(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.
| *jacobk has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) | Apr 13 04:45 | |
| *jacobk (~quassel@syp65ggum2ibk.irc) has joined #techbytes | Apr 13 04:46 | |
| schestowitz[TR2] | https://www.thelayoff.com/t/1jrgfam4v | Apr 13 06:01 |
|---|---|---|
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes- ( status 403 @ https://www.thelayoff.com/t/1jrgfam4v ) | Apr 13 06:01 | |
| schestowitz[TR2] | " | Apr 13 06:01 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | Full Bloomberg article referenced in comment @ck+1jrgfam4v available at this comment in another post here: @c3+1jrmh9627 | Apr 13 06:01 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | " | Apr 13 06:01 |
| *jacobk has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) | Apr 13 07:06 | |
| *jacobk (~quassel@syp65ggum2ibk.irc) has joined #techbytes | Apr 13 07:08 | |
| *rsheftel1435 has quit (Ping timeout: 120 seconds) | Apr 13 07:10 | |
| *x-amarsh04 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) | Apr 13 08:55 | |
| *x-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@h5zkbfemmwig6.irc) has joined #techbytes | Apr 13 08:56 | |
| *x-amarsh04 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) | Apr 13 09:28 | |
| *x-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@h5zkbfemmwig6.irc) has joined #techbytes | Apr 13 09:36 | |
| *x-amarsh04 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) | Apr 13 09:36 | |
| *x-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@h5zkbfemmwig6.irc) has joined #techbytes | Apr 13 09:37 | |
| *jacobk has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) | Apr 13 10:02 | |
| *jacobk (~quassel@syp65ggum2ibk.irc) has joined #techbytes | Apr 13 10:04 | |
| *x-amarsh04 has quit (connection closed) | Apr 13 10:34 | |
| *x-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@h5zkbfemmwig6.irc) has joined #techbytes | Apr 13 10:44 | |
| *x-amarsh04 has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) | Apr 13 10:59 | |
| *x-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@h5zkbfemmwig6.irc) has joined #techbytes | Apr 13 11:09 | |
| schestowitz[TR2] | <li> | Apr 13 11:15 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | <h5><a href="https://linuxiac.com/kde-frameworks-6-13-released/">KDE Frameworks 6.13 Is Out, Here’s What’s New</a></h5> | Apr 13 11:15 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | <blockquote> | Apr 13 11:15 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | <p>Many parts of this release focus on ensuring smoother integration with Qt 6.9, particularly by removing dependencies on older or deprecated methods in numerous frameworks. Throughout the changelog, you’ll notice references to “It compiles fine without qt6.9 deprecated methods,” indicating that areas like Attica, Baloo, Bluez Qt, KAuth, and a host of others have been thoroughl | Apr 13 11:15 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | y updated. </p> | Apr 13 11:15 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | </blockquote> | Apr 13 11:15 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | </li> | Apr 13 11:15 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-linuxiac.com | KDE Frameworks 6.13 Is Out, Here’s What’s New | Apr 13 11:15 | |
| schestowitz[TR2] | http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2025/04/beware-of-boilerplate-practical-lessons.html?showComment=1744471736335#c6084810101045092221 | Apr 13 11:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | "Anonymous 1+2,<br /><br />I do not know who is wasting its time, but I will leave the answer open. <br /><br />I have never said the claims should be read alone and "are something floating in the middle of nowhere". Claims and description go hand in hand. I fail to see any dysfunction in the EPC if the claims and the description are aligned on one another. <br /><br />Contrary to what Anonymous 1 claims, Art 84 does not | Apr 13 11:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | provide that the matter for which protection is sought is defined not by the claims alone, but by the claims supported by the description. I think the difference ilies in the interpretation of “supported”.<br /><br />Art 84 reads: The claims shall define the matter for which protection is sought. They shall be clear and concise and be supported by the description. Art 84 has a different function than that of Art 69(1) and Art 1 | Apr 13 11:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | of the Protocol. Art 84 does not say that the claims define the invention, which, indeed, is not positively defined in the EPC.<br /><br />Art 69(1) reads: “The extent of the protection conferred by a European patent monopoly or a European patent monopoly application shall be determined by the claims”. <br /><br />Art 69(1) adds: “Nevertheless, the description and drawings shall be used to interpret the claims”. This does | Apr 13 11:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | not mean that the description allows to give a meaning to claimed features which can be different from the ordinary meaning of a claimed feature.<br /><br />Art 1 of the Protocol explains how Art 69 is to be applied: the extent of protection is not merely defined by the strict, literal meaning of the wording used in the claims, but also not that the actual protection conferred may extend to what the patent monopoly proprietor has c | Apr 13 11:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | ontemplated. This is saying nothing else that Angora cats are prohibited. <br /><br />The support of the claims by the description does not mean that an applicant/proprietor is allowed to conceal in the description a different meaning to a claimed feature which has a meaning on its own. <br /><br />The primacy of the claims can also be seen in the fact that R 71(3) has never been amended since the onset of the EPO. Only the claims | Apr 13 11:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | need to be translated in the official languages of the EPO, other than the language of proceedings. <br /><br />In both comments, I fail to see an answer to a fundamental question: why is it necessary to bring in the description meanings which are different from the ordinary meaning of a claimed feature? <br /><br />Unless you are in favour of Angora cats, it is difficult to follow the necessity of such a discrepancy between clai | Apr 13 11:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | ms and description. Art 84 will be in agreement with Art 69, when the claims are aligned with the description and vice-versa. <br /><br />A claim can be perfectly clear on its own, but it can well happen that the description allows a different interpretation of the claim, if claimed features are given in the description a meaning which can be either more limited or broader. <br /><br />I therefore claim to have “read the EPC as | Apr 13 11:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | a whole and in context and read the patent monopoly as a whole and in context", just as can be done with any other statute and any other legal instrument." | Apr 13 11:26 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | Beware of boilerplate: Practical lessons for patent drafting from G1/24 (Claim interpretation) - The IPKat | Apr 13 11:26 | |
| schestowitz[TR2] | http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2025/04/beware-of-boilerplate-practical-lessons.html?showComment=1744456004983#c8412036502665267578 | Apr 13 11:27 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | Beware of boilerplate: Practical lessons for patent drafting from G1/24 (Claim interpretation) - The IPKat | Apr 13 11:27 | |
| schestowitz[TR2] | "You make the point incredibly succinctly. The whole debate on interpretation and description amendments is caused by ludicrous semantic arguments that try to delineate "the invention" (which is not even defined in the EPC), "the matter for which protection is sought" and the "extent of the protection conferred by a European patent monopoly or a European patent monopoly application". <br /><br />If the | Apr 13 11:27 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | EPC is interpreted as a (somewhat) consistent, self-contained set of rules telling us what patents are and what protection they provide, and if patents are interpreted as self-contained legal instruments that are interpreted in accordance with basic principles of law, most of the issues of the day vanish. The solution really is as simple as "read the EPC as a whole and in context and read the patent monopoly as a whole and in | Apr 13 11:27 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | context", just as we do with any other statute and any other legal instrument. <br /><br />Rather than distorting the meaning of the support requirement of Art. 84 in order to justify description amendments, the EPO could use the clarity requirement of Art. 84 to insist on description amendments. This is the case since, when the patent monopoly is interpreted as a unitary document using the description to guide the interpreta | Apr 13 11:27 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | tion of the claims, any contradiction between the claims and description introduces a lack of clarity. This is a far more natural argument than relying on the support argument."\ | Apr 13 11:27 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2025/04/beware-of-boilerplate-practical-lessons.html?showComment=1744411326112#c6668058405210907528 | Apr 13 11:27 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | "What an incredible waste of time. Who said that the claims must be read alone? Who invented the term “primacy of the claims”? A patent monopoly is a meaningful, self-contained legal document only when taken as a whole. Can we please step back to the principles, put many bad decisions of the boards in the last 35 years aside, and try to read the EPC with a natural mind? If the scope of protection conferred by a patent monopoly | Apr 13 11:27 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | (art. 69) could finally turn out to be something different from the subject-matter for which protection was sought in an application (art. 84), then there would be an incurable dysfunction in the EPC. But since this cannot be the case, then art. 84 must necessarily be in agreement wit art. 69, which in fact is the case. Art. 84 provides that the matter for which protection is sought is defined not by the claims alone, but by the cl | Apr 13 11:27 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | aims supported by the description. An isolated patent monopoly claim floating in the middle of nowhere is nothing but empty words." | Apr 13 11:27 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | Beware of boilerplate: Practical lessons for patent drafting from G1/24 (Claim interpretation) - The IPKat | Apr 13 11:27 | |
| schestowitz[TR2] | Jamie Zawinski wrote on 12/04/2025 18:09: | Apr 13 11:33 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | >> I cannot access your site anymore using Falkon. Maybe you can tweak the access rules? | Apr 13 11:33 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | >> | Apr 13 11:33 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | >> Thank you,> | Apr 13 11:33 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | > It is impersonating Chrome 83, which was released *five years ago*. So, no. | Apr 13 11:33 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | Falkon is still more free than Chrome and LLM slop scrapers can impersonate anything, including permissible [sic] clients/user-agents. | Apr 13 11:33 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | Good sites do not sniff user-agents, nor should the back end have PHP, database etc. | Apr 13 11:33 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | In 2023 we went fully static. LLM nuisance stopped bothering us. | Apr 13 11:33 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | Best regards, | Apr 13 11:33 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | https://www.thelayoff.com/t/1jrn9p8w5 | Apr 13 18:31 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes- ( status 403 @ https://www.thelayoff.com/t/1jrn9p8w5 ) | Apr 13 18:31 | |
| schestowitz[TR2] | " | Apr 13 18:31 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | What is Canada?! | Apr 13 18:31 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | 1 hour ago by Anonymous | Apr 13 18:31 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | | 2 reactions (+2/-0) | Apr 13 18:31 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | Post ID: @ep+1jrn9p8w5 | Apr 13 18:31 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | 0 | Apr 13 18:31 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | When you hire clowns expect a circus | Apr 13 18:31 |
| *jacobk has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) | Apr 13 20:30 | |
| *jacobk (~quassel@syp65ggum2ibk.irc) has joined #techbytes | Apr 13 20:33 | |
| *rsheftel1435 (~rsheftel@freenode-2q9.ilv.1cipql.IP) has joined #techbytes | Apr 13 21:12 | |
| *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has left #techbytes | Apr 13 23:33 | |
| *jacobk has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) | Apr 13 23:46 | |
| *jacobk (~quassel@syp65ggum2ibk.irc) has joined #techbytes | Apr 13 23:49 | |
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.