see minor benefit in the addition in the application of a mention and discussion of the closest prior art, when the entire examination file is easily and freely accessible to the public and is way more informative than the addition in the description. [06:04] schestowitz I am frequently critical of some aspects of US rules and practices, but regarding amendments of the description, i prefer the US approach because of its simplicity. [06:04] schestowitz MaxDrei [06:04] schestowitz February 3, 2021 at 3:24 pm [06:04] schestowitz The Wolff reforms of civil litigation procedure (CPR) have something in common with the Grundgesetz in Germany. Both begin with an article that sets the tone. In the GG it is that the dignity of the human is inviolable. In the CGR it is that the over-riding priority is to do justice between the parties. My request to the EPO management is to administer Art 84, Art 123(2) and Art 54 EPC (the notorious Bermuda Triangle of [06:04] schestowitz patentability provisions) thoughtfully and realistically, in order to comply with what I always see as an over-riding priority, namely the balance of interests set out in the Protocol to Art 69, EPC. [06:04] schestowitz In other words, in the real world, other than in an Ivory Tower, Applicants should be allowed to achieve protection for their contribution to the art, in proportion to the magnitude of that contribution, even while the public enjoys a reasonable level of legal certainty. A balance is required, like everything in life that is sophisticated, and therefore complicated and a matter of judgement. [06:04] schestowitz Whenever Examiners (and management) get over- protective, even obsessive, about legal certainty, Applicants get deprived of fair protection because more and more of their otherwise deserving applications fall into that fearsome Bermuda Triangle. Unlike the hypothetical skilled person, real Applicants cannot know all the prior art and so amendment during prosecution is the real world reality. EPO finger-wagging lectures to Applicants [06:04] schestowitz that they have only themselves to blame because they dont draft carefully enough are insulting to real world Applicants. [06:04] schestowitz Obsessive focus on perceived failure to achieve 100% clarity cant be right. Fact: no specification or claim can ever be so clear that a clever lawyer can find nothing wrong with it. With this fact in mind, the writers of the EPC knew full well what they were doing, excluding Art 84 from the grounds of opposition. Judges, it turns out, are well able to construe patents that exhibit less than 100% clarity. Ask them. In practice they [06:04] schestowitz never have any alternative despite the best efforts of over-zealous EPO Examiners. [06:04] schestowitz But that post-issue exclusion is no excuse, no reason, to insist, prior to grant, on impossibly high levels of clarity. To do so will result in international outrage, and condemnation of the level of service delivered by the EPO. [06:04] schestowitz [06:04] schestowitz February 3, 2021 at 4:29 pm [06:04] schestowitz Even tough I fully agree with your criticism of the new Guidelines, your explicit attack on over-zealous examiners is misplaced. The examiners at the EPO have lost all autonomy and execute the very strict orders they are provided with in a myriad of instructions, notices, guidelines, etc. Some examiners may push back, at their own expense. Others just follow the instructions. And certainly, none of them act on their own initiative. [06:04] schestowitz In the current conditions, that would be suicidal. [06:04] schestowitz MaxDrei [06:04] schestowitz February 3, 2021 at 5:01 pm [06:04] schestowitz The irony lies in managements idea that quality means consistency means mindless adherence to management directives. Just to be clear, in the field of patent quality dumbing down the Examiners till they are little more than automatons is NOT the way to raise levels of quality. [06:04] schestowitz Disillusioned Examiner [06:04] schestowitz February 4, 2021 at 4:25 pm [06:04] schestowitz What!!??! [06:04] schestowitz Quality is easily measured! [06:04] schestowitz Has the application been granted or refused within the time limit set by the Paris Criteria? [06:04] schestowitz And treating our stocks within arbitrarily set internal time limits. [06:04] schestowitz That is what we get measured for, it currently seems to be the major influence to our quality assessment (besides the numbers, high production numbers=high quality confirmed by ATILO). [06:04] schestowitz The internal Quality Checks only hamper the file going out, but will not be used for reporting. [06:04] schestowitz Continuous problems identified by the Quality Department only means you have to discuss with them, instead of getting your point for the file done, and losing time for the next file. [06:04] schestowitz Hence there are directors who defend their high-producing examiners, up to the point that feedback will not reach the examiner concerned. [06:04] schestowitz (Since this year this will be done differently, Luckily) [06:04] schestowitz Franco-belge [06:04] schestowitz February 4, 2021 at 12:08 am [06:04] schestowitz English is relatively easy: in a nutshell, only men and women have a gender, everything else (except boats) is neutral. And a new trend is to use they even for single persons. [06:05] schestowitz Waiting for the gender-neutral French version. [06:05] schestowitz In French, the plural has the same gender as the singular, and a Division or a Board is female. Some neutralisation is possible, but a zealous approach will just render the text more difficult to read. [06:05] schestowitz Peter Parker [06:05] schestowitz February 4, 2021 at 4:20 pm [06:05] schestowitz Also, according to my understanding, it is also not crystal clear in all EPC member states whether a post-grant amendment may be based on subject matter that was in the original application documents but not also in the granted patent. [06:05] schestowitz So deleting or prominently disclaiming subject matter might also backfire in post-grant validity matters. [06:05] schestowitz Attentive Observer [06:05] schestowitz February 5, 2021 at 7:56 am [06:05] schestowitz I knew very well that I would stir some controversy when I published my comment. [06:05] schestowitz It is nothing new that in lots of cases the adaptation of the description was more or less neglected when it came to either grant or maintain a patent in amended form. Rumours has it that in some directorates it was a non-written rule not to spend time on the adaptation of the description. After all in some national systems adaptation of the description is not required. [06:05] schestowitz At the EPO it is not infrequent to see after some errors the pendulum swaying in the opposite direction. Middle or reasonable way was never something really of importance. The ED apply the instructions, and by insisting on some secondary aspects, it is a good possibility to show that the rules are respected and the production figures are reached. Should the independent claim be new and inventive, and for this it is better not to find [06:05] schestowitz too relevant prior art, then the dependent claims are not only new and inventive, but also clear and not comprising any added-matter.. What is at stake is more to give the impression of a thorough examination than carrying out a proper examination. [06:05] schestowitz I do not put the blame on the examiners but on the management. On the other side, the average number of validations does indeed not allow to see a lot of revenues from annual fees. That is one of the reasons for the management to push UP as for those, the level of annual fees is higher. I rather see all the perks given to AC members, think also of the cooperation budget, allowing the tail to wag the dog. Much less the annual fees as [06:05] schestowitz such. [06:05] schestowitz On the other hand I have witnessed OP following remittal from a Board in which the opponents and the proprietor were arguing and bickering about the amendments to be carried out starting with deletion of some embodiments and continuing with the way the prior art disclosed during the opposition had to be presented. It is clear that what the parties had in mind was litigation at national level since the opponents were not successful in [06:05] schestowitz killing the patent. [06:05] schestowitz In T 1093/17, the opponent appealed the decision of maintaining the patent in amended form as the adaptation of the description was, in his eyes, inducing a problem of sufficiency. The BA held that the amendments to the description according to the main request merely bring the description into line with the allowed claims. The BA considered that the issues at stake raised by the appellant with respect to Article 83 EPC are res [06:05] schestowitz judicata, and this conclusion applied mutatis mutandis to the requirements of Art 84. [06:05] schestowitz In T 2466/ 13 the BA was fully aware that adaptation of the description can have an influence on a possible infringement action. In particular, the opponent/appellant criticised the deletion of expressions indicating the optional nature of characteristics which had been incorporated in the independent claim. The opponent/appellant based its objection under Article 123(2) EPC on the finding that this adaptation of the description would [06:05] schestowitz be liable to give the proprietor an undue advantage in an infringement action, in particular in relation to infringement by equivalence. [06:05] schestowitz The Board accepted that for some jurisdictions changes to the subject matter of the patent application during grant proceedings, or to the patent in opposition or limitation proceedings, may have an effect on the way in which infringement by equivalence will be assessed (similar to file-wrapper estoppel in US law). Nevertheless, this is not likely to render changes to the description such as those proposed by the proprietor contrary to [06:05] schestowitz Art 123(2), by providing an unjustified advantage to the proprietor. [06:05] schestowitz The BA considered that since the original application has been published and a defendant in an infringement action would still have the possibility of asserting amendments made during the course of the proceedings, by submitting both the patent as granted and/or amended and the original application. The amendment to the description proposed by the proprietor therefore does not have the effect of depriving a defendant in an infringement [06:05] schestowitz action of the possibility of establishing, on the basis of the facts of the case, the scope of the amendments made during the grant and/or opposition proceedings. [06:05] schestowitz May be this decision could help to see the whole topic in a less conflictual manner. [06:05] schestowitz Patent robot [06:05] schestowitz February 5, 2021 at 10:01 am [06:05] schestowitz Thank you for the explanation, but still I do not see anything in the EPC prohibiting from leaving unclaimed matter in the description. By the way, this prohibition is not present in any other patent law, AFAIK. [06:05] schestowitz Furthermore, under Art. 84 EPC the claims shall be supported by the description, not the opposite. [06:05] schestowitz Therefore, if I want to leave my grandmas cake receipt at the end of the description of the claimed apparatus, the ED, OD and the BoAs have no right to force me to remove the receipt, do they? [06:05] schestowitz Patent robot [06:05] schestowitz February 5, 2021 at 11:25 am [06:05] schestowitz Actually I found some decisions referring to Rule 48(1)c EPC, however this would prohibit the cake receipt but not subject-matter relating to the claimed invention. [06:05] schestowitz Attentive Observer [06:05] schestowitz February 5, 2021 at 3:12 pm [06:05] schestowitz Dear Patent robot, [06:05] schestowitz You pre-empted my reply! It follows that an ED can require the adaptation of the description as any statement allowing a different interpretation the claims is a statement or other matter obviously irrelevant under the circumstances. [06:05] schestowitz Concerned observer [06:05] schestowitz February 5, 2021 at 7:10 pm [06:05] schestowitz Attentive, [06:06] schestowitz Whilst Rule 48(1)(c) EPC provides basis for deleting certain subject matter, it only relates to any statement or other matter OBVIOUSLY irrelevant or unnecessary under the circumstances. [06:06] schestowitz In my view, it would not be correct to suggest that subject matter in the description will be rendered OBVIOUSLY irrelevant or unnecessary by virtue of amendments during prosecution having the effect of moving that subject matter partially or wholly outside of the scope of the claims. Subject matter that partially overlaps with the claims is clearly relevant. The same is true for subject matter that potentially aids understanding of [06:06] schestowitz (aspects of) the invention. [06:06] schestowitz Whilst it might be possible in some circumstances to identify subject matter that is rendered OBVIOUSLY irrelevant or unnecessary by claim amendments, my experience is that such circumstances do not occur very often. The problem with the EPOs proposed approach to adaptation of the description is that it incorrectly assumes that it will be straightforward to identify subject matter that is relevant (or claimed) and subject matter [06:06] schestowitz that is not. [06:06] schestowitz Given the difficulties involved, it is pretty much inevitable that applicants (and/or the EPO) will get the in / out allocation wrong. The potential consequences of this for patentees are unjustified and extreme, as are the costs associated with trying hard to avoid any incorrect allocations. Applying a balance of convenience approach makes it abundantly clear that permitting applicants to proceed with the previously accepted [06:06] schestowitz approach to adaptation of the description is by far the lesser of two evils. [06:06] schestowitz Patent robot [06:06] schestowitz February 6, 2021 at 12:45 pm [06:06] schestowitz The strange thing is that for around 40 years the EDs did not care about unclaimed subject-matter in the description and usually requested only Rule 42(1)b amendments to grant a patent, while the ODs requested and still requests heavy amendments to the description at the end of OPs, which is weird since a granted European patent should be more untouchable (see e.g. G 1/10) than an application. The representatives should [06:06] schestowitz refuse these requests from the ODs, but at the end of OPs, maybe late in the evening, they tend to obey and take their limited patent home. [06:06] schestowitz And Rule 48 EPC does not even apply to granted patents, so that if my patent contained my grandmas receipt, the ODs should not say anything. [06:06] schestowitz This description amendment virus, which in my opinion is unjust and unjustified since it has no legal support in the EPC at all, now has been trasmitted from the ODs to the EDs, with the consequences we are discussing. Unfortunately, the Guidelines are now more binding than the EPC (see e.g. Art. 4a EPC). [06:06] schestowitz Why do people make life so uselessly complicated? [06:06] schestowitz Attentive Observer [06:06] schestowitz February 6, 2021 at 6:02 pm [06:06] schestowitz @ Patent Robot [06:06] schestowitz It is not correct to claim that for around 40 years the EDs did not care about unclaimed subject-matter in the description. It has always been part of the duties of an ED or an OD. That there is case law on this topic confirms that it has always been an issue. [06:06] schestowitz It is worth remembering that R 86 states: Part III of the Implementing Regulations shall apply mutatis mutandis to documents filed in opposition proceedings. Under Part III you find R 42-44, R 46 and R 48-50. So I fear that your grandmas receipt will have nothing to do in your description be it in the application or in the patent as maintained if it was not the subject-matter of your application/patent. If you add it during [06:06] schestowitz examination/opposition you will get a nice objection under Art 123(2), and in the latter case even one under R 80. [06:06] schestowitz @ Concerned Observer [06:06] schestowitz I fully agree with you that R 48(1) is against prohibited matter, but with my tongue in my cheek I could have a dynamic interpretation of this rule and consider it applicable to the adaptation of the description. [06:06] schestowitz You might have a different experience, but according to mine it is in a vast majority of cases straightforward to identify subject matter that is relevant (or claimed) and subject matter that is not. In some, rather infrequent cases, it is indeed not straightforward to identify subject matter that is relevant (or claimed) and subject matter that is not. But those are an exception and should not be considered that due to [06:06] schestowitz those cases nothing should happen in respect of adaptation of the description. [06:06] schestowitz After all the European legislator has decided, contrary to some other, that a one-to-one relationship should exist between claims and description. And this is due to Art 69 and its Protocol. I understand that when it comes to the interpretation of claims it might be better to keep some blurred areas. And what is owed up in one system can be deleterious in another. That applicants prefer to proceed with the previously accepted [06:06] schestowitz approach to adaptation of the description is understandable but not in the interest of third parties. [06:06] schestowitz A sort of conclusion [06:06] schestowitz The new move appears somehow to be the result of some internal audit, and examiners are more than happy to abide by such a formal rule which had conveniently been forgotten by many. When one looks at such matters, other issues like patentability can be, again conveniently, left aside. [06:06] schestowitz Lets dust settle and the situation will calm down until the next upheaval on a different topic. In any case it is nothing revolutionary, but simply abiding by the rules, provided they are applied sensibly should not be too difficult. [06:06] schestowitz " [06:06] schestowitz https://twitter.com/jamoral/status/1358561000010747906 [06:06] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@jamoral: "The Web is rapidly becoming an aggressive censorship platform. The censors always allege that theyre protecting u https://t.co/aW0AqZNLFs [06:06] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@jamoral: "The Web is rapidly becoming an aggressive censorship platform. The censors always allege that theyre protecting u https://t.co/aW0AqZNLFs [06:06] schestowitz ""The Web is rapidly becoming an aggressive censorship platform. The censors always allege that theyre protecting us and the censors are very rich people or corporations controlled by those very rich people"" [06:06] schestowitz https://twitter.com/wget42/status/1358522055935819776 [06:06] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@wget42: @schestowitz Wow. Thanks for that discovery [06:06] schestowitz https://twitter.com/iridesce57/status/1358504386083893251 [06:06] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@iridesce57: @schestowitz https://t.co/4Q7JBJYj9O [06:06] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes--> www.eff.org | On 6/5, 65 Things We Know About NSA Surveillance That We Didnt Know a Year Ago | Electronic Frontier Foundation [06:06] schestowitz https://twitter.com/MacreEric/status/1358484157286871040 [06:06] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@MacreEric: @PrincessBibiRF_ @DrEricDing @CDCgov @WHO @DrTedros @DrJudyAMikovits @drsanjaygupta @DrSamirSinha @JoeBiden https://t.co/YVJQwzYQQM [06:06] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@MacreEric: @PrincessBibiRF_ @DrEricDing @CDCgov @WHO @DrTedros @DrJudyAMikovits @drsanjaygupta @DrSamirSinha @JoeBiden https://t.co/YVJQwzYQQM [06:06] schestowitz " [06:06] schestowitz That's like saying a lion won't kill you because a mouse is also an animal. [06:06] schestowitz Please STFU until you finish a basic level of education or at least put some basic effort into finding a clue. [06:06] schestowitz " [06:06] schestowitz https://twitter.com/Vanessa60926573/status/1358479793671569409 [06:06] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@Vanessa60926573: #smdfh The Swedish want a piece of Mali's ressources too Africa feeding the West and the https://t.co/0OZUVH2Ekp [06:06] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@Vanessa60926573: #smdfh The Swedish want a piece of Mali's ressources too Africa feeding the West and the https://t.co/0OZUVH2Ekp [06:07] schestowitz " [06:07] schestowitz #smdfh The Swedish want a piece of Mali's ressources [06:07] schestowitz Flag of Mali [06:07] schestowitz Flag of Mali [06:07] schestowitz Flag of Mali [06:07] schestowitz too [06:07] schestowitz Woman facepalming [06:07] schestowitz Woman facepalming [06:07] schestowitz Woman facepalming [06:07] schestowitz Face with rolling eyes [06:07] schestowitz Face with rolling eyes [06:07] schestowitz Face with rolling eyes [06:07] schestowitz Africa feeding the West and the entire fucking World. [06:07] schestowitz " [06:07] schestowitz https://twitter.com/ParadymeUSA/status/1358476758304100358 [06:07] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@ParadymeUSA: @schestowitz Which is why our patent system has now become 'class based' & therefore UNCONSTITUTIONAL. It didn't st https://t.co/famZUj8Fmx [06:07] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@ParadymeUSA: @schestowitz Which is why our patent system has now become 'class based' & therefore UNCONSTITUTIONAL. It didn't st https://t.co/famZUj8Fmx [06:07] schestowitz "Which is why our patent system has now become 'class based' & therefore UNCONSTITUTIONAL. It didn't start out that way. It was MADE that way by special interests like pharmaceuticals & other large monopolistic entities who wanted to eliminate competition as much as possible." [06:07] schestowitz https://twitter.com/PrincessBibiRF_/status/1358475967606509570 [06:07] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@PrincessBibiRF_: @DrEricDing CORONAVIRUS IS A COLD As Defined in AMA Encyclopedia what has changed 4 @CDCgov Dr Fauci @WHO https://t.co/8tlhi5yDIL [06:07] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@PrincessBibiRF_: @DrEricDing CORONAVIRUS IS A COLD As Defined in AMA Encyclopedia what has changed 4 @CDCgov Dr Fauci @WHO https://t.co/8tlhi5yDIL [06:07] schestowitz " [06:07] schestowitz CORONAVIRUS IS A COLD [06:07] schestowitz As [06:07] schestowitz Defined in AMA Encyclopedia what has changed 4 @CDCgov [06:07] schestowitz Dr Fauci @WHO [06:07] schestowitz @DrTedros [06:07] schestowitz @DrJudyAMikovits [06:07] schestowitz @DrEricDing [06:07] schestowitz @drsanjaygupta [06:07] schestowitz @DrSamirSinha [06:07] schestowitz @JoeBiden [06:07] schestowitz @JustinTrudeau [06:07] schestowitz @fordnation [06:07] schestowitz @JohnTory [06:07] schestowitz @YNHallak [06:07] schestowitz @drdavidsamadi [06:07] schestowitz @schestowitz [06:07] schestowitz Treating COLD or COVID-19 WTH? [06:07] schestowitz " [06:07] schestowitz https://twitter.com/ParadymeUSA/status/1358464738875867137 [06:07] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@ParadymeUSA: @schestowitz Yup, just window dressing! The real problem is the astronomical cost & difficulty in obtaining & defen https://t.co/NLxsHt30tA [06:07] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@ParadymeUSA: @schestowitz Yup, just window dressing! The real problem is the astronomical cost & difficulty in obtaining & defen https://t.co/NLxsHt30tA [06:07] schestowitz "Yup, just window dressing! The real problem is the astronomical cost & difficulty in obtaining & defending patents in America today. This is particularly true for women & minorities. In the past even a poor Black, former slave, could get a patent (if merited) & become affluent!" [06:07] schestowitz https://twitter.com/ParadymeUSA/status/1358465743457832963 [06:07] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@ParadymeUSA: @schestowitz The #USPTO now deliberately hinders independent inventors from obtaining good, strong, 'enforceable' p https://t.co/xRdoGHWcgq [06:07] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@ParadymeUSA: @schestowitz The #USPTO now deliberately hinders independent inventors from obtaining good, strong, 'enforceable' p https://t.co/xRdoGHWcgq [06:07] schestowitz "The #USPTO now deliberately hinders independent inventors from obtaining good, strong, 'enforceable' patents. The secret SAWS program was just an example of this. There are also other unwritten & unacknowledged ways that it's being done - including by 'sabotaging' claims." [06:08] schestowitz https://twitter.com/glynmoody/status/1358407503399317505 [06:08] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@glynmoody: google's "new" approach is just a pointless figleaf for the flaws of ad surveillance. it must be binned completely https://t.co/BrQqpiG2HN [06:08] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@glynmoody: google's "new" approach is just a pointless figleaf for the flaws of ad surveillance. it must be binned completely https://t.co/BrQqpiG2HN [06:09] schestowitz https://twitter.com/adymitruk/status/1358303878437949441 [06:09] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@adymitruk: In short, don't run windows on a raspberry pi. https://t.co/F5BpTbo30L [06:09] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@schestowitz: Raspberry Pied in the Face - Part I: What is Known About the Relationship Between #Microsoft and the #RaspberryPi F https://t.co/V8A35BaGwp [06:09] schestowitz https://twitter.com/zoobab/status/1358292770826424321 [06:09] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@zoobab: @schestowitz NNTP? I tought about mirroring Twitter to NNTP. ● Feb 08 [07:04] *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds) [07:04] *rianne__ has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds) [07:09] *rianne__ (~rianne@host81-154-168-60.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes [07:14] *rianne__ has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds) [07:49] *rianne__ (~rianne@host81-154-168-60.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes [07:50] *liberty_box (~liberty@host81-154-168-60.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes [07:56] *rianne__ has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds) [07:57] *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds) ● Feb 08 [08:02] *rianne__ (~rianne@host81-154-168-60.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes [08:02] *liberty_box (~liberty@host81-154-168-60.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes [08:07] *rianne__ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds) [08:07] *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds) [08:51] *liberty_box (~liberty@host81-154-168-60.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes [08:52] Techrights-sec which client is recommended for geminii? [08:52] Techrights-sec I'm not seeing any in any of the repositories. [08:52] Techrights-sec https://gemini.circumlunar.space/clients.html [08:52] Techrights-sec https://git.sr.ht/~sircmpwn/gmni [08:52] Techrights-sec possibly [08:52] Techrights-sec nah [08:52] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-gemini.circumlunar.space | Gemini clients [08:52] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-git.sr.ht | ~sircmpwn/gmni - sourcehut git [08:52] Techrights-sec amfora is a bit better [08:52] Techrights-sec very different key bindings from gopher though [08:52] Techrights-sec I do not like their use of space, it should page rather than freeze to [08:52] Techrights-sec wait for intput [08:52] Techrights-sec The TR gemini page has no hyperlins. [08:52] Techrights-sec hyperlinks [08:52] Techrights-sec av98 not so good either [08:52] Techrights-sec ok [08:52] Techrights-sec it looks like it might be gopher + hyperlinks [08:55] *rianne__ (~rianne@host81-154-168-60.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes [08:55] *Condor has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer) ● Feb 08 [09:08] schestowitz would you be interested in writing the program (perl/bash) that updates the index in /home/gopher/gopher/ and adds/links to objects (which we already have in another homedir)? [09:10] schestowitz I spent an hour last night setting up the whole thing (faster than I thought, including client sidex2, local raspi and main laptop). From what I can tell, dirs go under that above directory and the index file in its root is set to them link to pertinent items; we can rewrite the index files each day [09:10] Techrights-sec I suppose, but which files are the source? [09:10] Techrights-sec It should be somewhat straight forward to split pages up into separate directories [09:10] Techrights-sec so that text and images are available as gopher. [09:11] Techrights-sec Gopher is easy to set up. But what is the data source? The ipfs dir is [09:11] Techrights-sec not an appropirate source [09:11] Techrights-sec It might be better if the conversion were done straight from the HTML. [09:12] schestowitz the directory that contains all the objects can be chmodded accordingly and copied across to /home/gopher [09:12] schestowitz should I grant you access and all? [09:13] Techrights-sec Ok. I can take a look then. [09:13] Techrights-sec make a /home/gopher for the gopher space [09:14] schestowitz oops, I mean to say gemini and say gopher instead [09:26] Techrights-sec disconnected? [09:26] schestowitz I must have lost some lines [09:27] schestowitz after "make a /home/gopher for the gopher space" [09:27] Techrights-sec https://gemini.circumlunar.space/docs/specification.html [09:27] Techrights-sec Looks plain enough. What kind of styles of text do you want decorating [09:27] Techrights-sec H1, H2, H3, H4, etc? [09:27] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-gemini.circumlunar.space | Gemini protocol specification [09:28] schestowitz up to you really, I think the structure can be made simple with substitutions for markup-like style [09:29] schestowitz index.gmi is where the index goes, I have not explored (yet) anything to do with linking syntax [09:30] Techrights-sec what about the source? Should I use the RSS feed to check for new [09:30] Techrights-sec articles and then fetch them over HTTP? [09:30] schestowitz That is possible too, but you might need to do some processing on the results, maybe some tools already exist for that [09:46] Techrights-sec what about the source? Should I use the RSS feed to check for new [09:46] Techrights-sec articles and then fetch them over HTTP? [09:46] Techrights-sec It looks easy enough. (famous last words) [09:47] schestowitz It is def. doable, but the good and simpler 'warm-up', I think, is finding algorithmic approach to making an index of the files in ~/gemini/tr_text_version (maybe grouped in subpages for months/years) [09:48] schestowitz so maybe there will be 1) intro section (welcome...) 2) latest section (from rss, updated by cron job) 3) archives section (static text, for irc logs also, the txt files in the ~/gemini/tr_text_version dir) [09:48] schestowitz later on we can worry about domain/noip and logistics ● Feb 08 [11:31] *mick_b64 (b95c1a47@185.92.26.71) has joined #techbytes [11:31] *mick_b64 (b95c1a47@185.92.26.71) has left #techbytes [11:31] *mick_b64 (b95c1a47@185.92.26.71) has joined #techbytes [11:31] *mick_b64 (b95c1a47@185.92.26.71) has left #techbytes ● Feb 08 [13:27] *kermit has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds) [13:27] *hook54321 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer) [13:30] *kermit (sid393220@pdpc/supporter/bronze/kermit) has joined #techbytes [13:30] *hook54321 (sid149355@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-bhtnavctkqyzsvpi) has joined #techbytes [13:45] schestowitz = [13:45] schestowitz x https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/02/06/julian-assanges-accuser-fire-tell-all-book-relationship-wikileaks/ [13:45] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.telegraph.co.uk | Julian Assange's accuser under fire for tell-all book on relationship with Wikileaks founder ● Feb 08 [14:08] Techrights-sec $ ls ~gemini/gemini/bin/gemini*.pl [14:08] Techrights-sec /home/gemini/gemini/bin/gemini-fetch-urls-from-rss.pl [14:08] Techrights-sec /home/gemini/gemini/bin/gemini-parse-html-to-gemini.pl [14:08] Techrights-sec Rough proof-of-concept prototypes. [14:08] Techrights-sec The links don't get converted to Gemini yet. That would require [14:08] Techrights-sec first a routine to name the files and paths so they [14:08] Techrights-sec are saved in predictable places. [14:08] Techrights-sec libhtml-treebuilder-xpath-perl is needed [14:09] schestowitz oh! very nice! perl is hard for me to read, I'm not skilled at it. but whatever works ^_^ [14:09] schestowitz right now I try to think how to slice the raspi story to present it clearly, later I want to do Daniel's Part II. turned out to be a super-busy day... [14:10] Techrights-sec I've tried to write clearly and without idoims [14:11] Techrights-sec The RPF incident(s) topic is one of the bigger stories to break in recent months, if not recent years. [14:11] schestowitz I recorded a quick video on Eben's take, but need to think what to present when (among my notes) [14:12] schestowitz i need a nap, worked 1-9am, did some cert stuff at work [14:12] Techrights-sec I gather he has not made a statement for more than a few days. So his position [14:12] Techrights-sec in that statement might (hopefully) be outdated. [14:13] Techrights-sec Be sure that the m$ resellers on staff at RPT and RPF are working overtime [14:13] Techrights-sec to spin his head around. [14:13] Techrights-sec Ok naps work. [14:13] Techrights-sec coffee naps are good too [14:13] Techrights-sec (nap while the coffee takes effect and then wake up as it kicks in( [14:14] schestowitz I will try not to rush with gemini if that slows down writing. Thankfully the basics are in place now, bar domain and static ip (or noip) and the code you work on ● Feb 08 [16:20] *Condor (~freenode@e1.nixmagic.com) has joined #techbytes ● Feb 08 [18:27] Techrights-sec the nested headings and unorderd list items in the daily links will [18:27] Techrights-sec be hard to parse into gemini. [18:28] schestowitz due to simplicity of the protocol and syntax, close approximations, I think, are all we can hope for [18:33] Techrights-sec I'll make a separate subroutine for the Daily Links [18:34] schestowitz Thanks, that would be excellent. We might ever become the only such new aggregation source in geminiland or among the capsules (not sure how many in total there are, but it's growing for sure) ● Feb 08 [19:29] Techrights-sec It'll take a bit since it needs to be arecursive pattern... [19:29] schestowitz ars (pizza 'doctor' colleague) the latest to underplay the raspi blunder ● Feb 08 [20:24] *GNUmoon (~GNUmoon@gateway/tor-sasl/gnumoon) has joined #techbytes [20:56] Techrights-sec The M$ shops are doing that. [20:57] schestowitz Microsoft propagandist Simon Bisson (longtime Microsoft mole in the media) now egging on Raspberry Pi to foist Microsoft's proprietary software on users, even against their will "https://www.techrepublic.com/article/raspberry-pi-and-visual-studio-code-a-great-combination/ [20:57] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.techrepublic.com | Raspberry Pi and Visual Studio Code: A great combination - TechRepublic ● Feb 08 [21:21] Techrights-sec We'll also need [21:21] Techrights-sec libtime-parsedate-perl - collection of Perl modules for time/date manipulation [21:21] Techrights-sec made some progress but need to stop and let the thoughts clear for a while ● Feb 08 [23:31] *acer-box has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds) [23:32] -NickServ-acer-box!~acer-box@2a00:23c4:c3aa:7d01:3481:fe8f:6d26:a807 has just authenticated as you (schestowitz) [23:32] *acer-box (~acer-box@unaffiliated/schestowitz) has joined #techbytes [23:32] *libertybox_ (~schestowi@2a00:23c4:c3aa:7d01:3481:fe8f:6d26:a807) has joined #techbytes [23:32] *libertybox has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds) [23:35] *Techrights-sec has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds) [23:35] *Techrights-sec2 (~quassel@2a00:23c4:c3aa:7d01:3481:fe8f:6d26:a807) has joined #techbytes