●● IRC: #techbytes @ Techrights IRC Network: Saturday, February 17, 2024 ●● ● Feb 17 [00:16] *psydroid2 has quit (Quit: KVIrc 5.0.0 Aria http://www.kvirc.net/) ● Feb 17 [01:18] *psydruid has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [01:19] *thiel3 has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [01:40] *schestowitz-TR has quit (Quit: Konversation term) [01:40] *schestowitz-TR2 has quit (Quit: Konversation term) [01:40] *schestowitz-TR (~acer-box@24axkg87jqny6.irc) has joined #techbytes [01:40] *schestowitz-TR2 (~acer-box@freenode-54p.goo.k31cok.IP) has joined #techbytes [01:53] *schestowitz-TR has quit (Quit: Konversation term) [01:53] *schestowitz-TR2 has quit (Quit: Konversation term) [01:53] *schestowitz-TR (~acer-box@24axkg87jqny6.irc) has joined #techbytes [01:53] *schestowitz-TR2 (~acer-box@freenode-54p.goo.k31cok.IP) has joined #techbytes [01:57] *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has joined #techbytes [01:59] *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has left #techbytes [01:59] *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Feb 17 [02:00] *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has left #techbytes [02:01] *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has joined #techbytes [02:22] *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has left #techbytes [02:23] *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has joined #techbytes [02:24] *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has left #techbytes [02:25] *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Feb 17 [03:18] *xistence has quit (*.net *.split) [03:18] *Techrights-sec2 has quit (*.net *.split) [03:18] *logbackup has quit (*.net *.split) [03:18] *rsheftel1435 has quit (*.net *.split) [03:18] *rianne has quit (*.net *.split) [03:20] *xistence (~xistence@freenode-2ue.6ih.pu7h8v.IP) has joined #techbytes [03:20] *Techrights-sec2 (~quassel@freenode-54p.goo.k31cok.IP) has joined #techbytes [03:20] *rsheftel1435 (~rsheftel@freenode-sle.jn3.t23bea.IP) has joined #techbytes [03:20] *rianne (~rianne@freenode-54p.goo.k31cok.IP) has joined #techbytes [03:20] *logbackup (~quassel@freenode-54p.goo.k31cok.IP) has joined #techbytes [03:21] *xistence has quit (Ping timeout: 120 seconds) [03:35] *u-amarsh04 has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [03:52] *xistence (~xistence@freenode-2ue.6ih.pu7h8v.IP) has joined #techbytes ● Feb 17 [04:12] *xistence has quit (Ping timeout: 120 seconds) [04:30] *Disconnected (Remote host closed socket). [04:42] *Now talking on #techbytes [04:42] *Topic for #techbytes is: Welcome to the official channel of the TechBytes Audiocast [04:42] *Topic for #techbytes set by schestowitz!~roy@haii6za73zabc.irc at Tue Jun 1 20:21:34 2021 [04:42] *libertybox_ (~schestowitz_log@24axkg87jqny6.irc) has joined #techbytes [04:42] *rianne_ (~rianne@24axkg87jqny6.irc) has joined #techbytes [04:42] *KindOne_ (~KindOne@23xffjdf3phbn.irc) has joined #techbytes [04:42] *libertybox__ (~schestowitz_log@24axkg87jqny6.irc) has joined #techbytes [04:42] *schestowitz-TR (~acer-box@24axkg87jqny6.irc) has joined #techbytes [04:43] *XFaCE (~XFaCE@uzfeivw9fp6ba.irc) has joined #techbytes [04:43] *techrights-sec (~quassel@24axkg87jqny6.irc) has joined #techbytes [04:43] *fury999i- (~fury999io@j2r64gtkf9rf4.irc) has joined #techbytes [04:43] *Techrights-sec2 (~quassel@24axkg87jqny6.irc) has joined #techbytes [04:43] *Moocher5254 (~quassel@6i8ckjmvfhgyw.irc) has joined #techbytes [04:43] *logbackup (~quassel@24axkg87jqny6.irc) has joined #techbytes [04:43] *Noisytoot (~noisytoot@tkbibjhmbkvb8.irc) has joined #techbytes [04:43] *roy (~quassel@24axkg87jqny6.irc) has joined #techbytes [04:44] *thiel3 (~thiel3@u8mz5ab9qj5ra.irc) has joined #techbytes [04:45] *MinceR (~mincer@bringer.of.light) has joined #techbytes [04:45] *irc.techrights.org sets mode +a #techbytes MinceR ● Feb 17 [06:31] *You are now known as schestowitz [06:32] *u-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@qezxp5nudz5uq.irc) has joined #techbytes [06:44] *existence (~xistence@freenode-2ue.6ih.pu7h8v.IP) has joined #techbytes ● Feb 17 [07:10] schestowitz "" [07:10] schestowitz REMINDERS & ANNOUNCEMENTS [07:10] schestowitz Who we are and what we do: the staff representation is an official body of the office (See CODEX, articles 33- [07:10] schestowitz 38). We are elected every 3 years and defend the interests of staff. [07:10] schestowitz Stay informed: [07:10] schestowitz MSTEAMS CANTA_Staff Representation public [07:10] schestowitz Intranet page: q/staffrep [07:10] schestowitz Outlook inbox: q/SRRSS [07:10] schestowitz Contact us (early): DHSTCOM@epo.org or individually [07:10] schestowitz Reminder: Confidential councillors are also a good 1 st point of contact [07:10] schestowitz Registered partnerships: The EPO changed its regulations recently to recognize registered partnerships. Please [07:10] schestowitz refer to the intranet announcement of 8.1.2024, especially if you entered a registered partnership before [07:10] schestowitz 1.1.2024, this is relevant for you and your partner. [07:10] schestowitz Drinks after the GA courtesy of SUEPO TH" ● Feb 17 [08:42] *Disconnected (Remote host closed socket). [08:43] *Now talking on #techbytes [08:43] *Topic for #techbytes is: Welcome to the official channel of the TechBytes Audiocast [08:43] *Topic for #techbytes set by schestowitz!~roy@haii6za73zabc.irc at Tue Jun 1 20:21:34 2021 [08:43] *fury999i- (~fury999io@j2r64gtkf9rf4.irc) has joined #techbytes [08:43] *Noisytoot (~noisytoot@tkbibjhmbkvb8.irc) has joined #techbytes [08:43] *Techrights-sec (~quassel@24axkg87jqny6.irc) has joined #techbytes [08:43] *Moocher5254 (~quassel@6i8ckjmvfhgyw.irc) has joined #techbytes [08:43] *logbackup (~quassel@24axkg87jqny6.irc) has joined #techbytes [08:43] *Techrights-sec2 (~quassel@24axkg87jqny6.irc) has joined #techbytes [08:44] *pi (~quassel@24axkg87jqny6.irc) has joined #techbytes [08:45] *XFaCE (~XFaCE@uzfeivw9fp6ba.irc) has joined #techbytes [08:46] *u-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@qezxp5nudz5uq.irc) has joined #techbytes [08:47] *thiel3 (~thiel3@u8mz5ab9qj5ra.irc) has joined #techbytes [08:48] *MinceR (~mincer@bringer.of.light) has joined #techbytes [08:48] *irc.techrights.org sets mode +a #techbytes MinceR ● Feb 17 [09:28] *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has joined #techbytes [09:37] *parsifal (~parsifal@uuar9r28yasyu.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Feb 17 [10:07] *Noisytoot has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [10:08] *Noisytoot (~noisytoot@tkbibjhmbkvb8.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Feb 17 [12:52] schestowitz[TR2]
  • [12:52] schestowitz[TR2]
    New krita.org website launched
    [12:52] schestowitz[TR2]
    [12:52] schestowitz[TR2]

    After a lot of work, we moved our website to a new Hugo based platform! A lot of time and energy went into making this new version. There were a number of reasons and issues that we moved the site.

    [12:52] schestowitz[TR2]
    [12:52] schestowitz[TR2]
    • [12:52] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-New krita.org website launched | Krita ● Feb 17 [13:04] *psydroid2 (~psydroid@u8ftxtfux23wk.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Feb 17 [14:10] *pi is now known as techright-sec [14:27] schestowitz[TR2]
  • [14:27] schestowitz[TR2]
    Online dating: where does your data really go?
    [14:27] schestowitz[TR2]
    [14:27] schestowitz[TR2]

    I wrote about this previously in a blog post in 2018. In the six years that have passed, the surveillance possibilities have only become more oppressive for the ordinary user. The real goals of these services are building profiles of their users that can be useful in a wide range of marketing and price discrimination scenarios.

    [14:27] schestowitz[TR2]
    [14:27] schestowitz[TR2]
    • [14:27] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-danielpocock.com | Online dating: where does your data really go? ● Feb 17 [15:12] *Noisytoot has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [15:13] *Noisytoot (~noisytoot@tkbibjhmbkvb8.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Feb 17 [16:37] *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has left #techbytes [16:45] *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has joined #techbytes [16:50] *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has left #techbytes ● Feb 17 [17:36] *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Feb 17 [19:51] *parsifal has quit (Quit: Leaving) ● Feb 17 [20:46] schestowitz[TR2] http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2024/02/guest-post-can-ai-be-considered-phosita.html?showComment=1708089109803#c8859500901021285929 [20:46] schestowitz[TR2] "I fail to grasp why the enquiry should be "Can Hey Hi (AI) be considered a *person* having ordinary skill in the art?". How is it more relevant than asking if the (notional, but human) skilled person can use an AI? Does it even make any difference for the end result, i.e., the bar for inventive step or obvioussness might become higher because using an Hey Hi (AI) expands the field of what is obvious? If it doesn't, then [20:46] schestowitz[TR2] framing the issue in terms of "can Hey Hi (AI) be considered a person for the purposes of patent monopoly law" is unhelpful if my opinion. If anything, I believe it muddles the discussion, like the DABUS cases did for the question of inventorship in situations where Hey Hi (AI) was used at some point in the process of conceiving the invention." [20:46] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | [Guest post] Can AI be considered a PHOSITA? Policy debates in the US and the EU - The IPKat [20:46] schestowitz[TR2] http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2024/02/board-of-appeal-proposes-substantially.html?showComment=1708084711913#c4868229702908870007 [20:46] schestowitz[TR2] "I am not arguing that the conditions for obtaining regulatory approval or an SPC are the same as the prerequisites for patentability. I am simply observing that both the EPO and regulatory authorities find it difficult, in some cases, to draw the line between what is a "device" and what is a "medicinal product" or a "composition". Given this difficulty, it is quite possible that where the line is draw [20:46] schestowitz[TR2] n will differ from a patentability perspective and from a regulatory perspective.

    This is a practical illustration of the difficulty of constructing a clear definition of what is and what is not in each category, and some of the consequences of that difficulty." [20:46] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | Board of Appeal proposes a substantially broader definition of "substance or composition" in second medical use claiming (T 1252/20) - The IPKat [20:46] schestowitz[TR2] http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2024/02/highlights-from-new-epo-guidelines-for.html?showComment=1708089317821#c112790927399635683 [20:46] schestowitz[TR2] "The Board of Appeal has recently issued its preliminary opinon applying G 1/22 to several of the Broad Institute's divisional patents that were found by the OD to have an invalid priority claim. In the Board's view, the rebuttable presumption does exist for this situation and notably, considers that none of the evidence filed by the opponents rebuts this presumption. In fact, they consider that a settlement agreement published m [20:46] schestowitz[TR2] any years after the priority and filing date to support the presumption that priority is valid.

    The Board's preliminary opnion can be seen here: https://register.epo.org/application?documentId=LS8SLZP2YRKZEG9&number=EP15154539&lng=en&npl=false

    I think we can expect the opponents to have quite a bit to say in response to this preliminary opinion." [20:46] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | Highlights from the new EPO Guidelines for Examination 2024 - The IPKat [20:46] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-register.epo.org | European Patent Register [20:47] schestowitz[TR2] http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2024/02/highlights-from-new-epo-guidelines-for.html?showComment=1708091339235#c450082522481503204 [20:47] schestowitz[TR2] "I do not think there is much room for reasonable doubt. The enlarged board were quite explicit that if the requirements of Article 88 are complied with, the presumption applies. I would further refer to the headnote of the decision:
    There is a rebuttable presumption under the autonomous law of the EPC that the applicant claiming priority in accordance with Article 88(1) EPC and the corresponding Implementing Regulations is en [20:47] schestowitz[TR2] titled to claim priority.
    II. The rebuttable presumption also applies in situations where the European patent monopoly application derives from a PCT application and/or where the priority applicant(s) are not identical with the subsequent applicant(s).

    Paragraph 126 further confirms that the absence of one priority applicant is not sufficient proof to overturn the rebuttable presumption:
    To put into question th [20:47] schestowitz[TR2] e implied agreement, evidence would be needed that an agreement on the use of the priority right has not been reached or is fundamentally flawed. For example, party B could act in bad faith to the detriment of party A who may then not be fully informed about the subsequent PCT application. A dispute between the parties at the relevant filing date was mentioned in an amicus curiae brief (efpia) as a further example (point 3.2). Fact [20:47] schestowitz[TR2] ual indications putting into question the implied agreement have to be of a substantial nature and have to be presented by the party questioning the implied agreement." [20:47] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | Highlights from the new EPO Guidelines for Examination 2024 - The IPKat [20:47] schestowitz[TR2] http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2024/02/guest-post-can-ai-be-considered-phosita.html?showComment=1708120894646#c1840870445076772851 [20:47] schestowitz[TR2] "What I find interesting, is the question whether or not a commonly available Hey Hi (AI) may take on the role of the person skilled in the art which figures in the EPO problem-solution approach. Let me explain:

    Patents are, when you look at it, a very odd market-disturbing legal oddity. The justification of the existence of patents is a deal that society wants to make with inventors: full disclosure of inventions that w [20:47] schestowitz[TR2] ould otherwise remain hidden, in exchange for a limited time monopoly on said invention.

    The whole problem-solution approach is designed to test whether an invention qualifies for this bargain. The PSA delivers an objective technical problem (OTP). Then the key question is, is the claimed answer to the OTP out of reach of the general (non-inventive) population? If yes, a patent monopoly may be granted. If no, there shou [20:47] schestowitz[TR2] ld be no patent, society already has access to this invention.

    What if the general population has access to common Hey Hi (AI) that can solve the OTP? Society then has nil interest in granting a patent, since the invention is already within reach, thanks to AI. Nowadays still largely an academic question, but with AI's capabilities increasing, it may become more of a skilled "person" than an average human over [20:47] schestowitz[TR2] time. If these super-smart AI's are commonly available to members of the public, then is it still justified to grant patents to inventions that are not within reach of average humans, but which are in reach of commonly available AIs? As I see it, there would be no justification for the bargain.

    Examination would then boil down over the question of what would be a fair, hindsight free, OTP. Once that is defined, it's ju [20:47] schestowitz[TR2] st a question of serving that OTP to an Hey Hi (AI) with training and technology of the patent's priority date, and see if the answer rolls out. If it does, no patent. If it does not, it's an invention.

    Effectively, this means that once AI's become as smart at combining information as humans, the threshold for inventive step should rise and rise with the abilities of this AI, with the result that there will be less and l [20:47] schestowitz[TR2] ess inventions that are "smart" enough to qualify for society's bargain.

    None of this has anything to do with the philosophical question whether AI's are a person or not. It has everything to do with why we have patents in the first place: a monopoly for inventions that are otherwise out of reach of the general public. Hey Hi (AI) can vastly increase the reach of that general public." [20:47] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | [Guest post] Can AI be considered a PHOSITA? Policy debates in the US and the EU - The IPKat [20:47] schestowitz[TR2] http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2024/02/highlights-from-new-epo-guidelines-for.html?showComment=1708082748346#c4904514953548514090 [20:47] schestowitz[TR2] "Dear Mr Hagel,

    I can agree with you that the arm twisting of applicants in the communication under R71(3) is not acceptable, and cannot be considered as quality work delivered by EDs. This problem should be tackled by the EPO, even if it indirectly means a slight delay in granting patents. When the applicant disagrees with the amendments carried out by the ED, the grant procedure is anyway extended. So why not do it pro [20:47] schestowitz[TR2] perly to start with?

    As far as the provisions of the PCT are concerned, those have no influence on substantive law under which the EPO works and its interpretation in the Guidelines. The aim of the PCT is not to grant patents, but to ease the way in obtaining a patent. Designated and elected offices can divert from suggestions made in the PCT. Just look at the restauration of priority. The EPO has a much tougher stance t [20:47] schestowitz[TR2] han other offices. The same goes for added matter.
    " [20:48] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | Highlights from the new EPO Guidelines for Examination 2024 - The IPKat [20:48] schestowitz[TR2] http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2024/02/board-of-appeal-proposes-substantially.html?showComment=1708081214020#c3675454760352738381 [20:48] schestowitz[TR2] "I think that we should not confuse obtaining a SPC with patentability criteria.

    The prerequisite for regulatory approval. like a SPC, be it for a substance or composition or for a device, is to obtain a patent. The conditions for obtaining a patent monopoly have nothing to do with regulatory approval and obtention of a SPC.

    In a recent decision, I could alas not find quickly, I remember a board stating that [20:48] schestowitz[TR2] in order to demonstrate the efficiency/plausibility of a substance it was not necessary to bring a statistically relevant number of tests, like those requested for regulatory approval " [20:48] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | Board of Appeal proposes a substantially broader definition of "substance or composition" in second medical use claiming (T 1252/20) - The IPKat ● Feb 17 [21:59] *existence has quit (Ping timeout: 120 seconds) ● Feb 17 [22:00] *psydroid2 has quit (Quit: KVIrc 5.0.0 Aria http://www.kvirc.net/) [22:12] *existence (~xistence@freenode-2ue.6ih.pu7h8v.IP) has joined #techbytes [22:35] schestowitz[TR2] http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2019/10/a-european-perspective-on-paparazzi.html?showComment=1708096288614#c6096920578105509123 [22:35] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | A European perspective on paparazzi photographs of celebrities and lawsuits against celebrities over the posting of photographs of themselves - The IPKat [22:35] schestowitz[TR2] "This confirms what you were saying...https://ial.uk.com/important-copyright-originality/" [22:35] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ial.uk.com | Important UK Copyright Case on Originality Standard | Institute of Art and Law ● Feb 17 [23:19] schestowitz[TR2]
  • [23:19] schestowitz[TR2]
    VMware moves to quell concern over rapid series of recent license changes
    [23:19] schestowitz[TR2]
    [23:19] schestowitz[TR2]

    The changes were outlined in a blog post published today by Prashanth Shenoy, vice president of marketing for cloud platform, infrastructure and solutions. In an interview with SiliconANGLE, he explained that the moves are part of a broader effort to simplify a complex internal structure at VMware that made it difficult for customers to integrate products.

    [23:19] schestowitz[TR2]
    [23:19] schestowitz[TR2]
    • [23:19] schestowitz[TR2] [23:19] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-VMware moves to quell concern over rapid series of recent license changes - SiliconANGLE