(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.
| *zso has quit (Ping timeout: 120 seconds) | Feb 14 00:08 | |
| *x-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@wdme6gwksagw4.irc) has joined #techbytes | Feb 14 01:48 | |
| *x-amarsh04 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) | Feb 14 02:32 | |
| *x-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@wdme6gwksagw4.irc) has joined #techbytes | Feb 14 02:37 | |
| *rsheftel1435 has quit (Quit: Ping timeout (120 seconds)) | Feb 14 04:23 | |
| *rsheftel1435 (~rsheftel@freenode-ims.ilv.1cipql.IP) has joined #techbytes | Feb 14 04:23 | |
| schestowitz[TR2] | <li> | Feb 14 04:26 |
|---|---|---|
| schestowitz[TR2] | <h5><a href="https://linuxiac.com/darktable-5-0-1-raw-photo-editing-tool-released/">Darktable 5.0.1 Raw Photo Editing Tool Released</a></h5> | Feb 14 04:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | <blockquote> | Feb 14 04:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | <p>Perhaps the most important detail for existing users is that your current edits will be preserved when transitioning from the 4.8 series to 5.0.1. However, note that the new library and configuration files will not be backward-compatible with Darktable 4.8. </p> | Feb 14 04:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | <p> Therefore, creating a backup of your existing configuration before upgrading is strongly advised. This way, you can seamlessly revert to an earlier version if necessary. </p> | Feb 14 04:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | </blockquote> | Feb 14 04:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | </li> | Feb 14 04:26 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-linuxiac.com | Darktable 5.0.1 Raw Photo Editing Tool Released | Feb 14 04:26 | |
| *schestowitz-TR has quit (Quit: Konversation term) | Feb 14 04:30 | |
| *schestowitz-TR has quit (Quit: Konversation term) | Feb 14 04:30 | |
| *schestowitz-TR (~acer-box@jcfiaarnjjqje.irc) has joined #techbytes | Feb 14 04:30 | |
| *schestowitz-TR (~acer-box@freenode/user/schestowitz) has joined #techbytes | Feb 14 04:30 | |
| *schestowitz-TR has quit (Quit: Konversation term) | Feb 14 04:36 | |
| *schestowitz-TR has quit (Quit: Konversation term) | Feb 14 04:36 | |
| *schestowitz-TR (~acer-box@jcfiaarnjjqje.irc) has joined #techbytes | Feb 14 04:36 | |
| *schestowitz-TR (~acer-box@freenode/user/schestowitz) has joined #techbytes | Feb 14 04:36 | |
| schestowitz[TR2] | http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2025/02/ebas-preliminary-opinion-in-g124.html?showComment=1739372769489#c558677317467998846 | Feb 14 05:36 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | EBA's preliminary opinion in G1/24: "the description and the figures can be referred to in the course of claim interpretation" - The IPKat | Feb 14 05:36 | |
| schestowitz[TR2] | "Huh? To quote your earlier comment: "it is A8...</a></h5><blockquote>Huh? To quote your earlier comment: "<i>it is A84 that should matter during prosecution and opposition</i>". That statement was made in the context of a proposed answer to Q1. Perhaps I should have qualified that view as an assertion that only Art 84 EPC matters for the assessment of patentability <b>at the EPO</b> - though I would have thought tha | Feb 14 05:36 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | t was abundantly clear given the context. However, if you meant something completely different, may I suggest that, instead of shooting the messenger, you clarify what you actually intended to say." | Feb 14 05:36 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | "Tufty, it is a bold stance to assert that only Art 84 EPC matters for the assessment of patentability.<br /><br />Art 84 does not appear to have been designed to address the issue of <b>how</b> claims should be interpreted. It is therefore not immediately clear to me how principles for claim interpretation can be derived from that provision. However, we shall have to wait to see whether the EBA believes that "the principles t | Feb 14 05:37 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | o be applied" for patentability assessments can be derived from that provision, or instead from elsewhere.<br /><br />Regarding Q3, that question <i>might</i> be irrelevant if the description either <b>must</b> be consulted (generally) or <b>must not</b> be consulted unless the person skilled in the art finds a claim to be unclear or ambiguous when read in isolation. However, Q2 only asks "<i><b>May</b> the description an | Feb 14 05:37 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | d figures be consulted</i>". That question could therefore conceivably be answered in the affirmative, but with qualifications <b>other than</b> a claim lacking clarity when read in isolation. In that scenario, Q3 could become highly relevant. The fact that the EBA is inclined to hold Q3 inadmissible therefore arguably implies that the EBA is inclined to answer Q2 by effectively replacing "may" with "must" | Feb 14 05:37 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | and then selecting one of the two alternatives offered." | Feb 14 05:37 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | "The EBA's provisional opinion does not mention Art 84 EPC. For Q1, the issues that the EBA wants to discuss are:<br />- first, whether Article 69<b>(1)</b> EPC and <b>Article 1 of the Protocol</b> should be applied to the interpretation of patent monopoly claims when assessing the patentability of an invention; and<br />- second, whether those provisions are the legal bases for <i>the principles to be applied</i> to the interpreta | Feb 14 05:37 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | tion of patent monopoly claims when assessing the patentability of an invention." | Feb 14 05:37 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | "'" | Feb 14 05:37 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | That description and figures can be taken into account is not surprising, as this is regularly done be it in first instance or even in appeal. This does not mean that it ought to be done systematically. It might depend on the circumstances and whether the EBA decides upon the primacy of the claims or not.<br /><br />What is actually interesting is that Question 1 has been subdivided in two questions. <br /><br />One way of interpre | Feb 14 05:37 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | ting the differentiation brought in the statement about question 1 is the EBA is that it might have doubts whether Art 69(1), second sentence, and Art 1 of the Protocol are the legal bases for the principles that are to be applied to the interpretation of claims when assessing the patentability of an invention under Art 52-57. <br /><br />The limitation in the referred question to Art 52-57, especially to Art 54, actually ignores | Feb 14 05:37 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | the effect of the novelty criterion on added matter under Art 123(2) or the validity of the priority. I have some doubts that the EBA will sacrifice its clear position about “directly and unambiguously derivable” on the altar of harmonisation. This position goes through its case law like the red thread.<br /><br />I see this in contrast to the general statement about the interests of a common interpretation in grant/opposition | Feb 14 05:37 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | and infringement. This statement is actually non-committal, as long as it is not known how it will be filled with content. <br /><br />The only surprise comes from the fact that the EBA considers question 3 as not admissible. <br /><br />We might indeed get some more idea depending on the questions raised during the coming OP. <br /><br />' | Feb 14 05:37 |
| *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has left #techbytes | Feb 14 06:33 | |
| *croissant (~croissant@6q7dd3vuaf9b6.irc) has joined #techbytes | Feb 14 06:35 | |
| *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has joined #techbytes | Feb 14 06:43 | |
| *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has left #techbytes | Feb 14 07:03 | |
| *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has joined #techbytes | Feb 14 07:07 | |
| schestowitz[TR2] | https://www.thelayoff.com/t/1jkz3fakz | Feb 14 07:30 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes- ( status 403 @ https://www.thelayoff.com/t/1jkz3fakz ) | Feb 14 07:30 | |
| schestowitz[TR2] | " | Feb 14 07:30 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | Ahh. The tRump effect.” Creating jobs in America”, etc bs, etc bs. 🙄. iBM waited until he got in to strip more worker rights away and tada, now the US is getting hit again instead of other countries. Majority of sr finance folks vote repub (being ruthless is why they’re still there). Pretend execs with no scope-own your vote. | Feb 14 07:30 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | " Does it really matter if CIO has people on RTO that are senior and with institutional knowledge of IBM internal systems that are now in line for getting hit ? No one in CIO is irreplaceable when it comes to making a profit for IBM shareholders - not even Alvind. Just let the senior folk go and get cheaper contractors instead - and let the senior folk train their replacements before they are shown the door. It's the IBM way. There | Feb 14 07:31 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | are plenty of talented people looking for work in the "New And Improved" Trump economy. Let the good times roll ! " | Feb 14 07:31 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | https://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2025/01/30/will-the-upc-get-its-long-arm-slapped-by-the-wto/#comments | Feb 14 07:57 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-patentblog.kluweriplaw.com | Will the UPC get its "long arm" slapped by the WTO? - Kluwer Patent Blog | Feb 14 07:57 | |
| schestowitz[TR2] | " | Feb 14 07:57 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | The legal status of the UPC seems to have some odd characteristics: the answer that you get depends upon who is asking, and how / when they ask. | Feb 14 07:57 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | A good example would be answers to the question of whether the UPC is an international court or a court common to EU Member States. Pre-Brexit the answer was consistently the latter. Post-Brexit, the answer seems to be either the former, or both the former and the latter simultaneously. | Feb 14 07:57 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | But is the UPC truly a court common to EU Member States? | Feb 14 07:57 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | Neither Article 1 UPCA nor Reg. 542/2014 provides a definitive answer. The relevant statements in those laws are best described as wishful thinking on the part of the legislators … or perhaps an attempt at a self-fulfilling prophesy. For a court to be “common to EU Member States”, strict criteria – as set out in the case law of the CJEU – must be satisfied. The CJEU is the sole relevant arbiter of the question of whether | Feb 14 07:57 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | those criteria are met. | Feb 14 07:57 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | Without wishing to prejudge the answer, I would say that the UPC does not obviously satisfy all of the relevant criteria. However, I doubt that the CJEU will ever be asked. This is because it has become abundantly clear, for example from the UPC Court of Appeal decision in Mala v Nokia, that the UPC has no intention of referring questions to the CJEU, even when EU law obliges it to do so. | Feb 14 07:57 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | It is not clear how long the UPC can hold out with its refusal to refer questions to the CJEU. All should become clear once the starts issuing decisions on contentious issues relating to the SPC Regulations. By then, however, too much will have been invested by the Commission and the Member States for the UPC to fail. So perhaps the self-fulfilling prophesy of the legislators will determine the legal status of the UPC after all. Ru | Feb 14 07:57 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | le of law be damned. | Feb 14 07:57 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | The legal set-up of the UPC is a bit of a neat trick, if you think about it. Keeping the set-up of court outside of EU legislation meant that, even if it was obvious that the court did not satisfy EU law requirements, there was no route by which questions on that point of law could be referred to the CJEU before the UPC Agreement came into force. Now that the Agreement was in force, either the UPC itself would need to decide to ref | Feb 14 07:57 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | er questions to the CJEU, or a Member State would need to launch action that could lead to the referral of such questions. Neither option seems likely right now. | Feb 14 07:57 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | " | Feb 14 07:57 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | " | Feb 14 07:57 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | Dear Mr Montana, | Feb 14 07:57 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | Thanks for your comments about a possible a possible role of the WTO when dealing with decisions of the UPC. | Feb 14 07:57 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | I commented the decision of the CFI LD about infringement/revocation of EP 3 594 009 B1 on my blog. This decision is indeed flabbergasting. | Feb 14 07:57 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | The long arm of the UPC might not need to go as far as China. What about Spain? | Feb 14 07:57 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | I have spotted another, let’s say, “strange” decision, where the UPC claims competence for deciding upon damages occurred before the entry into force of the UPC! It has also been commented today in my blog. It is about damages for infringement of EP 1 740 740 B1. | Feb 14 07:57 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | To say that the reasons brought forward by the CoA UPC, are far-fetched is a euphemism. It is mainly based on Art 32(1,f) giving the UPC competence for actions for damages or compensation derived from the provisional protection (sic) conferred by a published European patent application This decision has also been taken in a composition with only three LQJ, which is in clear contradiction with Art 9 UPCA. | Feb 14 07:57 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | What is disturbing is that the UPC does not seem to have given a time limit for the proprietor to file an infringement claim. A proprietor can claim damages after having left infringement running for many years and then claim infringement shortly before the patent lapses. How this is in accordance with legal certainty remains to be seen. | Feb 14 07:57 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | I think that Spain was well advised refusing to sign and ratify the UPC. Poland and the Czech Republic have signed, but rightly refused to ratify it as it would be contrary to the interests of their domestic industry. At the rate things go on, they might not, like Spain, escape the supposed UPC’s “long arm”. | Feb 14 07:57 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | " | Feb 14 07:57 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | " | Feb 14 07:57 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | Dear DXThomas, | Feb 14 07:57 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | Many thanks for taking the time to read and comment on my entry. | Feb 14 07:57 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | Due to clumsy drafting of the relevant EU Regulation, EU member states which are not parties of the UPC Agreement are out of the reach of the “long arme” (of course, assuming that the rule of law is followed). | Feb 14 07:57 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | " | Feb 14 07:57 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | " | Feb 14 07:58 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | Dear Mr Montana, | Feb 14 07:58 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | If my memory is not failing, the clumsy drafting of the relevant EU regulation was due to the influence of a former EU member state. | Feb 14 07:58 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | As far as the rule of law is concerned, I have strong reservations as far as the UPC is concerned. | Feb 14 07:58 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | The decision of the UPC to transfer the tasks devolved to the defunct London Section to Paris and Munich, even before the opening of the UPC allows reasonable doubts about their legal basis. I have never seen a court decide ex-officio to amend the law by which is has been created. The same applies to the decision of the CoA UPC to take, for reasons of efficiency (sic), some decisions with only 3 LQJ, whereas Art 9 UPCA says somethi | Feb 14 07:58 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | ng quite different. | Feb 14 07:58 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | In the absence of an exit clause in the UPCA, the decisions of Administrtaive Committee of the UPCA creating the Milan Section and a new distribution of tasks between the different sections of the CD CFI, appears clearly ultra vires. Art 87(2) UPCA has never been designed to overcome the difficulties crated by the Brexit. | Feb 14 07:58 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | " | Feb 14 07:58 |
| *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has left #techbytes | Feb 14 08:12 | |
| *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has joined #techbytes | Feb 14 08:28 | |
| *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has left #techbytes | Feb 14 08:35 | |
| *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has joined #techbytes | Feb 14 08:44 | |
| *x-amarsh04 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) | Feb 14 08:51 | |
| *x-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@wdme6gwksagw4.irc) has joined #techbytes | Feb 14 08:57 | |
| *jacobk has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) | Feb 14 09:02 | |
| *jacobk (~quassel@syp65ggum2ibk.irc) has joined #techbytes | Feb 14 09:05 | |
| *haver (~haver@freenode-drv.aab.2jssns.IP) has joined #techbytes | Feb 14 14:37 | |
| *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has left #techbytes | Feb 14 16:27 | |
| *jacobk has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) | Feb 14 16:35 | |
| *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has joined #techbytes | Feb 14 16:36 | |
| *jacobk (~quassel@syp65ggum2ibk.irc) has joined #techbytes | Feb 14 16:38 | |
| schestowitz[TR2] | <li> | Feb 14 16:47 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | <h5><a href="https://linuxjedi.co.uk/repair-of-a-trident-vlb-graphics-card/">Repair of a Trident VLB Graphics Card</a></h5> | Feb 14 16:47 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | <blockquote> | Feb 14 16:47 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | <p>This is the card I received. It is a 1MB card which is expandable to 2MB, missing the bracket and has some physical damage. I was pretty sure I knew what was wrong before I purchased it. So, I went ahead and bought it. You can see some jumper pins are damaged. That isn’t the main problem, but something I will repair.</p> | Feb 14 16:47 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | </blockquote> | Feb 14 16:47 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | </li> | Feb 14 16:47 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-linuxjedi.co.uk | Repair of a Trident VLB Graphics Card - LinuxJedi's /dev/null | Feb 14 16:47 | |
| schestowitz[TR2] | <li> | Feb 14 16:51 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | <h5><a href="https://linuxiac.com/dietpi-9-10-brings-risc-v-upgrades/">DietPi 9.10 Brings RISC-V Upgrades, Raspberry Pi Kernel Migration</a></h5> | Feb 14 16:51 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | <blockquote> | Feb 14 16:51 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | <p>DietPi, a lightweight Debian-based Linux distribution designed for single-board computers (such as Raspberry Pi), has just unveiled its latest iteration, DietPi 9.10. </p> | Feb 14 16:51 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | <p> With this new release, users of the Orange Pi 5 Max, Orange Pi 5 Pro, and NanoPi M6 SBCs will find new official images for their devices. Moreover, RISC-V devices—specifically StarFive’s VisionFive 2 and PINE64’s Star64—transition to the upcoming Debian Trixie. </p> | Feb 14 16:51 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | </blockquote> | Feb 14 16:51 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | </li> | Feb 14 16:51 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-linuxiac.com | DietPi 9.10 Brings RISC-V Upgrades, Raspberry Pi Kernel Migration | Feb 14 16:51 | |
| *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has left #techbytes | Feb 14 17:01 | |
| *jacobk has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) | Feb 14 17:06 | |
| *jacobk (~quassel@syp65ggum2ibk.irc) has joined #techbytes | Feb 14 17:08 | |
| schestowitz[TR2] | https://www.thelayoff.com/t/1jkz3fakz | Feb 14 17:58 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes- ( status 403 @ https://www.thelayoff.com/t/1jkz3fakz ) | Feb 14 17:58 | |
| schestowitz[TR2] | " | Feb 14 17:58 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | @e4+1jkz3fakz What a ridiculous comment. I swear you people with TDS would blame Trump for the sun shining if it bothered you. SMH | Feb 14 17:58 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | " | Feb 14 17:58 |
| *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has joined #techbytes | Feb 14 18:02 | |
| *x-amarsh04 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) | Feb 14 19:12 | |
| *x-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@wdme6gwksagw4.irc) has joined #techbytes | Feb 14 19:17 | |
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.