●● IRC: #techbytes @ Techrights IRC Network: Sunday, April 13, 2025 ●● ● Apr 13 [04:45] *jacobk has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [04:46] *jacobk (~quassel@syp65ggum2ibk.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Apr 13 [06:01] schestowitz[TR2] https://www.thelayoff.com/t/1jrgfam4v [06:01] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes- ( status 403 @ https://www.thelayoff.com/t/1jrgfam4v ) [06:01] schestowitz[TR2] " [06:01] schestowitz[TR2] Full Bloomberg article referenced in comment @ck+1jrgfam4v available at this comment in another post here: @c3+1jrmh9627 [06:01] schestowitz[TR2] " ● Apr 13 [07:06] *jacobk has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [07:08] *jacobk (~quassel@syp65ggum2ibk.irc) has joined #techbytes [07:10] *rsheftel1435 has quit (Ping timeout: 120 seconds) ● Apr 13 [08:55] *x-amarsh04 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) [08:56] *x-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@h5zkbfemmwig6.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Apr 13 [09:28] *x-amarsh04 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) [09:36] *x-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@h5zkbfemmwig6.irc) has joined #techbytes [09:36] *x-amarsh04 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) [09:37] *x-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@h5zkbfemmwig6.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Apr 13 [10:02] *jacobk has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [10:04] *jacobk (~quassel@syp65ggum2ibk.irc) has joined #techbytes [10:34] *x-amarsh04 has quit (connection closed) [10:44] *x-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@h5zkbfemmwig6.irc) has joined #techbytes [10:59] *x-amarsh04 has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) ● Apr 13 [11:09] *x-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@h5zkbfemmwig6.irc) has joined #techbytes [11:15] schestowitz[TR2]
  • [11:15] schestowitz[TR2]
    KDE Frameworks 6.13 Is Out, Heres Whats New
    [11:15] schestowitz[TR2]
    [11:15] schestowitz[TR2]

    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, youll 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 [11:15] schestowitz[TR2] y updated.

    [11:15] schestowitz[TR2]
    [11:15] schestowitz[TR2]
    • [11:15] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-linuxiac.com | KDE Frameworks 6.13 Is Out, Heres Whats New [11:26] schestowitz[TR2] http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2025/04/beware-of-boilerplate-practical-lessons.html?showComment=1744471736335#c6084810101045092221 [11:26] schestowitz[TR2] "Anonymous 1+2,

    I do not know who is wasting its time, but I will leave the answer open.

    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.

    Contrary to what Anonymous 1 claims, Art 84 does not [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.

    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 [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.

    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.

    Art 69(1) adds: Nevertheless, the description and drawings shall be used to interpret the claims. This does [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.

    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 [11:26] schestowitz[TR2] ontemplated. This is saying nothing else that Angora cats are prohibited.

    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.

    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 [11:26] schestowitz[TR2] need to be translated in the official languages of the EPO, other than the language of proceedings.

    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?

    Unless you are in favour of Angora cats, it is difficult to follow the necessity of such a discrepancy between clai [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.

    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.

    I therefore claim to have read the EPC as [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." [11:26] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | Beware of boilerplate: Practical lessons for patent drafting from G1/24 (Claim interpretation) - The IPKat [11:27] schestowitz[TR2] http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2025/04/beware-of-boilerplate-practical-lessons.html?showComment=1744456004983#c8412036502665267578 [11:27] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | Beware of boilerplate: Practical lessons for patent drafting from G1/24 (Claim interpretation) - The IPKat [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".

    If the [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 [11:27] schestowitz[TR2] context", just as we do with any other statute and any other legal instrument.

    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 [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."\ [11:27] schestowitz[TR2] http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2025/04/beware-of-boilerplate-practical-lessons.html?showComment=1744411326112#c6668058405210907528 [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 [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 [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." [11:27] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | Beware of boilerplate: Practical lessons for patent drafting from G1/24 (Claim interpretation) - The IPKat [11:33] schestowitz[TR2] Jamie Zawinski wrote on 12/04/2025 18:09: [11:33] schestowitz[TR2] >> I cannot access your site anymore using Falkon. Maybe you can tweak the access rules? [11:33] schestowitz[TR2] >> [11:33] schestowitz[TR2] >> Thank you,> [11:33] schestowitz[TR2] > It is impersonating Chrome 83, which was released *five years ago*. So, no. [11:33] schestowitz[TR2] Falkon is still more free than Chrome and LLM slop scrapers can impersonate anything, including permissible [sic] clients/user-agents. [11:33] schestowitz[TR2] Good sites do not sniff user-agents, nor should the back end have PHP, database etc. [11:33] schestowitz[TR2] In 2023 we went fully static. LLM nuisance stopped bothering us. [11:33] schestowitz[TR2] Best regards, ● Apr 13 [18:31] schestowitz[TR2] https://www.thelayoff.com/t/1jrn9p8w5 [18:31] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes- ( status 403 @ https://www.thelayoff.com/t/1jrn9p8w5 ) [18:31] schestowitz[TR2] " [18:31] schestowitz[TR2] What is Canada?! [18:31] schestowitz[TR2] 1 hour ago by Anonymous [18:31] schestowitz[TR2] | 2 reactions (+2/-0) [18:31] schestowitz[TR2] Post ID: @ep+1jrn9p8w5 [18:31] schestowitz[TR2] 0 [18:31] schestowitz[TR2] When you hire clowns expect a circus ● Apr 13 [20:30] *jacobk has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [20:33] *jacobk (~quassel@syp65ggum2ibk.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Apr 13 [21:12] *rsheftel1435 (~rsheftel@freenode-2q9.ilv.1cipql.IP) has joined #techbytes ● Apr 13 [23:33] *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has left #techbytes [23:46] *jacobk has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [23:49] *jacobk (~quassel@syp65ggum2ibk.irc) has joined #techbytes