(ℹ) Join us now at the IRC channel | ䷉ Find the plain text version at this address (HTTP) or in Gemini (how to use Gemini) with a full GemText version.
| *u-amarsh04 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) | Apr 12 01:56 | |
| *u-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@nqkitbgnqjad4.irc) has joined #techbytes | Apr 12 02:01 | |
| *u-amarsh04 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) | Apr 12 02:12 | |
| *u-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@nqkitbgnqjad4.irc) has joined #techbytes | Apr 12 02:13 | |
| schestowitz[TR] | http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2023/04/construing-claims-to-include-technical.html?showComment=1681222526222#c7322582928275327667 | Apr 12 02:20 |
|---|---|---|
| schestowitz[TR] | ose, I have my doubts whether the EBA would be ab...</a></h5><blockquote>Rose, I have my doubts whether the EBA would be able to deliver a sensible answer were it to be posed questions relating to adaptation of the description. This is because, within the EPO, there appears to me to be an institutional inability to analyse the situation logically.<br /><br />As an alternative approach, may I suggest sending the following multiple ch | Apr 12 02:20 |
| schestowitz[TR] | oice questionnaire to those responsible for drafting the EPO's Guidelines? (Where all of the following statements must be answered with "Agree", "Disagree" or "Other", and where the latter answer must be accompanied by a detailed explanation.)<br /><br />1. If the wording of a claim conveys a clear meaning to a person skilled in the art, it is not permissible in proceedings before the EPO to rely upon a | Apr 12 02:20 |
| schestowitz[TR] | disclosure of the description to afford a different meaning to the wording of that claim.<br />2. During examination proceedings, neither Article 69 EPC nor the Protocol to that Article shall be used to determine the meaning conveyed by the wording of the claims.<br />3. During examination proceedings, it is not necessary for the ED to provide the applicant with a detailed explanation of its understanding of the meaning conveyed by | Apr 12 02:20 |
| schestowitz[TR] | the wording of the claims.<br />4. In proceedings before the EPO, a claim lacks clarity under Article 84 EPC if its wording conveys a clear meaning to a person skilled in the art but a disclosure of the description affords a different meaning to that wording.<br />5. If a lack of clarity arises for the reasons set out in statement 4, it is not necessary for the ED to explain precisely why the disclosure of the description renders t | Apr 12 02:20 |
| schestowitz[TR] | he wording of the claims unclear.<br />6. The claims of an application lack support under Article 84 EPC if the description discloses subject matter that is inconsistent with the invention defined in the claims (which subject matter is not clearly indicated as not being the invention according to the claims).<br />7. If a lack of support arises for the reasons set out in statement 6, it is not necessary for the ED to explain precise | Apr 12 02:20 |
| schestowitz[TR] | ly why the disclosure of the description is inconsistent with its interpretation of the meaning conveyed by the wording of the claims.<br />8. For determining the extent of protection afforded by the wording of the claims of a granted patent, the "description" mentioned in Article 69 EPC (and the Protocol thereto) is the description of the patent as granted.<br />9. In view of statement 8, determination of the extent of pr | Apr 12 02:20 |
| schestowitz[TR] | otection conferred by the claims of a granted patent shall, or at least may, take into account amendments to the description made during prosecution, especially amendments indicating that certain subject matter is not the invention according to the claims.<br /><br />I would fully expect the authors of the GL to respond with "Agree" to all of the above statements. However, I would hope that a few dots might be joined by:<b | Apr 12 02:20 |
| schestowitz[TR] | r />- considering various statements together (such as 2, 6, and 9);<br />- comparing and contrasting different statements (such as 1 and 4); and<br />- assessing whether other statements (such as 3 and 7) point to a need for Article 84 EPC objections to be fully reasoned (as opposed to vague and/or purely hypothetical).<br /><br />Of course, this is the EPO that we are talking about, and so I will not hold my breath waiting for the | Apr 12 02:20 |
| schestowitz[TR] | dots to be joined. | Apr 12 02:20 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | Construing the claims to include technical effects mentioned in the description (T 1924/20) - The IPKat | Apr 12 02:20 | |
| schestowitz[TR] | "Proof of the Pudding, perhaps you are being a litt...</a></h5><blockquote>Proof of the Pudding, perhaps you are being a little but unfair to the EPO. Language itself is complicated and the EPO cannot fix that. Imagine how your points would apply to interpreting an independent claim in view of the dependent claims, or interpreting the claim language in view of the use of that language in the closest prior art or in prior art documen | Apr 12 02:20 |
| schestowitz[TR] | ts cited in the description. A specific meaning emerges only in a specific context and situation (e.g. in view of a cited document relevant to validity, or a possible infringement). Some sort of absolute meaning relevant to all contexts and situations is very difficult to arrive it, even in a 9 point test | Apr 12 02:20 |
| schestowitz[TR] | " | Apr 12 02:20 |
| schestowitz[TR] | "Santa, well that is precisely the point that I am trying to make! So having reached the same conclusion, and in view of statements 8 and 9 above, do you still believe it is reasonable for the EPO to demand that applicants make (potentially binding) statements as to which disclosures of the description are NOT the invention according to the claims ... whose scope has neither been methodically determined nor explained to the applican | Apr 12 02:20 |
| schestowitz[TR] | t?" | Apr 12 02:20 |
| *u-amarsh04 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) | Apr 12 03:03 | |
| *u-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@nqkitbgnqjad4.irc) has joined #techbytes | Apr 12 03:12 | |
| schestowitz[TR] | " | Apr 12 04:49 |
| schestowitz[TR] | The Local Staff Committee Munich (LSCMN) invites all staff to a General Assembly on Wednesday 19 April, at 14.00h to be held via MS Teams. The connection details will be communicated later. | Apr 12 04:49 |
| schestowitz[TR] | Next Staff Committee elections | Apr 12 04:49 |
| schestowitz[TR] | One important topic will be the upcoming elections of the Local Staff Committee. The elections will take place in June 2023 and the General Assembly must determine the election rules and nominate an electoral committee. We plan to present also other topics. Please let us know if you would like to discuss any specific topic. The agenda will be finalized next week. | Apr 12 04:49 |
| schestowitz[TR] | Election Committee | Apr 12 04:49 |
| schestowitz[TR] | An Election Committee will organize and overview the election process. For that we would like to launch a call for candidates for the Election Committee. Please get in touch with us if you are interested. The Election Committee will be nominated via a vote during the General Assembly. | Apr 12 04:49 |
| schestowitz[TR] | Our proposal for Election Rules | Apr 12 04:49 |
| schestowitz[TR] | Following ILO Judgment 4482, the organisation of the elections of the Staff Committee is now back in the hands of the staff. The necessary changes to the Service Regulations have been introduced in CA/9/23. | Apr 12 04:49 |
| schestowitz[TR] | The election rules define the rules for the election of the members of the Local Staff Committee Munich and of its members in the Central Staff Committee. | Apr 12 04:49 |
| schestowitz[TR] | Here is our proposal for election rules, which we would like to present for a vote during the General Assembly: | Apr 12 04:49 |
| schestowitz[TR] | Election Rules LSC Munich and Brussels | Apr 12 04:49 |
| schestowitz[TR] | Election Rules Full and Alternate members of the CSC | Apr 12 04:49 |
| schestowitz[TR] | The rules are largely based on election rules used before 2010. We added electronic voting. Voters can vote for up to 19 candidates – the number of members the Local Staff Committee Munich shall have in the next term. The Election Rules guarantee that there will be at least one representative of job groups 5 or 6." | Apr 12 04:49 |
| schestowitz[TR] | <li> | Apr 12 08:09 |
| schestowitz[TR] | <h5><a href="https://blog.josefsson.org/2023/04/10/trisquel-is-42-reproducible/">Trisquel is 42% Reproducible!</a></h5> | Apr 12 08:09 |
| schestowitz[TR] | <blockquote> | Apr 12 08:09 |
| schestowitz[TR] | <p>The absolute number may not be impressive, but what I hope is at least a useful contribution is that there actually is a number on how much of Trisquel is reproducible. Hopefully this will inspire others to help improve the actual metric.</p> | Apr 12 08:09 |
| schestowitz[TR] | <p>tl;dr: go to reproduce-trisquel.</p> | Apr 12 08:09 |
| schestowitz[TR] | </blockquote> | Apr 12 08:09 |
| schestowitz[TR] | </li> | Apr 12 08:09 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-blog.josefsson.org | Trisquel is 42% Reproducible! – Simon Josefsson's blog | Apr 12 08:09 | |
| schestowitz[TR] | <li> | Apr 12 08:18 |
| schestowitz[TR] | <h5><a href="https://www.pine64.org/2023/04/10/pinetab-v-and-pinetab2-launch/">PineTab-V and PineTab2 launch</a></h5> | Apr 12 08:18 |
| schestowitz[TR] | <blockquote> | Apr 12 08:18 |
| schestowitz[TR] | <p>On the outside the only thing that differentiates the two devices is the color of the chassis: the PineTab-V is deep matte black while PineTab2 is silver-gray. But the real difference between the two resides on the inside. The PineTab2 features the well supported RK3566 64-bit Arm SoC, which has been a part of our line-up for over a year, and the tablet ships with a build of DanctNix Arch L | Apr 12 08:18 |
| schestowitz[TR] | inux for Arm. The software can be best described as early but very serviceable, and there is little doubt that before long improvements will be made and additional functionality enabled. Like the PinePhone and PinePhone Pro before it, the PineTab2 will reach a high degree of functionality in time and make for a great work or entertainment travel companion.</p> | Apr 12 08:18 |
| schestowitz[TR] | </blockquote> | Apr 12 08:18 |
| schestowitz[TR] | </li> | Apr 12 08:18 |
| schestowitz[TR] | Apr 12 08:18 | |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.pine64.org | PineTab-V and PineTab2 launch | PINE64 | Apr 12 08:18 | |
| schestowitz[TR] | <li> | Apr 12 08:32 |
| schestowitz[TR] | <h5><a href="https://cyberscoop.com/discord-intelligence-leak-ukraine/">The Discord servers at the center of a massive US intelligence leak</a></h5> | Apr 12 08:32 |
| schestowitz[TR] | <blockquote> | Apr 12 08:32 |
| schestowitz[TR] | <p>Last week’s leaks represent a stark departure from how classified information has reached the public in recent years. “When you think of these big leaks, you think of whistleblowers like Snowden, hack and dumps from Russia,” Aric Toler, who has investigated the Discord leaks for Bellingcat, wrote in an email to CyberScoop. “This is just a guy in a tiny Discord server sharing hundred | Apr 12 08:32 |
| schestowitz[TR] | s of insanely sensitive [files] with his gaming buddies.”</p> | Apr 12 08:32 |
| schestowitz[TR] | <p>After being posted, the files appear to have sat dormant for about a month, until they were shared last week on 4chan and Telegram, where they received greater attention. “Since Discord isn’t really publicly archived, indexed, or searchable (as 4chan and, to a lesser degree, Telegram are), then it’s not like you can easily scrape and analyze these sources,” Toler said. “So it’s | Apr 12 08:32 |
| schestowitz[TR] | a bit of a perfect storm.”</p> | Apr 12 08:32 |
| schestowitz[TR] | </blockquote> | Apr 12 08:32 |
| schestowitz[TR] | </li> | Apr 12 08:32 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-The Discord servers at the center of a massive US intelligence leak | CyberScoop | Apr 12 08:32 | |
| schestowitz[TR] | >> I hope this helps to settle your concerns regarding your NOW Pension | Apr 12 09:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | >> fund, as you can see from the above, they have outlined how and who is | Apr 12 09:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | >> responsible for protecting your pension savings and applies to all NOW | Apr 12 09:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | >> Pensions members. | Apr 12 09:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | > | Apr 12 09:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | > Hi, | Apr 12 09:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | > | Apr 12 09:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | > Please send the full letter, as promised, to | Apr 12 09:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | > 1) my wife | Apr 12 09:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | > 2) myself | Apr 12 09:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | > | Apr 12 09:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | > as promised by Juan | Apr 12 09:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | > as promised by Simon | Apr 12 09:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | > as promised by John | Apr 12 09:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | > | Apr 12 09:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | > several times since February. We need this obligation in writing. | Apr 12 09:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | I need an update on this. There are multiple complainants about the pension fraud. We need action, not stalling tactics. You behave like lawyers, not like a pension provider. | Apr 12 09:29 |
| *u-amarsh04 has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) | Apr 12 10:59 | |
| schestowitz[TR] | Hi Dave, | Apr 12 11:02 |
| schestowitz[TR] | These tactics aren't new. Only a week after I had resigned I received a threatening and legally-invalid letter from the CEO telling me to remove any criticism of the company (published after I already resigned). | Apr 12 11:02 |
| schestowitz[TR] | http://techrights.org/wiki/Sirius_Open_Source#Attempts_to_Censor_Facts | Apr 12 11:02 |
| schestowitz[TR] | Last month the CEO above-mentioned abruptly left the company and in recent weeks he worked hard to hide all traces of him ever working for Sirius: | Apr 12 11:02 |
| schestowitz[TR] | http://techrights.org/2023/03/13/sirius-deleted-entirely/ | Apr 12 11:02 |
| schestowitz[TR] | http://techrights.org/2023/03/21/sirius-open-source-purged/ | Apr 12 11:02 |
| schestowitz[TR] | Today: http://techrights.org/2023/04/12/sirius-no-more/ | Apr 12 11:02 |
| schestowitz[TR] | It is imperative that people understand what Sirius really is to prevent this mailing list being leveraged to groom future victims. | Apr 12 11:02 |
| schestowitz[TR] | Kind regards, | Apr 12 11:02 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-techrights.org | Sirius Open Source - Techrights | Apr 12 11:02 | |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-techrights.org | Sirius UK CEO Resigns (or Gets Sacked) and Completely Deletes His Whole Past With Sirius ‘Open Source’ | Techrights | Apr 12 11:02 | |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-techrights.org | Amid Fraud at Sirius ‘Open Source’ CEO Deletes His Recent (This Month) Past With the Company | Techrights | Apr 12 11:02 | |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-techrights.org | CEO of Sirius UK Continues to Purge Any Remnants of His Past With the Company (Trying Hard Not to Associate With It) | Techrights | Apr 12 11:02 | |
| *u-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@nqkitbgnqjad4.irc) has joined #techbytes | Apr 12 11:05 | |
| *rianne__ has quit (connection closed) | Apr 12 15:01 | |
| *rianne_ has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) | Apr 12 15:01 | |
| *rianne (~rianne@freenode-448.p91.7dgmmg.IP) has joined #techbytes | Apr 12 15:01 | |
| *rianne__ (~rianne@rbnv8qskr8rgw.irc) has joined #techbytes | Apr 12 15:01 | |
| *rianne has quit (Connection closed) | Apr 12 15:20 | |
| *rianne__ has quit (connection closed) | Apr 12 15:20 | |
| *rianne__ (~rianne@rbnv8qskr8rgw.irc) has joined #techbytes | Apr 12 15:20 | |
| *rianne (~rianne@freenode-448.p91.7dgmmg.IP) has joined #techbytes | Apr 12 15:20 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.6 | ䷉ find the plain text version at this address (HTTP) or in Gemini (how to use Gemini) with a full GemText version.