●● IRC: #techbytes @ Techrights IRC Network: Wednesday, June 12, 2024 ●● ● Jun 12 [01:05] schestowitz[TR2] https://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2024/06/05/epo-patent-quality-where-do-we-come-from-where-do-we-stand-and-where-are-we-going/ [01:05] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-patentblog.kluweriplaw.com | EPO Patent Quality: Where do we come from, where do we stand, and where are we going? - Kluwer Patent Blog [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] "Concerned observer [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] June 5, 2024 at 4:21 pm [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] For example, to ensure independence between the supervising body and the body that they are supervising, they have instituted a strict separation of powers and have now introduced conflict rules prohibiting its members from assuming senior management positions at the EPO after leaving the AC. [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] If only. To individuals in the right circles, the EPO is the magic money tree that keeps on providing more than enough to satisfy even the largest of appetites. The trouble with satisfying large appetites is that regular over-consumption leads inevitably to greed. For greedy individuals, more is never enough. Hence the plan for fewer examiners to cope with an ever-increasing number of patent applications. [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] The IPQC will, of course, be well aware of existing consultation mechanisms, such as SACEPO working groups. The mere existence of IPQC therefore represents the clearest possible indication that such consultation mechanisms have proven to be ineffective. The AC Chairs suggestion to use those mechanisms thus conveys to the IPQC the unambiguous message that they can take their concerns about patent quality and go forth and multiply. [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] A. Nonymous [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] June 6, 2024 at 11:34 pm [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] Unfortunately, you are terribly right: the IPQC is no doubt aware of SACEPO/Working Party on Quality, but it is no doubt also aware that it boils down to a dialogue of the deaf. The participants have to listen to how good the quality delivered by the EPO is, no matter if the Quality audit says that only 76.6% of the files reach are granted with no findings (Quality Report 2022, page 44). [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] DXThomas [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] June 5, 2024 at 7:38 pm [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] Some further comments on the figures published by Thorsten. [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] It is manifest that the result of oppositions after appeal cannot be taken as an absolute measure of quality of the granted patents, as the number of oppositions remains low and some technical areas barely see oppositions. [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] That an opponent might make more efforts to find prior art, is also a factor allowing to relativise the figures. What is however striking is that opponents mainly come up with documents which were in the search files of the EPO. This is particularly noticeable when for instance, the opponent comes with prior art under Art 54(3). In some blogs I add in the Comments section a part On the procedure to this effect. [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] The number of cases in which documents were truly not available in the search files is rather low, actually between 6 to 8%. Public prior uses, PhD dissertations, oral disclosures represent prior art which cannot be available at the EPO. [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] To come to those figures there is no need to seek or search for confidential data, it is sufficient to look at publicly available data, i.e. published decisions of the boards after appeal on opposition. Any interested person can do this. My reasons for looking at published decisions is that I am still involved in training, be it with companies offering training in patents, representatives firms or in-house patent departments. [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] My analysis and the blog are actually a kind of side product of my involvement in training. No good to come to training with old case law. As case law evolves, it is best to keep abreast. [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] Without giving too much importance on the published decisions of the boards, those represent the only directly available benchmark. A linear extrapolation to all granted patents would not be correct, but the gathered data are representative of a trend which cannot be denied. However, considering ODs decisions which have not been appealed as being confirmed, is a view I have been confronted with when I published my figures for 20 [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] 23. This view is also not correct. [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] Technical areas in which oppositions are filed also vary with time. Just to give a few examples: for a long time there were lots of oppositions in absorbing devices. Presently, hair colouring compositions, means for improving document security against falsification, telecommunication or e-cigarettes seem to have the lead. In chemistry/pharmacy there seems to be a kind of constant level of oppositions, often filed by generics manufa [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] cturers. [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] When looking at oppositions, new techniques are much more prone to oppositions as it is important to keep market parts in an expanding domain. I personally observed this with pacemakers. lithotripters or wind turbines. Once the technology has reached a cruising level, or subsidies by governments go down, oppositions decline and other domains take over. [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] To sum it up, the figures based on published decisions of the boards after appeal on opposition show a trend, which alas is not positive, in spite of all possible denegation. This trend is actually confirmed by other sources as stated in Thorstens article. [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] Quality problems at the EPO? You are mistaken! [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] June 6, 2024 at 4:30 pm [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] Further to the diminishing number of examiners in front of increasing filing figures, other reasons also explain the lowering of the quality delivered by first instance divisions of the EPO. [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] A first aspect which contributes to difficulties in recruitment is the fact that examiners can only expect an unlimited work contract at the EPO after two 5 year periods! This fact is widely unknown outside the EPO. [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] One could consider that the probationary time has been extended from one two 10 years. This has a direct effect on the recruitment. [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] A potential candidate with some professional experience and a family will not file an application for a job at the EPO. It would mean severing all links with its national social security and pension systems when hiring at the EPO. With the possibility of getting fired at any moment if the performance is not to the liking of the EPOs management, who is proepared to take this risk for his family? [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] Giving only two 5 years before an unlimited contract contracts is a perfect means for exerting pressure so that examiners do not become defiant and even join the union. [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] At the beginning of BEST, training was set to three years. For examination before BEST it was three years for examination alone. The introduction of BEST already went on a par with a reduction of training time. [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] With 5 years contracts for examiners, the training time has been reduced to two years. Keeping three years of training with a 5 year contract could not be sold to to the AC. [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] It is doubtful that new candidates are more intelligent than their predecessors or that pedagogics in IP training has undergone a quantum leap. The production target is set at very high level from day 1 of the training. At the end of the training period the production/(productivity has to be that of an experienced examiner. [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] Even with three years training, BEST examiners were well trained in drafting opinions. With two years the ensuing difficulties become even more noticeable. The problem starts when replies from applicants come in. Newcomers are then more or less left alone. It is then much easier or tempting to grant than to refuse. There are examiners who after quite a number of years at the EPO have never refused an application. For a while examin [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] ers got the double amount of points for a final action when it was a refusal. This has apparently gone. A file is a file. [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] In order to find people, the Young Professional program and the Pan-European Seal program have been set up by the EPO. Young professionals are not recruited as full examiners, and are hence paid less. They actually can do an examiner job without being examiners. [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] A similar program has been set up for examiners of national offices which can be seconded to the EPO under very specific conditions. They do not get the same pay as examiners. [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] Under the heading Bringing teams together the upper management of the EPO has exactly done the contrary. Examiners do not any longer have dedicated offices and have to apply for a desk if they want to come into the office. They are confined to home-office! [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] In the past, if a trainee wanted to speak to his trainer he just went along the corridor to speak with him. This possibility has gone. Coffee machine discussions or over lunch have also gone. They were a good source of knowledge exchange between examiners. [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] In first instance, oral proceedings are only on possible in form of video conferences. Having a separate communication channel among the members of the division during OP does not replace the direct possibility of contact between their members. A lot of non-verbal communication between members of the division has gone, not to speak between parties and diviion. Even if oral proceedings have to be held in the form of a videoconferenc [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] e, it should at least be insured that all three members of the division sit together. This is not the case. [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] In the past, the pay package and ancillary conditions at the EPO were certainly good, but this advantage has gone. A good engineer or scientist, with good knowledge of the three EPO official languages does not have any difficulty in finding a well paid job in his country of origin. Why should he come to the EPO under the present appalling conditions? [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] There are thus many more factors than those brought forward in Mr Bauschs article which explain the lowering quality of the work delivered by the EPO. [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] curious attorney [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] June 6, 2024 at 9:51 pm [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] For me, the quality of oppositions has little to do with the quality of examination, it is a completely different job and I know for a fact that at the EPO few examiners do opposition and a former colleague of mine who works there assures me that the time spent on oppositions is fully recognised as extra work and is not subject to the new efficiency rules that govern examination. So the fact that opposition decisions are often over [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] turned on appeal cannot have anything to do with the new working methods which apply only to examination, but perhaps it has to do with a new way in which applicants now interpret opposition or in which the BA now interprets certain aspects, which often puzzles me too. So to be honest, I dont see any connection between opposition appeals and first instance examinations: there are too many factors and differences between them. An [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] d whether more cases are successfully opposed depends only on the different strategies and policies of the applicants, who may now also have tools, resources and skills (AI?) that a big office like the EPO cannot always keep up with. Personally, I dont see any major changes in the last few years in the work delivered by examiners, but if there are, I dont see how the data presented here can somehow subrogate them. [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] DXThomas [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] June 7, 2024 at 8:57 pm [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] If you come up with a better benchmark than the a decision of a board of appeal after examination and opposition in order to assess the quality of the work delivered, I could be prepared to follow you. [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] The reservations about the value of the figures following an appeal in opposition have been clearly stated in my first comment. [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] You claim that there might not be any connection between opposition appeals and first instance examinations. There is at least one: the documents brought forward by the opponent, which are, at best in 8% of the cases, documents which were truly not available in EPOs search files. [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] When for instance, the opponent comes with an Art 54(3) document, sometimes from the same inventor or applicant, something must clearly have gone wrong in examination. [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] That an opponent might put more effort in the documentary search is not at stake,, but then why are so few documents used in opposition not in EPOs search files. [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] If in a patent system more than 60% of decisions of a first instance are set aside by the second one, this cannot be brushed away. Up to 30% of decisions set aside by the boards would be reasonable, but not the double. [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] Patents opposed present an interest, otherwise they would not be opposed. I dare think what could be the situation for patents which were not opposed. A linear extrapolation is not correct, but some thought are permitted. [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] The FRANDalorian [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] June 7, 2024 at 11:50 am [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] In my experience Opposition Divisions taking bizarre and legally or technically inexplicable decisions seems to be the general expectation at present. We often say that we will have to wait for the Appeal for the issues to be considered properly. I am not just talking about reasonable minds may differ situations on genuinely contentious points, but also cases where there is a blatant misunderstanding of the disclosure in the [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] documents or a clear misapplication of the law, or a failure of the Opposition Division to recognise that its reasoning in relation to one ground of opposition directly contradicts its reasoning under another ground. [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] It is also all too common that Oppositions open with the standard warning that the Division are familiar with the file and do not want a repeat of what has already been argued in writing only for the discussion to reveal alarming gaps in their knowledge or understanding of what has been said in writing. [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] The high rates for Boards setting aside Opposition decisions therefore do not come as a surprise. [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] What I want to know is: are there any internal consequences when the Boards overturn first-instance decisions? Is the performance of Examining and Opposition Divisions with respect to the outcome of Appeal proceedings against their files tracked in any way? Are Examiners/Opposition division members even aware of the outcome when their decisions are challenged on Appeal? If a particular division is routinely seeing its decisions ove [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] rturned then it feels as though this ought to raise some flags or ring some alarm bells so that the members of that division can self-correct in their future approach, or if necessary be given further training. This is all the more so if the same or similar points are repeatedly the cause for decisions being overturned. Such a correction mechanism would not only increase the quality of first instance decisions but would also help t [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] o reduce the number of appeals filed and lead to better use of resources, better customer satisfaction/confidence in the system, and greater legal certainty for the public. [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] curious attorney [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] June 7, 2024 at 4:00 pm [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] I cannot give an insider answer to you question but I can imagine that if an examiner is blamed for his own overturned opposition decisions, he will then refuse to do any oppositions at all (as I understand it, it is almost voluntary and this task is taken on by the most experienced examiners who are hard to challenge), the same for appeals in examination, no one would dare to refuse if they ran that risk to be judg [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] ed, it is always very complicated to find the right balance and enforce measures with people who are hardly held accountable for their work [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] DXThomas [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] June 7, 2024 at 9:13 pm [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] It is not revealing a secret to say that the evaluation of the production/productivity was done yearly in the past. I doubt it is fundamentally different nowadays. [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] If post grant procedures show that documents were missed in the original search, this has no influence on the assessment of the examiners work as he cannot be blamed retroactively. [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] This would also be unfair, as the number of patents opposed is low compared to the patents granted. [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] The number of refusals compared to the number of grants is rather low. What is bringing more in matters of production/productivity is to grant as it is an easier way to accumulate production points. [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] Refusals have to be well prepared and this takes time as in general applicants request oral proceedings before a refusal. [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] Caballero [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] June 7, 2024 at 12:18 pm [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] Thank you for sumarizing the relation of time, cost and quality in project management as well as well as key findings [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] Thank you also for the statement regarding the necessity of a collaborative approach where EPO management, patent examiners, and industry stakeholders engage in open and constructive dialogue to recalibrate the examination process, ensuring that the quality of patent examination is not compromised. [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] As an intertested outside observer and not a qulaified patent attorney I am under the impression that the colaborative approach does not work or even exist although its necessity is obvious. [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] Can an increase in pending work load and a reduction in examiner workforce be offset by a decrease in time to decision only at the cost of quality? Or is there a way to do both? The Iron triangle says you cannot. But what if you change the parameters within the elements of the triangle. Can time and costs be reduced by changing how you obtain quality? I believe DXThomas (above) is hinting at search focus. [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] As I have observed before, maybe it is time for all parts involved and especially those most critical of the quality of EPO patents, to take a step back and try to understand the other sides position. I work for a number EPO users mainly in Germany and not all of them share IPQCs quality concerns, a considerable number of these are actually quite satified with the quality of EPOs products. [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] I certainly do not want to take sides in this discussion because: [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] 1. I value my clients who are part of IPQC [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] 2. I value my clients who are not [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] 3. I value the EPO [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] 4. I accept the limits of my qualifications [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] One final thought: Are USPTO patents better EPOs? As a frequent participant in conferences on both sides of the Atlantic I have observed a more constructive dialogue between USPTO and US professional associations than in Europe. I doubt that EPO is to blame for this exclusively. [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] DXThomas [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] June 7, 2024 at 9:37 pm [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] To paraphrase a French say: criticism is easy when the art is difficult. [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] A possible factor influencing the quality delivered by the EPO could also be seen in the quality of the incoming applications. [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] The discussion here is that the perception of quality of the patents granted varies depending on the side you stand. However if after an opposition you see your patent revoked or severely limited, it cannot be a nice feeling. Opposed patents are prima facie important patents. But this does not mean that non-opposed patents are of better quality than opposed ones. [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] That patents granted by the EPO are still of better quality than those granted by the USPTO is however not a reason for complacency. [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] There are objective reasons to be concerned with what can be perceived as a lowering of the quality of the patents granted by the EPO. [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] Deciding on the number of waiters needed in order for a client to be served within a given time limit in a restaurant, is one of the most difficult mathematical tasks. One thing is however clear, if the time to be served has to be reduced, more waiters are needed. [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] EPO Examiner [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] June 8, 2024 at 2:08 pm [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] There seems to be a lot of misinformation flying around, presented here as facts, and if left unchallenged, many readers will take it for true. [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] Regrettably EPO top management finds it best to keep quiet, probably because they realise they cant win an internet fight. They are probably correct, but the staff of the EPO is caught in the middle, since the quality of our work is criticised and nobody defends us. Even our staff representatives criticise us! Happily, we can also contribute to this blog, and unlike those who usually contribute with negative comments, I will try [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] to be more realistic. [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] In response to Quality problems etc, many of your statements are false, and it sounds like you are not an insider. During 2 years, new examiners regularly spend time in classrooms, gradually learning more and more about the procedures. All that time they work on real dossiers, under supervision of a coach. During 4 years they are considered to be on a learning curve, not 3. They start on a lower grade, depending on prior expe [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] rience, so less is expected from them. And they do not have other duties such as chairperson work or classification. [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] We have about 100 new examiners and always look to recruit more since we have retirements and departures. Fortunately it seems tbat we are so attractive as employer that we have many candidates, its really a lot of work during the selection process, we really can choose, and we select the best. It is true that newcomers since 2018 start with 2 consecutive 5 year contracts before becoming permanent, this is not what it used to be [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] but we all have colleagues we would have liked to leave after 5 years, so its not unreasonable from the EPO point of view. [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] Not many examiners actually leave, due to our conditions. A very experienced examiner can get a basic salary of up to 15.000 euro. Plus child allowance, family allowance, expatriation allowance, education allowance, it may add up to 20k. And yes, all tax free, so this translates to 1000 per day worked. This is why we have to be efficient, we are very expensive. [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] As to the bringing the teams together in one building, we have roughly 40 days paid leave and may work 60 days from our home country. Why should I have my own office, to leave it empty? [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] As to coffee machine or lunch discussions, please come to our building, the lunch queues are long enough to discuss european politics in depth! [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] I leave it to the reader to judge whether these are appalling conditions, most of us really appreciate the current conditions. [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] We have to work hard or it, because almost all of us want to deliver the best possible quality. Im sure we could do a bit better quality by spending twice the number of days, but this means that we need twice the examiners and buildings, and double the fees. I dont think that many applicants will want to put their money where their mouth is. [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] All our work is checked before it is approved and sent out. Searches by the two other members of the division, proposals for grant as well. After the division also the team managers, all technical experts, check the work, and finally the formalities officers go over it. Compared to when I started (many moons ago), the focus on quality is much higher now. In those days searches were only checked by the director who by definition was [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] not a technical expert. [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] Finally (there is much more to say but time is limited), the opposition rate is much lower than it used to be, only 2.5% of all grants is opposed. That rate used to be much higher, over 4%. Is it possible that the succes rate of the remaining oppositions is affected by this? Maybe Daniel X T can look into it? [01:06] schestowitz[TR2] " ● Jun 12 [05:38] *parsifal (~parsifal@56e4qsjh6yz4k.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Jun 12 [07:24] *vizimajac (~capybara@freenode-2ue.6ih.pu7h8v.IP) has joined #techbytes ● Jun 12 [08:09] schestowitz[TR2] "Bill Gates is building a cleaner, cheaper nuclear power plant" [08:09] schestowitz[TR2] x https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2024/0611/bill-gates-wyoming-advanced-nuclear [08:09] schestowitz[TR2] x https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/11/climate/bill-gates-nuclear-wyoming.html [08:09] schestowitz[TR2] # there seems the be a new campaign whitewashing bill's reputation [08:09] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-Bill Gates is building a cleaner, cheaper nuclear power plant - CSMonitor.com [08:09] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.nytimes.com | Bill Gates Is Backing a Nuclear Power Project in Wyoming - The New York Times [08:47] schestowitz[TR2]
  • [08:47] schestowitz[TR2]
    Running GoToSocial on NetBSD
    [08:47] schestowitz[TR2]
    [08:47] schestowitz[TR2]

    I wanted a communication tool for the NoGoo.me searxng instance I manage. But I want a software with small footprint. I used GoToSocial as my primary ActivityPub server and it was great. It only lacked a few features so I stopped using it as my primary Fediverse service. Lets have it back again in my software ecosystem.

    [08:47] schestowitz[TR2]

    When it comes to supported platforms, you can choose between Linux and FreeBSD. The port for OpenBSD has recently been set BROKEN because of Go and libc issues I dont understand. When it comes to working platforms, you can add NetBSD and pkgsrc to the game.

    [08:47] schestowitz[TR2]
    [08:47] schestowitz[TR2]
    • [08:47] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.tumfatig.net | TuM'Fatig - Running GoToSocial on NetBSD ● Jun 12 [09:28] *IsambardPrince has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [09:29] *IsambardPrince (~isambardprince@r9iy88i2ge7j6.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Jun 12 [10:30] *IsambardPrince has quit (connection closed) ● Jun 12 [13:43] *x-amarsh04 has quit (connection closed) [13:50] *x-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@qezxp5nudz5uq.irc) has joined #techbytes [13:56] *psydroid2 has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) ● Jun 12 [14:11] *psydroid2 (~psydroid@j9gt2haw74jrk.irc) has joined #techbytes [14:57] *Moocher5254 (~quassel@6i8ckjmvfhgyw.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Jun 12 [15:37] *psydroid3 (~psydroid@j9gt2haw74jrk.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Jun 12 [20:22] *psydroid3 has quit (Quit: KVIrc 5.0.0 Aria http://www.kvirc.net/) ● Jun 12 [21:05] *IsambardPrince (~isambardprince@maccuaisjyp7u.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Jun 12 [22:50] *parsifal has quit (Quit: Leaving)