[15:05] schestowitz[15:05] schestowitzSeventeen years after its last major version, an old favorite, Damn Small Linux, is back with a new 2024 release. [15:05] schestowitz
[15:05] schestowitz[15:05] schestowitz An alpha-test version of a new release of Damn Small Linux appeared at the start of the month. The last major release, DSL 4, appeared in 2007, and the last point release, a development preview of DSL 4.11, was in 2012. [15:05] schestowitz
[15:05] schestowitz
[15:10] schestowitz[15:10] schestowitzIf you recall, I had problems with the laptop's suspend & resume sequence. The laptop wouldn't wake the second time around, which kind of makes it hard to use as an actual portable computer. I tried my best to fix this, without success. I figured, one of the future firmware or kernel updates ought to resolve it. [15:10] schestowitz
[15:10] schestowitz[15:10] schestowitz And resolve it, they did. Whatever package brought in the goodies, roughly two months ago, the bug was removed. My Titan can now go to sleep and wake as many times as needed, without any fear the session may just freeze. Now, that does not mean there won't be any future regressions, or that the problem may not come around in a different guise. But for now, it's working as expected. [15:10] schestowitz
[15:10] schestowitz
[15:28] schestowitz[15:28] schestowitzThe idea of shining a spotlight on the crumbling schools was proposed by the states biggest newspaper, the Idaho Statesman, as a project for our Local Reporting Network. Working in partnership with Statesman reporter Becca Savransky, ProPublica engagement reporter Asia Fields recruited students, teachers, parents and more than 90% of the states superintendents to collect the undeniable evidence. [15:28] schestowitz
[15:28] schestowitz
You carefully avoided to reply to the question about the information of the public about plants which are genetically modified.
If every type of gene engineering would be as inocuitous as you claim, there should be no harm in making this clear. Why the constant plea not to inform the public? There must be reasons.
The problem is societal and its solu [17:06] schestowitz tion should not be dictated by private interests.
One way for lobbies to push their ideas through is to claim that what is good for them is good for society at large. There are enough examples in recent history to show that the contrary is true. The blackmail with jobs and investments has to stop. The seed breeder also gets its reward for disclosing its improvements to plants by selection.
In the absence of patents on geneti [17:06] schestowitz cally modified plants why should it be more difficult for Europe to adapt to climate change? I claim the contrary is true. It might not be allowed to export plants protected elsewhere by patents, but as far as agriculture is concerned, Europe is anyway a net importer of agricultural goods.
To reassure you, I am not a dangerous leftist wanting to bereave inventors and their employers from the benefits of the patent monopoly system. [17:06] schestowitz I simply want to have the assurance that what ends up in my plate is not dangerous for my health.
Could you explain what is different between G 1/98 and G 3/19. They both deal with Art 53(b)" [17:06] schestowitz "It would have been surprising that you would not have commented on the adaptation of the description.
You are really playing on words, and the situation is perfectly clear. Your position is against better knowledge and you know it.
It is only once the wording of the claims has been finalised, that the description can, and has to be, adapted to the claims.
In another blog, I have reminded you that if [17:06] schestowitz the applicant or the proprietor files AR which are allowable, but does not file an adapted description and is absent from the OP, then the application is refused or the patent monopoly is revoked. I have never been told off by a board for adopting this position as member of an ED or an OD.
If the applicant or the proprietor is present at the OP, it gets enough time to present an adapted description. In opposition it is impo [17:06] schestowitz rtant that the opponent is informed of the adaptation of the description. If the OD adapts the description without communicationg the adaptation to the opponent it commits a SPV. The opponent might not agree, and sometimes wants to see more adaptation. However, the last word stays with the OD. I do not remember seeing an opponent only filing an appeal if he is dissatisfied with the adaptation of the description.
An ED or an [17:06] schestowitz OD can only take a decision of grant or of maintenance in amended form with a complete set of documents. Such a decision is not possible if the description has not been adapted. This is standard practice. Nearly everyday boards remit to the first instance with the order to grant or maintain a patent monopoly with a defined set of claims and a description to be adapted. " [17:07] schestowitz "I would not read anything into my silence on the question about the information of the public about plants which are genetically modified. This is because my reason for not saying anything is that I feel that I do not (yet) know enough about that topic to make any kind of informed comment. Perhaps you could help me here by explaining the main arguments for and against providing information to the public?
The difference bet [17:07] schestowitz ween the two EBA decisions is that they interpret two different exclusions that are both covered by Article 53(b) EPC. That is:
- G 1/98 interprets the meaning of "plant or animal varieties"; whereas
- G 3/19 interprets the meaning of "essentially biological processes for the production of plants or animals", in the light of new Rule 28(2) EPC, which states that "Under Article 53(b), E [17:07] schestowitz uropean patents shall not be granted in respect of plants or animals exclusively obtained by means of an essentially biological process".
Thus, the ruling in G 3/19 does not affect all of the "plant or animal varieties" that were the subject of G 1/98, but instead only those plants or animals that are "exclusively obtained by means of an essentially biological process".
< [17:07] schestowitz br />For a more complete explanation of the different roles of UPOV and patent monopoly protection, I would recommend reading the position paper produced by AIPPI:
https://www.aippi.org/news/aippi-position-paper-on-new-genomic-technique-ngt-plant-patenting-proposal-of-the-european-parliament/
I have to admit that I do not understand the relevance of your comment that "Europe is anyway a net importer of agricultur [17:07] schestowitz al goods". This suggests to me that you did not understand the point that I was trying to make, which is that the absence of patent monopoly protection is likely to disincentivise the production of gene-edited plants in Europe and/or for the European market.
It is unclear whether the absence of patent monopoly protection will incentivise (the marketing of) plants obtained by "traditional" bre [17:07] schestowitz eding. There is simply no evidence to suggest that this would happen. In any event, any gain in plants obtained by "traditional" breeding will not make up for the loss of NGT plants. This is because, combined with research into the roles of various plant genes, gene editing can be a very powerful (and fast) technique for identifying plants having advantageous characteristics.
Perhaps you are happy with European [17:07] schestowitz agriculture moving into the slow lane, i.e. sticking with traditional breeding only. Personally, I think that our response to the climate emergency should be to use our most powerful (and fastest) techniques to help our agriculture to adapt." [17:07] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.aippi.org | AIPPI - Home - AIPPI International Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property [17:25] *jacobk has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) ● Feb 15 [18:25] *jacobk (~quassel@6wygwq2t5e2hw.irc) has joined #techbytes [18:35] *Noisytoot has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [18:36] *Noisytoot (~noisytoot@tkbibjhmbkvb8.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Feb 15 [21:52] *jacobk has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) ● Feb 15 [22:01] *jacobk (~quassel@99ed6ukzxymmc.irc) has joined #techbytes [22:03] *psydroid2 has quit (connection closed) [22:07] *jacobk has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) ● Feb 15 [23:51] *jacobk (~quassel@6wygwq2t5e2hw.irc) has joined #techbytes