●● IRC: #techbytes @ Techrights IRC Network: Thursday, April 17, 2025 ●● ● Apr 17 [02:24] *x-amarsh04 has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [02:28] *jacobk (~quassel@syp65ggum2ibk.irc) has joined #techbytes [02:38] *x-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@h5zkbfemmwig6.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Apr 17 [03:52] *rianne (~rianne@jcfiaarnjjqje.irc) has joined #techbytes [03:52] *asusbox (~rianne@jcfiaarnjjqje.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Apr 17 [05:09] schestowitz[TR2] "Microsoft probing why Classic Outlook is so CPU-hungry" [05:09] schestowitz[TR2] x https://www.theregister.com/2025/04/16/classic_outlook_cpu_spike/ [05:09] schestowitz[TR2] # m$ always allows selctive criticism of deprecated products / product lines [05:09] schestowitz[TR2] # so as to drive sales of the replacements; notice failure to mention [05:09] schestowitz[TR2] # actual IMAPS/SMTPS (POP3 serves *NO* purpose since the 1990s and should [05:09] schestowitz[TR2] # never be promoted, mentioning it only weakens the argument for self-hosting [05:09] schestowitz[TR2] # as IMAPS can allow holding the mails on the server and/or downloading) [05:09] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.theregister.com | Microsoft probing why Classic Outlook is so CPU-hungry The Register [05:09] schestowitz[TR2] "AI is coming for music, too" [05:09] schestowitz[TR2] x https://www.technologyreview.com/2025/04/16/1114433/ai-artificial-intelligence-music-diffusion-creativity-songs-writer/ [05:09] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.technologyreview.com | AI is coming for music, too | MIT Technology Review ● Apr 17 [09:03] schestowitz[TR2]
  • [09:03] schestowitz[TR2]
    Deepin 23.1 Launches with Smarter AI, Enhanced Hardware Support
    [09:03] schestowitz[TR2]
    [09:03] schestowitz[TR2]

    The new version brings notable benefits to hardware compatibility. It integrates kernel updates to versions 6.6 and 6.12, as well as NVIDIA driver upgrades and Intel/AMD CPU microcode updates.

    [09:03] schestowitz[TR2]
    [09:03] schestowitz[TR2]
    • [09:03] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-linuxiac.com | Deepin 23.1 Launches with Smarter AI, Enhanced Hardware Support [09:05] schestowitz[TR2]
  • [09:05] schestowitz[TR2]
    TrueNAS 25.04 (Fangtooth) Open-Source NAS Released
    [09:05] schestowitz[TR2]
    [09:05] schestowitz[TR2]

    The long-awaited TrueNAS 25.04, code-named Fangtooth, a robust Linux-based (Debian) enterprise-ready network-attached storage that bets on the OpenZFS filesystem and supports containerized applications and virtualization, has officially arrived.

    [09:05] schestowitz[TR2]
    [09:05] schestowitz[TR2]
    • [09:05] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-linuxiac.com | TrueNAS 25.04 (Fangtooth) Open-Source NAS Released [09:48] *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has left #techbytes ● Apr 17 [10:02] *jacobk has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [10:12] *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has joined #techbytes [10:12] *jacobk (~quassel@syp65ggum2ibk.irc) has joined #techbytes [10:38] *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has left #techbytes [10:47] *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Apr 17 [11:10] *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has left #techbytes [11:25] *x-amarsh04 has quit (connection closed) [11:30] *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has joined #techbytes [11:35] *x-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@h5zkbfemmwig6.irc) has joined #techbytes [11:47] *psydroid2 (~psydroid@8p6k6zizq5nqc.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Apr 17 [12:02] *psydroid3 (~psydroid@8p6k6zizq5nqc.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Apr 17 [14:02] *x-amarsh04 has quit (connection closed) [14:35] *x-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@h5zkbfemmwig6.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Apr 17 [16:24] schestowitz[TR2] > Like with other acronyms, CPPA and CCPA should be expanded in articles [16:24] schestowitz[TR2] > even if only with the ABBR element. [16:24] schestowitz[TR2] Done this morning. [16:24] schestowitz[TR2] abbr won't help gemini folks. ● Apr 17 [17:05] schestowitz[TR2] https://www.thelayoff.com/t/1jrf809kj [17:05] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes- ( status 403 @ https://www.thelayoff.com/t/1jrf809kj ) [17:05] schestowitz[TR2] "" [17:05] schestowitz[TR2] I am not a Microsoft Employee, but wanted to ask here, how can I report a Microsoft Senior manager that is running his own business on the side. I saw an ethics violation page: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/legal/compliance/sbc/report-a-concern [17:05] schestowitz[TR2] I want to report this guy because not only is he a POS, but i can save someone else's job at Microsoft. I have proof of the business he runs etc. I wish to remain anonymous when i report him. [17:05] schestowitz[TR2] " [17:05] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-How to Report a Compliance Concern | Microsoft Legal [17:06] schestowitz[TR2] Techrights can be contacted with encryption: https://schestowitz.com/PGP/ [17:06] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-Roy Schestowitz - PGP Key [17:10] schestowitz[TR2] >> Done this morning. [17:10] schestowitz[TR2] > [17:10] schestowitz[TR2] > Thanks > abbr won't help gemini folks. [17:10] schestowitz[TR2] > [17:10] schestowitz[TR2] > True [17:10] schestowitz[TR2] We have enough now to shut down OSI. Coming May. [17:56] schestowitz[TR2] http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2025/04/beware-of-boilerplate-practical-lessons.html?showComment=1744735011105#c2238841977320764142 [17:56] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | Beware of boilerplate: Practical lessons for patent drafting from G1/24 (Claim interpretation) - The IPKat [17:56] schestowitz[TR2] "Mr Hagel,

    I have to disagree with you about what you call the key issue. If the applicant has the firm intent that the claim term is to be understood pursuant to a statement in the description, then why does it not put this statement in the claim? By doing so, the claim and the description are aligned.

    Any ambiguity about the meaning would be avoided, but a national court or the UPC would still be able [17:56] schestowitz[TR2] to determine whether there is infringement. For this, a national court or the UPC has merely to apply Art 1+2 of the Protocol on interpretation of Art 69.

    What you are actually advocating is, in my view, nothing else than the concept that the patent monopoly is its own dictionary.

    The concept of the patent monopoly being its own dictionary is a concept which stems from German jurisprudence and pract [17:56] schestowitz[TR2] ice. It has, no surprise, also been adopted by the UPC.

    The BA of the EPO have a different position about this concept. In various decisions, the BA have made clear that this concept is not to be adopted. I refer here, e.g. to T 454/23, T 169/20, Reasons 1.3.4 and T 1830/22, Reasons 1.3+1.4.

    In T 1830/22 it was held that, neither the wording of Art 69(1) nor the established case law of the BA can provide a b [17:56] schestowitz[TR2] asis for the alleged concept of the patent as its own dictionary. Such a concept could in fact elude the objective comparability of a patent monopoly with the respective prior art, which in turn would of course be difficult to reconcile with the requirement of legal certainty.

    However, should part of this statement lead to the claim not being novel and/or inventive, it cannot stay in the claim, but also not in the [17:56] schestowitz[TR2] description. I fail to see there a potential source of added matter. By leaving it in the description, you are actually nurturing the famous Angora cat.

    I fail also to understand why such an amendment of para [0035] would be cumbersome and procedurally inefficient. If part of this statement cannot be considered novel or inventive, it cannot stay in the claim, but also not in the description.

    Whether the UP [17:56] schestowitz[TR2] C might have a different interpretation of the EPC is a matter of fact which might well happen, but it should not lead to the EPO following blindly the case law of the UPC simply for the sake of harmonisation.

    The EPO has regularly taken notice of the case law in contracting states, and I am convinced that it will do the same with the UPC, insofar as it corresponds to its own interpretation of the EPC.

    That [17:56] schestowitz[TR2] the EPO president and the chair of the boards want to work towards consistency with the UPC is normal and deserves to be encouraged, but this does not mean that the EPO and its boards should blindly follow the case law of the UPC. This is what all the proponents of the UPC would like to see, but this should not be the primary aim of the EPO and its BAs.

    I can well imagine situations in which the EPO revokes a patent, w [17:56] schestowitz[TR2] hereas the UPC maintains it, at least in amended form, or vice-versa. In view of its shorter procedural delays, the UPC will normally decide first, but this does not mean that the EPO should, for the mere sake of harmonisation, merely follow the decisions of the UPC. " [17:57] schestowitz[TR2] ""Well, you have to understand that, by adopting a hypothetical interpretation of the claim wording, the examiner makes the examination process much more "efficient".

    Firstly, it makes it easier for the examiner to compare apples in the prior art with "apples" in any subsequent application, even if a subsequent applicant chooses to define the "apples" of their invention quite differen [17:57] schestowitz[TR2] tly to those of the prior art.

    Secondly, it does away with all of the time that examiners would otherwise waste looking in detail at the disclosures of the description to understand which, if any, "custom" definitions can be found therein for words / phrases used in the claims to define the invention.

    The EPO's practice means that all an examiner need do is select their "standard" definitio [17:57] schestowitz[TR2] ns of terms used to define the claimed invention and proceed on that basis. This is very efficient, especially as the examiner does not need to even explain which "standard" definitions they have selected, let alone explain to the applicant which documentary sources support those "standard" definitions.

    So you must understand that, whilst applicants may sometimes be dismayed that the EPO's interpretat [17:57] schestowitz[TR2] ion covers what they never regarded to be the invention, this is a price that we all pay to ensure that patent monopoly applications are examined and granted using the minimum possible examiner time. After all, the interests of (the EPO's view of) efficiency are paramount! [17:57] schestowitz[TR2] " ● Apr 17 [20:30] *jacobk has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [20:33] *jacobk (~quassel@syp65ggum2ibk.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Apr 17 [23:02] *psydroid3 has quit (Quit: KVIrc 5.2.6 Quasar http://www.kvirc.net/)