IRC: #techbytes @ Techrights IRC Network: Monday, August 14, 2023

schestowitz

<h5><a href="https://www.reuters.com/technology/us-cyber-safety-review-board-assess-online-intrusion-microsoft-exchange-dhs-2023-08-11/">US cyber body to review cloud computing safety, Microsoft breach</a></h5>

schestowitz

schestowitz

The review comes after U.S. Senator Ron Wyden in July asked the Federal Trade Commission, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency and the Justice Department to "take action" against Microsoft following the [breach].

schestowitz

Microsoft has been under increasing scrutiny following revelations that [crackers] allegedly operating on Beijing's behalf got hold of one of its cryptographic keys and took advantage of a coding flaw to gain sweeping access to the company's cloud email platform.

schestowitz

</blockquote>

schestowitz

</li>

-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-US cyber body to review cloud computing safety, Microsoft breach | Reuters

schestowitz

<li>

schestowitz

<h5><a href="https://doublepulsar.com/uk-electoral-commission-had-an-unpatched-microsoft-exchange-server-vulnerability-5436f3f5ec2c?gi=401722bfbe5d">UK Electoral Commission had an unpatched Microsoft Exchange Server vulnerability</a></h5>

schestowitz

schestowitz

The Electoral Commission was running Exchange Server in this configuration during the main incident timeline. They were vulnerable to ProxyNotShell attacks. ProxyNotShell allows remote code execution on their Exchange email server, or in other words complete compromise of their network (Exchange Server runs with highly privileged Active Directory accounts by default).

schestowitz

This lead to several big security breaches. For example, the Rackspace Hosted Exchange [breach] — which was so bad it caused Rackspace to abandon the platform and customers.

schestowitz

</blockquote>

schestowitz

</li>

-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-UK Electoral Commission had an unpatched Microsoft Exchange Server vulnerability | by Kevin Beaumont | Aug, 2023 | DoublePulsar

http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2023/07/board-of-appeal-poised-on-brink-of.html?showComment=1690877203694#c7340787981329457624

*DaemonFC has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)

Aug 14 08:21

*DaemonFC (~daemonfc@mbabvaq6mnkn4.irc) has joined #techbytes

Aug 14 08:22

*DaemonFC has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)

Aug 14 08:37

*Now talking on #techbytes

Aug 14 09:55

*Topic for #techbytes is: Welcome to the official channel of the TechBytes Audiocast

Aug 14 09:55

*Topic for #techbytes set by schestowitz!~roy@haii6za73zabc.irc at Tue Jun 1 20:21:34 2021

Aug 14 09:55

*You are now known as schestowitz

Aug 14 09:56

*Now talking on #techbytes

Aug 14 09:58

*psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has left #techbytes

Aug 14 10:33

*psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has joined #techbytes

Aug 14 10:52

schestowitz

*#techbytes :Cannot send to channel (+m)

schestowitz

"What do I expect out of the EPO? Something other t...</a></h5><blockquote>What do I expect out of the EPO? Something other than a sadistic brutal squeeze between Art 123(2) and Art 84 which goes as follows: Art 123(2) EPC: Gold Standard. Burden of proof of compliance lies with Applicant. Standard of proof to attain is "beyond any doubt". Art 84 EPC: anything less than clarity, to a level of 100%, is a FA

schestowitz

IL. What I expect in pre-grant ex Parte proceedings is i) a recognition that, when all there is available for communication is words, then 100% clarity of communication is unattainable, and ii) some appreciation within the EPO that its job is (even in pre-grant examination) to strike a real life and pragmatic balance between fair protection for the inventor and reasonable legal certainty for the public. Hemingway

schestowitz

, I suspect you are commenting from inside the EPO. Know then that I am a huge fan of the EPO and its established case law. The EPO has done magnificently, in the past, to build up a well-deserved reputation for high quality work. But, out here in the real world, it is increasingly hard these days to be an advocate for the EPO's current ways of working. The complete distain EPO management has for all feedback from the interested circles

schestowitz

is particularly disturbing."

*#techbytes :Cannot send to channel (+m)

*#techbytes :Cannot send to channel (+m)

*#techbytes :Cannot send to channel (+m)

*#techbytes :Cannot send to channel (+m)

*schestowitz gives voice to schestowitz

schestowitz

What do I expect out of the EPO? Something other t...</a></h5><blockquote>What do I expect out of the EPO? Something other than a sadistic brutal squeeze between Art 123(2) and Art 84 which goes as follows: Art 123(2) EPC: Gold Standard. Burden of proof of compliance lies with Applicant. Standard of proof to attain is "beyond any doubt". Art 84 EPC: anything less than clarity, to a level of 100%, is a FAI

schestowitz

L. What I expect in pre-grant ex Parte proceedings is i) a recognition that, when all there is available for communication is words, then 100% clarity of communication is unattainable, and ii) some appreciation within the EPO that its job is (even in pre-grant examination) to strike a real life and pragmatic balance between fair protection for the inventor and reasonable legal certainty for the public. Hemingway,

schestowitz

I suspect you are commenting from inside the EPO. Know then that I am a huge fan of the EPO and its established case law. The EPO has done magnificently, in the past, to build up a well-deserved reputation for high quality work. But, out here in the real world, it is increasingly hard these days to be an advocate for the EPO's current ways of working. The complete distain EPO management has for all feedback from the interested circles

schestowitz

is particularly disturbing.

http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2023/07/board-of-appeal-poised-on-brink-of.html?showComment=1690877203694#c7340787981329457624

schestowitz

-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | Board of Appeal poised on the brink of a referral on description amendments (T 56/21) - The IPKat

http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2023/08/bad-cases-make-bad-law-has-dabus-ai.html?showComment=1691951275530#c8303452988292517453

*DaemonFC (~daemonfc@hefgyz34cc7zg.irc) has joined #techbytes

Aug 14 11:22

schestowitz

schestowitz

">It is not to be denied that AI can have a determining influence on our every day’s life. It is full of promises, e.g. automatic evaluation of X-ray images for detecting tumours, but also full of dangers, e.g. in determining the solvability of a borrower, not to speak about face recognition. The major danger being that the way the AI system works is far from being manifest as in lots of cases, neither the trai

schestowitz

ning data nor the correlation algorithm are known. It is only possible to trust an AI system when those items are known. That the legislator wants to intervene in those matters is to be welcomed. As far as patents are concerned, in the absence of a set of training data disclosed at filing, the question of sufficiency of disclosure will occur almost immediately. In view of the intrinsic value of large collections

schestowitz

of data, companies or individuals holding such collections of data will not be inclined to disclose them. It is therefore to be expected that the number of patent applications involving AI will be rather modest. As far as the two DABUS applications are concerned, the first one (can) is barely inventive and the second one (flashing light) is lingering on the brink of insufficient disclosure. Being a computerised wa

schestowitz

y of crunching data, AI will be barely in a position to be inventive. An AI system will do what it has been told to do, but certainly not more. AI with IP is a nice playground for legal scholars, and it should be left at this. As said, it does not mean that AI is without danger, and the more people will be aware of those dangers, the better it will be for our societies. "

-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | Bad cases make bad law: Has DABUS "the AI inventor" actually invented anything? - The IPKat

schestowitz

"@Hemingway My understanding of Art 64 is that it starts after completion of the assessment under Art 69 (see Art 64(2), so I do not find it has relevance to the meaning of the “description”. Reading literally Art 69, I agree that the description referred to is the description of the patent. But this is not consistent with the assessment of equivalents in which the question is whether “a person skilled in the

schestowitz

art would at the filing date (or where applicable the priority date) have understood it, from the description, drawings and the claims, to be excluded from the scope of protection” (AIPPI resolution Q175, 2003). If the description has been significantly amended, the court may hold that this alters the interpretation the claims and revoke the patent for new matter. This is what happened in the Ensygnia decision. Section 76.

schestowitz

06 and 76.07 of the UK MPP sheds helpful light on this issue. Which leads to the conclusion that the EPO should ensure that an amendment does not raise a new matter issue on the basis of the case law of national courts as to claim interpretation and assessment of equivalents. This seems a requirement for consistency with the EPO's official objective of legal certainty in proceedings before national courts."

schestowitz

"The commercial deployment of generative AIs such as ChatGPT implies that this technology has become part of the skilled person’s common general knowledge. Inventive contribution may be present in any human input applied to come up with an output worthy of patent protection. AIPPI resolution Q272 « Inventorship of inventions made using Artificial Intelligence » adopted in October 2020 lays out in points 4(a)-(e) such huma

schestowitz

n inputs : definition of the target (« prompt »), identification of data sources and processing of data suitable for training an AI, selection of data for input to a trained AI, identification of an output as an invention. And for an application to be filed, a filing decision must be made, which involves the assessment of novelty and utility and the drafting of claims. In the case discussed in Rose’s post, what is claimed

schestowitz

is a container structure which does not refer to AI and the patentability assessment can be carried out as in any mechanical case. As to claimed inventions referring to AI, they are treated as CII cases, but with peculiarities, inter alia the plausibility issue arising from the black box character of the AI system and the issues related to access to the training data (see T 161/18). We are only at the beginning an

schestowitz

d public policy issues are emerging as we see from the Commission's proposals, such as product liability, which could impact patent law issues. "

http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2023/08/adding-matter-by-amending-description.html?showComment=1691668186300#c1658715545357893788

*Noisytoot has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)

Aug 14 12:38

*Noisytoot (~noisytoot@tkbibjhmbkvb8.irc) has joined #techbytes

Aug 14 12:48

schestowitz

schestowitz

"Mr Thomas, thank you for looking at my previous co...</a></h5><blockquote>Mr Thomas, thank you for looking at my previous comments, it is appreciated. However, whether you are willing and able to make a positive contribution to this debate is still unclear. One reason for doubt on this point can be illustrated by your most recent comments. That is, whilst at first appearing to concede that Art 69(1) might b

schestowitz

e unclear (with regard to which description and drawings should be used to interpret which claims), in your next breath you effectively dismiss this possibility in favour of your preferred interpretation of Art 69(1) ... again without showing your working as to why you are convinced this is the correct interpretation. Another reason for doubt can be illustrated by the fact that you do not appear to have considered the

schestowitz

questions that I posed on the earlier thread, despite the fact that I specifically mentioned them. For the avoidance of doubt, the questions (1, 2, 3, A, B and C) are found in my first two comments on that thread. To bring some intellectual rigour to this situation, it is necessary to consider the methods of interpretation under the VCLT. I will admit that I have not conducted a comprehensive review of those methods, as they

schestowitz

apply to Arts 84 and 69 EPC. However, you will note that the focus of the questions that I have posed is the practical effects of various alternative interpretations of those Articles. This is my way of approaching the method of purposive construction, and a way that helps me to keep my mind open to possibilities that might not otherwise have occurred to me. In view of my preferred approach, you will understand

schestowitz

that persuading me to agree with you will take much more than a "because it is there" argument, especially if that argument is based solely upon a prima facie interpretation of the relevant wording. Finally, I would like to respond to your comment that, in view of the requirements of Art 123(2) "It follows that features of the claims cannot have a different interpretation before and after grant&qu

schestowitz

ot;. This is because it really does not follow. As illustrated by T450/20, amendments to the description can (eg by removing relevant context) change the interpretation of an unclear term in the claims. [I place the emphasis on the word "unclear" because the principles of claim construction dictate that only when the claims are not clear on their own shall the description be used to help interpr

schestowitz

et the claims.] This means that, to avoid problems with Art 123(2) EPC, pre-grant amendments that adapt the description to allowable claims should ideally be examined very carefully by the EPO, including by considering possible effects of the description amendments on the interpretation of the claims (under Art 69(1) EPC). Of course, examiners do not have the time to conduct such meticulous analyses. This cannot

schestowitz

reasonably be expected. But the potential of adding matter remains, even for relatively innocuous-looking amendments aimed at adapting the description to the allowable claims."

-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | Adding matter by amending the description to exclude embodiments (Ensygnia v Shell [2023] EWHC 1495 (Pat)) - The IPKat

*MinceR gives voice to DaemonFC jacobk psydruid

Aug 14 13:11

*MinceR gives voice to Noisytoot

Aug 14 13:11

*Noisytoot has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)

Aug 14 15:55

*Noisytoot (~noisytoot@tkbibjhmbkvb8.irc) has joined #techbytes

Aug 14 15:55

*MinceR gives voice to Noisytoot

Aug 14 16:22

*Noisytoot has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)

Aug 14 16:28

*Noisytoot (~noisytoot@tkbibjhmbkvb8.irc) has joined #techbytes

Aug 14 16:36

*MinceR gives voice to Noisytoot

Aug 14 16:39

schestowitz

> Hi Roy,

schestowitz

schestowitz

> I found an article of yours for TechRights

> <http://techrights.org/2023/04/24/microsoft-spin-machine-hey-hi/>

schestowitz

schestowitz

> mentioning GitLab and I wanted to see if you were interested in some

schestowitz

> additional news regarding the legacy DevSecOps brand?

-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-techrights.org | The Microsoft Spin Machine Resumes Amid Layoffs, Azure’s Decline, and Worse News | Techrights