(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.
| *Disconnected (Connection timed out). | Feb 16 02:21 | |
| *Now talking on #techbytes | Feb 16 02:21 | |
| schestowitz[TR2] | http://schestowitz.com/Weblog/archives/2017/11/21/mastodon-free-speech/ | Feb 16 04:41 |
|---|---|---|
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-schestowitz.com » Blog Archive » Mastodon is Free Software, But It Does Not Respect Free Speech (Updated) | Feb 16 04:41 | |
| schestowitz[TR2] | " | Feb 16 04:42 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | Arvind K. said to laidoff IBMers: “Welcome to Walmart “ | Feb 16 04:42 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | " | Feb 16 04:42 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | https://www.thelayoff.com/t/1jks0yq7m | Feb 16 04:42 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2025/02/guest-post-cjeu-weighs-in-on.html?showComment=1739532669030#c4582921872519721181 | Feb 16 05:16 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | [Guest Post] CJEU weighs in on supplementary protection certificates in Merck v Teva/Clonmel decision - The IPKat | Feb 16 05:16 | |
| schestowitz[TR2] | "According to the CJEU decisions the fact that the combination is "covered" by the basic patent monopoly is the first condition to be fulfilled. In both cases (C-119/22 and C-149/22), the combinations (ezetimide+simvastatn - claim 17) and (sitagliptin+metformin - claim 30) were indeed protected. Yet, also in Gilead (C-121/17), Royalty Pharma (C-650/17); Activis vs Sanofi (C-443/12); Actavis vs Boehringer (577/13) the con | Feb 16 05:17 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | cept of "combination" was object of a claim, but in these latter cases the specific combinations (object of the SPC) with the specific active ingredients were not identified.<br /><br />It is not questionable that the CJ sets the condition that "the basic patent monopoly discloses that the combination of the two active ingredients has a combined effect going beyond the mere addition of the effects of those two activ | Feb 16 05:17 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | e ingredients". Yet, the criticalities that the CJEU does not explain here are at least two: What's the meaning of "mere addition of the effects" in pharmacology? Why should the evidence of said "combinatorial" effect be already given in the basic patent monopoly (that normally is a EP Patent), when the EPO<br />that is the sole Authority responsible for the granting procedure does not require said evidenc | Feb 16 05:17 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | e or even accepts post-file evidence?" | Feb 16 05:17 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | "When saying that “it is not sufficient that the two active principles are expressly cited in the claims, but the combination must somehow go beyond the invention of the monotherapy alone and contribute itself to the solution of the technical problem”, could it be interpreted that actually a SPC should only be granted if there is a patent monopoly covering the combination of principles?.<br /><br />If the association of a new a | Feb 16 05:17 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | ctive principle with a known principle must go beyond a mere juxtaposition of effects, it means that actually a combinatorial effect is to be disclosed in the patent monopoly supporting the SPC. Otherwise it would be possible to extend an existing SPC to the mere association of a new with an old principle, both having no combinatorial effect." | Feb 16 05:17 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | "Tufty, I generally appreciate your commentary on patent monopoly law, but find this exchange puzzling. You have taken personal offence from what is obviously a misinterpretation and a misunderstanding. Anonymous’ question is far more reasonable than your replies. <br /><br />And not all of us have the privilege of being able to post on blogs under our real name, so your attack on that front is pointless. My firm has a social con | Feb 16 05:17 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | trol media policy that expressly prohibits me from doing so.<" | Feb 16 05:17 |
| *jacobk has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) | Feb 16 09:02 | |
| *jacobk (~quassel@syp65ggum2ibk.irc) has joined #techbytes | Feb 16 09:04 | |
| *x-amarsh04 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) | Feb 16 09:56 | |
| *x-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@wdme6gwksagw4.irc) has joined #techbytes | Feb 16 10:02 | |
| schestowitz[TR2] | <li> | Feb 16 13:53 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | <h5><a href="https://linuxiac.com/serpent-os-rebrands-as-aerynos/">No More Snakes: Serpent OS Rebrands as AerynOS</a></h5> | Feb 16 13:53 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | <blockquote> | Feb 16 13:53 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | <p>The transition timeline is already underway. The official rebranding will be finalized on March 17, 2025, coinciding—rather fittingly—with St. Patrick’s Day. The project has secured relevant domain names such as AerynOS.com and AerynOS.dev and is updating social media profiles and public communication channels. </p> | Feb 16 13:53 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | </blockquote> | Feb 16 13:53 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | </li> | Feb 16 13:53 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-linuxiac.com | No More Snakes: Serpent OS Rebrands as AerynOS | Feb 16 13:53 | |
| schestowitz[TR2] | <li> | Feb 16 13:54 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | <h5><a href="https://linuxiac.com/chimera-linux-new-iso-images-bring-plasma-6-3-and-gnome-47/">Chimera Linux’s New ISO Images Bring Plasma 6.3 and GNOME 47</a></h5> | Feb 16 13:54 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | <blockquote> | Feb 16 13:54 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | <p>Why? Because while it’s still Linux at its core, Chimera Linux embraces many features from the (Free)BSD world. More specifically, the distro incorporates FreeBSD’s tools and libraries to provide a unique, lightweight, and modular experience. </p> | Feb 16 13:54 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | <p> There is no systemd here (Dinit instead), and it avoids (by design) the traditional GNU toolchain. In other words, much to the dismay of purists who insist on precise terminology, GNU/Linux, there’s no GNU here—just Linux. Plus plenty of other differences, too, but that’s a topic for another time (more on that here). </p> | Feb 16 13:54 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | </blockquote> | Feb 16 13:54 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | </li> | Feb 16 13:54 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-linuxiac.com | Chimera Linux’s New ISO Images Bring Plasma 6.3 and GNOME 47 | Feb 16 13:54 | |
| schestowitz[TR2] | http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2025/02/ebas-preliminary-opinion-in-g124.html?showComment=1739644618451#c7387997231405582618 | Feb 16 15:19 |
| -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 16 15:19 | |
| schestowitz[TR2] | "T 1886/22 of 5 Dec 2024 is an interesting case in that it sheds light on the extent to which the description may be used in claim interpretation. The Board had to decide between a narrow interpretation (a) and a broader interpretation (b) of a term. Both interpretations were admissible in view of the description.<br /><br />The Board applied the rule of the broadest technically sensible interpretation, which is settled case law, a | Feb 16 15:19 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | nd reasoned that under this rule, the broader interpretation was to be chosen. This rule simply reflects the primacy of the claims. It precludes reading into the claim a feature only disclosed in the description. If the applicant or patent monopoly owner wishes to rely on this feature esp. to distinghish over the prior art, they must enter the feature into the claim.<br /><br />It is of note that this is the position of the UPC ap | Feb 16 15:19 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | plying Art 69 EPC. See UPC_CoA_335/2023, 26 February 2024, reasons 4.d.cc. – NanoString v 10x Genomics, and with more emphasis, Dûsseldorf LD 355/2023 Fuji v Kodak, 28 January 2025, Headnote 2.<br /><br />Nevertheless, in T 1886/22, the Board also used the description. The Board made sure that there was nothing in the description which would run counter to the broader interpretation.<br />In addition, the decision includes a fig | Feb 16 15:19 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | ure which clarifies the structure of the device, which shows that the description and the drawings are helpful to gain understanding of the claimed terms. Which is stating the obvious, considering the provision of Rule 43(7) that if the description includes drawings, reference signs are preferably included in the claims if that increases their intelligibility.<br /><br />This shows that the question of whether the description may b | Feb 16 15:19 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | e used for claim interpretation cannot be answered by Yes or No. The EBA’s answer to question 2 in its preliminary opinion opens the door to an analysis of which specific uses are admissible.<br /><br />As to question 3 referred to the EBA, i.e. whether the patent monopoly can be « its own dictionary », the EBA’s refusal to answer may seem surprising at first glance since the question is the basis for the referral. However, t | Feb 16 15:19 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | he EBA’s answer to question 2 implies that there may be exceptions based on the description to the normal rule of the « ordinary meaning » of a term. It is then the referring Board’s responsibility to assess whether the « definition or similar information » given in the description on a term of a claim prevails over its ordinary meaning. This should depend on the specific wording of the « definition or similar information | Feb 16 15:19 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | ». For example, the wording may be authoritative and make very clear the applicant’s intent that such definition prevail.<br /><br />On this topic, the case law includes a sizable line of decisions allowing a patent monopoly to be its own dictionary. It is also of note that this situation is explicitly addressed in GL B.III.3.2.4 which provides two examples of definitions for the term « halide » different from its ordinary mea | Feb 16 15:19 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | ning.<br /><br />As to the UPC, it is settled case law that a patent monopoly may be « its own lexicon »" | Feb 16 15:19 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | "The Plain View | Feb 16 15:53 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | When news first broke about Elon Musk’s tech takeover of the United States government, a number of people who had spent years trying to transform federal IT practices were surprisingly hopeful. Maybe, they dreamed, Elon Musk and his team at the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) would provide a long-needed jolt to an intransigent and antediluvian bureaucracy. | Feb 16 15:53 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | “It’s beyond debate that a more aggressive approach was necessary if we were ever going to make any progress in our lifetimes,” says Mikey Dickerson, who was the founding administrator of the United States Digital Service, which has now been refashioned into Musk’s US DOGE Service. (He left in 2017, before Trump was inaugurated the first time.) Dickerson says the executive order that Trump issued on day one of his second te | Feb 16 15:53 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | rm, which established DOGE as a temporary organization within the government, was actually something he would have liked to see in Obama’s founding charter for the agency. He particularly liked the paragraph that forced agencies to give USDS teams access to systems and records. “That wouldn’t have been a magic bullet, but it would have created a strong presumption that they needed to cooperate,” he says. “We didn't really | Feb 16 15:53 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | have that, so it was pretty much optional whether anybody wanted to work with us.” | Feb 16 15:53 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | Some of the outgoing leaders of the government tech team, who were both proud of their accomplishments and frustrated by their inability to truly transform the opaque mess of federal IT, shared similar hopes. Outgoing USDS director Mina Hsiang called DOGE’s power “a tremendous opportunity.” Former federal chief information officer Clare Martorana expressed excitement that the order would force agencies to share budget data wi | Feb 16 15:53 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | th DOGE, seeing it as an opportunity to pull back the shroud and finally figure out where these agencies hide waste. This information could inform wise decisions on what needs cutting, with the North Star being value to the American people. “I’m trying very hard to be optimistic about it,” she told me. " | Feb 16 15:53 |
| *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has left #techbytes | Feb 16 16:02 | |
| *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has joined #techbytes | Feb 16 16:05 | |
| *haver_ has quit (Ping timeout: 120 seconds) | Feb 16 16:07 | |
| *x-amarsh04 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) | Feb 16 16:28 | |
| *x-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@wdme6gwksagw4.irc) has joined #techbytes | Feb 16 16:29 | |
| *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has left #techbytes | Feb 16 16:32 | |
| *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has joined #techbytes | Feb 16 16:35 | |
| *frontin (~haver@freenode-drv.aab.2jssns.IP) has joined #techbytes | Feb 16 17:17 | |
| *schestowitz-TR has quit (Quit: Konversation term) | Feb 16 17:52 | |
| *schestowitz-TR has quit (Quit: Konversation term) | Feb 16 17:52 | |
| *schestowitz-TR (~acer-box@jcfiaarnjjqje.irc) has joined #techbytes | Feb 16 17:52 | |
| *schestowitz-TR (~acer-box@freenode/user/schestowitz) has joined #techbytes | Feb 16 17:53 | |
| *schestowitz-TR has quit (Quit: Konversation term) | Feb 16 17:58 | |
| *schestowitz-TR has quit (Quit: Konversation term) | Feb 16 17:58 | |
| *schestowitz-TR (~acer-box@jcfiaarnjjqje.irc) has joined #techbytes | Feb 16 17:59 | |
| *schestowitz-TR (~acer-box@freenode/user/schestowitz) has joined #techbytes | Feb 16 17:59 | |
| schestowitz[TR2] | <li> | Feb 16 18:12 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | <h5><a href="https://linuxiac.com/amarok-3-2-2-music-player-launches-as-the-final-qt5-release/">Amarok 3.2.2 Launches as the Final Qt5 Release Before Moving to Qt6</a></h5> | Feb 16 18:12 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | <blockquote> | Feb 16 18:12 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | <p>This update addresses various build issues on non-UNIX systems and allows running without X11 support. Moreover, after years of Qt5 porting and maintenance, this version is widely expected to be the final release supporting Qt5/KF5, setting the stage for the project’s transition to Qt6/KF6 in the upcoming Amarok 3.3 series. </p> | Feb 16 18:12 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | </blockquote> | Feb 16 18:12 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | </li> | Feb 16 18:12 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-linuxiac.com | Amarok 3.2.2 Launches as the Final Qt5 Release Before Moving to Qt6 | Feb 16 18:12 | |
| schestowitz[TR2] | https://www.thelayoff.com/t/1jm7ykxpj | Feb 16 18:48 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes- ( status 403 @ https://www.thelayoff.com/t/1jm7ykxpj ) | Feb 16 18:48 | |
| schestowitz[TR2] | "" | Feb 16 18:48 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | Even Disney is moving away from DEI but IBM continues the BS under Alvind | Feb 16 18:48 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | Hilarious that DEI continues @IBM, just like layoffs. | Feb 16 18:48 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | Some things never change like the IBM Leadership hypocrisy and resistance to change : | Feb 16 18:48 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/disney-scaling-back-dei-programs-proves-woke-agenda-has-been-a-certified-failure-says-prageru-kids-hosts/vi-AA1yWOh9?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=5fd2db98832b4fbab5e68fed7adb20f7&ei=8 | Feb 16 18:48 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | " | Feb 16 18:48 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-MSN | Feb 16 18:48 | |
| schestowitz[TR2] | " | Feb 16 18:48 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | Racist spotted | Feb 16 18:48 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | " | Feb 16 18:48 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | IBM, the Holocaust and technology https://instytutsprawobywatelskich.pl/ibm-the-holocaust-and-technology/ | Feb 16 18:48 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-instytutsprawobywatelskich.pl | IBM, the Holocaust and technology – Instytut Spraw Obywatelskich | Feb 16 18:48 | |
| *zso (~haver@freenode-drv.aab.2jssns.IP) has joined #techbytes | Feb 16 20:35 | |
| *frontin has quit (Ping timeout: 120 seconds) | Feb 16 20:36 | |
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.