●● IRC: #techbytes @ FreeNode: Thursday, June 17, 2021 ●● ● Jun 17 [01:17] schestowitz "Support for the Raspberry Pi 400 will be added into the mainline Linux kernel with the upcoming 5.14 release. And, subsequently, Raspberry Pi 400 support should be available on any Linux distro based on the mainline kernel." [01:17] schestowitz https://www.fosslife.org/raspberry-pi-400-support-coming-linux-kernel [01:17] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.fosslife.org | Raspberry Pi 400 Support Coming to Linux Kernel ● Jun 17 [02:12] *psydroid (~psydroid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has left #techbytes [02:12] *psydroid (~psydroid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Jun 17 [06:16] *arbition (~arbition@c9qzztust5hj4.irc) has joined #techbytes [06:16] *arbition (~arbition@c9qzztust5hj4.irc) has left #techbytes (WeeChat 3.0.1) [06:22] *DaemonFC has quit (Quit: Leaving) ● Jun 17 [14:09] *DaemonFC (~daemonfc@usd2bagfexha4.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Jun 17 [16:34] *spazz (~spazz@urifce6zxwtdi.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Jun 17 [17:29] *DaemonFC has quit (Quit: Leaving) [17:37] *DaemonFC_phone (~daemonfc@4ejjjsb329z82.irc) has joined #techbytes [17:44] *DaemonFC_phone has quit (Quit: Quit) [17:45] *DaemonFC_phone (~daemonfc@4ejjjsb329z82.irc) has joined #techbytes [17:45] *DaemonFC_phone has quit (Quit: Quit) [17:45] schestowitz http://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2021/06/11/kevin-mooney-new-years-of-delay-for-unified-patent-court-unlikely/#comments [17:45] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-patentblog.kluweriplaw.com | Kevin Mooney: New years of delay for Unified Patent Court unlikely - Kluwer Patent Blog [17:45] schestowitz " [17:45] schestowitz Supertramp Dreamer, was the first thing that came to my mind [17:45] schestowitz And on which basis does he believe the complaints will be dismissed? [17:45] schestowitz Last time, the only decision that has been taken, was about not meeting the formal requirement during the parliamentary vote when transferring sovereign rights. [17:45] schestowitz But there were negative and dubious comments about the other merits in the decision already. [17:45] schestowitz Andre Winterberg [17:45] schestowitz June 11, 2021 at 4:24 pm [17:45] schestowitz The complainants should update their complaints: [17:45] schestowitz http://techrights.org/2020/12/03/epo-upc-fraudlinger/ [17:45] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-techrights.org | [Mail] Readers Comment on Fraudlinger | Techrights [17:45] schestowitz The UPC will keep SMEs at bay with its high costs (20.000EUR if you want to defend yourself, and invalidate the patent of a troll or a competitor). Thats the reason why Czech Republic is not ratitying any time soon, court fees for a simple case in Czech Republic is 80EUR. [17:45] schestowitz Mdme Frohlinger decided to recycle the old Impact Assessment of 2009 to hide the controversial self-financed aspect of the UPC (which the UPLS of 2009 was not), which explains why the UPC court fees are so high for SMEs. [17:45] schestowitz Art 36.3 of the UPCA with a court that seeks to be self-financed is destroying the integrity of the justice system, as judges will apply patent maximalism to be able to have a salary. There is a reason why courts in the different member states are not self-financed. Courts are not companies with financial targets. [17:45] schestowitz Andre Winterberg [17:45] schestowitz June 15, 2021 at 5:13 pm [17:45] schestowitz On Mercosur and the recycling of Impact Assessment, you can read through the lines that the Commission was relunctant to recommission a new impact assessment. I guess if there are no fines or sanctions attached to it, they do whatever they want. [17:45] schestowitz A. Rebentisch [17:45] schestowitz June 11, 2021 at 4:39 pm [17:46] schestowitz The phrase European harmonisation refers to a specific process that would be achieved by a European substantive patent law directive with an aim to harmonise the patent law of member states. [17:46] schestowitz The elephant in the room is why this has not been tried. Why we still have 27 unharmonised patent laws. We harmonised patent law for biological matters in the EU, that is all. [17:46] schestowitz Neither new specialised Courts nor the EPO board of appeal or administrative practice nor WTO and trade treaties are a process for European harmonisation of patent law. If any, the Unified Court is just enhanced cooperation of EU member states. With the UK gone, it seems unwise not to try a genuine EU patent court as envisage in the EU treaties instead of the Unitary Court. Such a Court would not require diplomatic conferences, [17:46] schestowitz treaties and ratifications but the simple use of the ordinary legislative process of the EU. In other words, a true EU patent court would be easily achievable provided the European Commission presents a legal proposal. [17:46] schestowitz No reason to be optimistic [17:46] schestowitz June 11, 2021 at 8:17 pm [17:46] schestowitz I would agree with one of those that there is no reason to be optimistic, like there was none when the first complaint was filed. [17:46] schestowitz This said, I would add to Mr Mooneys comments that the FCC should not be allowed to leave cases pending forever (the first case on the EPO is more than 10 years old), and should not be allowed to decide partially when they should know that the case will come back, with innuendos that the case suffers further deficiencies. [17:46] schestowitz Also, Mr Mooney says that it will take 15 further months, but that delay appears to be fine [17:46] schestowitz Attentive Observer [17:46] schestowitz June 12, 2021 at 12:50 pm [17:46] schestowitz With due respect to his person, I think that Mr Mooney has missed an opportunity to keep quiet. [17:46] schestowitz Who does he think he is to call the attitude of the GFCC disgraceful? As a lawyer, i.e. a person part of the judicial system, I find such a comment outrageous. Ever heard about contempt of court? That he is angry at all revenues which are not filling his pockets and that of his friends, does not warrant such a discourteous attitude. [17:46] schestowitz It appears however sure the longer the GFCC takes to decide the less the chances are that the UPC will enter into force. [17:46] schestowitz Where does he know the names of the complainants? Does he has contacts with the registry of the GFCC? We have heard before that the complaints would be dismissed at once. The record seems to have a scratch again. That the new complaints are not on the agenda of the second Chamber of the GFCC has certainly brought him in rage. In the first decision, parts of the complaint were dismissed as they were not properly substantiated, they might now have [17:46] schestowitz been better substantiated. On top of this, Point 106 of the first decision further raised a point which was not even raised by the complainant. [17:46] schestowitz The second ratification at the German Parliament has been obtained by hiding the real problems. [17:46] schestowitz The first problem is the inordinate costs for PMEs. Claiming that the costs before a supra-national self-financed court should be lower than before a German court is an insult to common sense. A court which has to be self-supporting and hence to have a fee level which is far beyond what appears reasonable is not a democratic court. The difference in fees between infringement (11 000) and nullity (20 000) makes it abundantly clear for which [17:46] schestowitz the UPC is set up. The UPC has been set up for the big industry and internationally active lawyers firms. Further to the high fees, one can guess the fees which will be charged for a supra-national litigation by lawyers. And all this should be in the benefit of SMEs? [17:46] schestowitz The situation created after Brexit with Art 7(2) UPCA and Art 3 of the Protocol on provisional application (PPA) mentions London, respectively the UK, has also been carefully dodged in the explanations given to the members of the German Parliament. When one compares an Article published in GRUR Int. by Mr Tillmann, a good friend of Mr Mooney, and the explanatory note to the second ratification bill, it is clear who has guided the hand of the [17:46] schestowitz civil servants in the German Ministry of Justice. Lobbyism at its best! [17:46] schestowitz Even under the VCLT, the terms of Art 7(2) are abundantly clear and do not need interpretation. Simply claiming that the duties of London can be distributed to the remaining sections of Paris and London, is wishful thinking at its best. This is the more so, since Italy, The Netherlands and lately Denmark have claimed that the London section should come onto their territory. [17:46] schestowitz As long as the problems linked with Art 7(2) and the PPA are not solved it appears wishful thinking that the UPC can start. Should it start, any reasonable lawyer or representative would not advise his clients to start litigation or nullity at a court with such a shoddy basis. [17:46] schestowitz That a very specious interpretation of Art 87(2) UPCA as has been envisaged in order to dodge the problem of Art 7(2) UPCA shows a certain phantasy, but is at stake here is not phantasy but correct application of legal and constitutional rules. [17:46] schestowitz As far as the participation of the UK to the UPC without being EU member states, there are interesting considerations in a recent article from Mr Stjerna. According to the article, the German Ministry of Justice is still thinking how UK could still participate to the UPC in spite of not being EU member states. Under the present British PM this appears also to belong to the category wishful thinking. [17:46] schestowitz https://www.stjerna.de/files/Unipat-Art87.pdf [17:46] schestowitz Giorgio [17:46] schestowitz June 12, 2021 at 1:58 pm [17:46] schestowitz Haha, if we get UPC incantations again, this is a sure sign that life gets back to normal. [17:46] schestowitz All the best, but do not build your life on the expectation that the UPC will open in 2022. [17:46] schestowitz Curious [17:46] schestowitz June 12, 2021 at 3:28 pm [17:46] schestowitz According to the his firms website, Mr Mooney is a UK lawyer. No infos are given regarding possible further citizenships. [17:46] schestowitz I am actually wondering, why a UK lawyer who can not practice before the court (?) ia allowed to participate in the creation of an EU court. And the other question is, why does he care anymore, the UK did not want to be part of this [17:46] schestowitz Apart of this, I too find his attitude towards the BVerfG highly inappropriate. If he likes to insult courts and judges, maybe he should start with the ones in the UK but maybe this would lead to professional problems for Mr Mooney? [17:46] schestowitz Attentive Observer [17:46] schestowitz June 12, 2021 at 5:15 pm [17:46] schestowitz @ A. Rebentisch [17:46] schestowitz You seem not to be aware that there were no less than four drafts for a European patent in the EC (now EU) in the sixties of the last century. No agreement could be reached at the time between the then reduced number of contracting states. [17:46] schestowitz It is only the fear of some European Countries to be inundated by not examined applications under the PCT which pushed European countries to reconvene and end the lockup at EU level. In order to do so, the idea from the then President of the German patent office was to split the procedure between a grant procedure and an after grant procedure in the EU member states. The second part of the idea was to open the grant procedure to non-EU member [17:47] schestowitz states. And we ended then on the one hand with the open Munich Convention of 1973 and on the other hand with the Luxembourg Conference on the Community Patent of 1975. That conference never led to a Community or now EU Patent for various reasons, among them the language problem and that of forum shopping. [17:47] schestowitz It is only in 2012 pushed by the lobby of the big industries and that of internationally active lawyers firms that the EU commission came up with the idea of a reinforced cooperation as it was clear from the outset that all members of the EU were not willing to participate in the creation of a EU Patent, now called the UP. As not all EU members wanted to participate from the outset it was only possible to come up with an agreement between [17:47] schestowitz the EU members willing to participate. Poland and the Czech Republic have signed the UPCA but will not ratify as both countries considers the UP a danger for their industry. [17:47] schestowitz Your idea that a true EU patent court would be easily achievable provided the European Commission presents a legal proposal is a nice idea, but will remain at this level as there will be no agreement on a true EU patent. [17:47] schestowitz On the other hand, with an average of 5 validations of an EP patent granted by the EPO in EU, the necessity of a UP/EUP does not imposes itself. This is the more so since Europe has lived perfectly well with the EP/EPO system and the exhaustion of rights of the patentees. When barely a third of the patents EP are granted to EU companies, it gives the non-European industry a simple way to attack the EU by opening a single point of attack. Is this [17:47] schestowitz really what we want? [17:47] schestowitz Another solution, already proposed, would be to scrap the EPO, and start all anew within the EU and built a true EU patent office. This is certainly not an option. [17:47] schestowitz MaxDrei [17:47] schestowitz June 13, 2021 at 11:52 am [17:47] schestowitz This has developed into an interesting thread. I particularly liked Attentives opening line, that Mr Mooney has missed a good opportunity to indulge himself in a period of silence. [17:47] schestowitz We have this week-end a G7 Meeting in which the representatives of Global Britain turn up for meetings with other European countries wearing Union Jack socks, in order to lecture them, and to tell the wider world how much better they are than anybody else at mediating the worlds toughest problems of the world, finding solutions nobody else can find, through sheer creativity, political pragmatism and world-wide legal experience (thanks [17:47] schestowitz to the British Empire). They preen themselves, supposing that they are setting an example to the Rest of the World, how to live under the precious Rule of Law. [17:47] schestowitz It just doesnt wash though, does it. Even as they ponce around on the world stage, they are choosing not to implement a BREXIT isolation Agreement they signed only a year and a half ago. And yet they continue to suppose that it should always be the UK who should chair every Meeting. [17:47] schestowitz The only connection Mr Mooney has with the EU, I guess, is that his Global law firm (and others like it) is keen to offer its services to all those corporations outside Europe, who see the UPC as vital to their interests in subjugating the whole EU market in one fell swoop. [17:47] schestowitz Sundowner [17:47] schestowitz June 13, 2021 at 8:47 pm [17:47] schestowitz Another chapter opens up in the epic Mooney UPC Fantasies. [17:47] schestowitz We learn that Mr Mooney is one of the driving forces behind the UPC and UP. I always thought that the European Parliament and the EU Member States were the driving forces behind the reform, but maybe thats rather naive. [17:47] schestowitz I particularly like the statement This time however, the German president has said he will only delay his signature pending a decision on preliminary measures, according to Mooney. Mr Mooney, would you mind letting us know the basis of this allegation? Or, maybe, would the Kluwer Patent Blogger mind and ask the FCC press office in line with basic journalistic standards whether Mr Mooneys allegation is true? I trust that [17:47] schestowitz none of both will ever happen which pretty much tells you everything you need to know: This is just another example of the Kluwer Patent Blogger spreading plain Team UPC propaganda. [17:47] schestowitz LightBlue [17:47] schestowitz June 14, 2021 at 11:03 am [17:47] schestowitz See: [17:47] schestowitz https://www.bristowsupc.com/latest-news/german-upc-ratification-on-hold/ [17:47] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.bristowsupc.com | German UPC ratification on hold | Latest news | Unified Patent Court and Unitary Patent [17:47] schestowitz The BVerfG asked the Federal President to refrain from signing the draft legislation (which is one of the final steps required to promulgate the law, which would have enabled German ratification) while it considers the interim injunction application, and the President agreed to do so. [17:47] schestowitz Sundowner [17:47] schestowitz June 15, 2021 at 11:44 am [17:47] schestowitz Thank you, LightBlue. [17:47] schestowitz 1) Where in this piece do you find any official confirmation of said statement? [17:47] schestowitz 2) Since when is Bristows (replace at your convenience with a different pro-UPC outlet) a trustworthy source? [17:47] schestowitz Again: Contact the FCC press office and ask for confirmation that said allegation is true. I dont hold my breath that this will happen. [17:47] schestowitz LightBlue [17:47] schestowitz June 15, 2021 at 10:05 pm [17:47] schestowitz https://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/upc-in-karlsruhe-verfassungsklage-blockiert-abermals-einheitspatent-17144279.html [17:47] schestowitz Die Einfhrung des europischen Einheitspatents, das Unternehmen Zeit und Geld sparen soll, stockt erneut wegen Verfassungsbeschwerden in Deutschland. Das Bundesverfassungsgericht hat Bundesprsident Frank-Walter Steinmeier gebeten, mit der Ausfertigung des notwendigen Gesetzes zu warten, bis ber einen Eilantrag entschieden ist, wie ein Gerichtssprecher am Mittwoch auf Anfrage mitteilte. Eine Sprecherin des Bundesprsidenten [17:47] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.faz.net | UPC in Karlsruhe: Verfassungsklage blockiert abermals Einheitspatent [17:47] schestowitz erklrte, dieser werde der Bitte nachkommen. Wir warten nun das weitere Vorgehen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts ab. [17:47] schestowitz MaxDrei [17:47] schestowitz June 15, 2021 at 11:26 pm [17:47] schestowitz So, do I see it right, that the Presidents spokesperson explains that the President has reassured the Constitutional Court that he is certainly not going to sign while the court is still deliberating. Mr Mooney reports this statement of position as that the President is going to delay his signature only until the court finishes deliberations. [17:47] schestowitz Not sure whether including the word only is legitimate, or something which these days goes by the name spin. [17:48] schestowitz It reminds me of the two sides of the story of what Queen Elizabeth II thinks about Meghans naming her new-born daughter with her great grandmothers pet name, Lilibet. Proud father Harry reports that he phoned his granny in advance, to let her know the choice of name, and that Granny didnt veto it. [17:48] schestowitz But thats not the same as the Queen giving the name her blessing, is it Harry, Meghan, Mr Mooney? [17:48] schestowitz Sundowner [17:48] schestowitz June 16, 2021 at 9:02 am [17:48] schestowitz May I remind you that the statement in question is my emphasis addded This time however, the German president has said he will only delay his signature pending a decision on PRELIMINARY MEASURES, according to Mooney. [17:48] schestowitz Please check what the differences are between FCC proceedings on the merits with and w/o a request for preliminary measures. [17:48] schestowitz I doubt that the Federal President has limited his consent not to sign to a decision on preliminary measures and also, that the court would accept such limitation. [17:48] schestowitz Kluwer Patent Blogger, any news from the FCC press office? [17:48] schestowitz Fragender [17:48] schestowitz June 16, 2021 at 7:46 am [17:48] schestowitz @MaxDrei: Thanks, I was going to write something similar [17:48] schestowitz Actually, according to the article: [17:48] schestowitz This time however, the German president has said he will only delay his signature pending a decision on preliminary measures, according to Mooney. [17:48] schestowitz So, taken at face value, Mr. Mooney alleges, that the President indicated he would sign the bill when the court has decided on preliminary measures irrespective of what the court decides [17:48] schestowitz I am quite sure that the President did not say something like this. [17:48] schestowitz Attentive Observer [17:48] schestowitz June 14, 2021 at 9:18 am [17:48] schestowitz I fully support Max Dreis last . It should be made clear that the UPC is not there to help European industry, and even less European SMEs. It is to help internationally industrial actors helped by internationally acting lawyer firms like that of Mr Mooney and its friends. [17:48] schestowitz Opening the UPC is opening a single point of attack for all those institutions to make direct attacks on European industry much easier! At the same time some people would be able to fill their already deep pockets, and for this, any means can be justified. [17:48] schestowitz Lobbyism at its best! [17:48] schestowitz Unfried [17:48] schestowitz June 14, 2021 at 11:08 am [17:48] schestowitz Mr Mooneys dilemma (shared by many of his friends) is that he has only a superficial idea of German constitutional law and how the BVerfG operates in practice, their ignorance being written plainly across pieces like this. According to sec. 93(3) BVerfGG, the German UPC ratification act can be challenged in court within one year from its entry into force or the time is was issued which happened on 18/12/2020. Would it really make sense for [17:48] schestowitz the BVerfG to decide before that time limit has expired and invite new complaints (which might be filed anyhow, preferably shortly before the lapse of said time limit)? Any sensible and sober person would not expect anything from the BVerfG on the new UPC complaints prior to 18/12/2021. [17:48] schestowitz one of those... [17:48] schestowitz June 14, 2021 at 3:55 pm [17:48] schestowitz especially if there are more urgent cases, this one has already been treated urgently once, and besides the decision also contained comments the legislative nor executive did comment upon themselves. [17:48] schestowitz This case has therefore not been put on the Lgenliste (cases foreseen for 2021). [17:48] schestowitz Lets see if one of the pending DG3/EPO cases makes it this year [17:48] schestowitz MN [17:48] schestowitz June 14, 2021 at 7:15 pm [17:48] schestowitz Earlier this month, the UK has been given the green light to start the process of joining the CPTPP. The CPTPP has a chapter on IP rights, including various patent provisions. For example, the CPTPP requires a grace period for disclosures made by the the patent applicant or by a person that obtained the information from patent applicant. Will it be enough to implement such a grace period only for national, i.e. UK patents, or will [17:48] schestowitz this require amendment of the EPC so that any European patent (application) pending/granted for UK are subject to such a grace period? Another CPTPP provision (currently suspended) requires availability of a patent term adjustment in case of an unreasonable granting authority delay, this very likely would also require amendment of the EPC. [17:48] schestowitz UKs process of joining the CPTPP will raise new patent issues and dealing with these issues might overshadow any still existing effort/focus in enacting the UPC. [17:48] schestowitz MaxDrei [17:48] schestowitz June 14, 2021 at 11:42 pm [17:48] schestowitz How interesting, MN. Of course the UK used to have a grace period before it conformed its law to the EPC in 1977. Perhaps we shall soon see the UK restoring to force the provisions of its Patents Act 1949, as part of its grand plan to resurrect the glories of its past thereby to re-create a Global Britain competitively fit for a bracing future. [17:48] schestowitz Or perhaps the UK is banking on its diplomatic powers of persuasion being strong enough to create a domino-turning momentum and convince the other 37 Member States, one by one, to conform the EPC to the patent law of the CPTPP. [17:48] schestowitz Otherwise, this looks to me like another case of the UK falling between two stools, thinking it can have its cake and eat it too. [17:48] schestowitz Q [17:49] schestowitz June 15, 2021 at 10:34 am [17:49] schestowitz A grace period under the EPC would indeed require amendment of the EPC, but a grace period under national law for patent applications filed outside the EPC route does not prima facie look to be incompatible with the EPC. [17:49] schestowitz Several other EPO member states have grace periods for patents under national law (Estonia, Turkey, Albania, San Marino) so there seems to be precedent here if the UK also wishes to implement one. [17:49] schestowitz MaxDrei [17:49] schestowitz June 16, 2021 at 11:51 am [17:49] schestowitz Q, Im grateful. You prompted me to think about it some more. [17:49] schestowitz Now that the UK is out of the EU, why shouldnt the UK remain an EPC Member State but also amend its domestic law of patents to re-introduce a grace period? I dont yet see anything to stop it. [17:49] schestowitz Opinion has always been divided, on the merits of a grace period. I for one would enjoy a reinvigoration of that age-old debate, prompted by a Top Six EPC Member State proposing to bring back a grace period, thereby to displace the Old World of First to File (or First to Invent) and usher in a new world of First to Publish . How about that, to turbo-charge the promotion of progress within the useful arts? Judging by the [17:49] schestowitz geographical spread of the availability of a grace period, only the governments of Old Europe would be against it. [17:49] schestowitz Guardian of the EPC [17:49] schestowitz June 16, 2021 at 1:41 pm [17:49] schestowitz Q, in my opinion, Art. 64(1) EPC prima facie renders a grace period under national law for patent applications filed outside the EPC route incompatible with the EPC. [17:49] schestowitz MN [17:49] schestowitz June 15, 2021 at 3:13 pm [17:49] schestowitz Or perhaps the UK is banking on convince the other 37 Member States to conform the EPC to the patent law of the CPTPP [17:49] schestowitz The required amendments to the EPC: Art.55 EPC introducing a general grace period for disclosures (Non-prejudicial disclosures) -, and Art.69 EPC introducing patent term adjustment in case of unreasonable delays at the EPO are pro-patent, pro-inventor, and, in and of themselves, worth of consideration. [17:49] schestowitz Like TRIPS, the patent provisions in CPTPP (USMCA) are perhaps best seen as carefully discussed and agreed upon best-practice, and not as some imperial idiosyncratics imposed on vassal parties. [17:49] schestowitz " [17:54] schestowitz for archival [17:54] schestowitz they delete comments sometimes ● Jun 17 [18:54] schestowitz > *SITE TRANSLATION;* [18:54] schestowitz > It stopped about 2 years ago and I vaguely remember you saying you were [18:54] schestowitz > not able to reactivate. Please give it another try, maybe things have [18:54] schestowitz > changes so that we can restore it. [18:54] schestowitz I think it's just a little batch of code in the page, maybe it needs updading a bit. [18:55] schestowitz The downside it, by adding that code you let Google spy on all visitors to your site. [18:55] schestowitz > What you see if you click on site translation. [18:55] schestowitz Re: Error message ● Jun 17 [19:05] schestowitz Re: Stallman Support [19:05] schestowitz Adrienne G. Thompson wrote on 15/06/2021 21:21: [19:05] schestowitz > Hi Roy: [19:05] schestowitz > [19:05] schestowitz > Do you know who is behind stallmansupport.org ? [19:05] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-stallmansupport.org | In Support of Richard Stallman - Introduction [19:05] schestowitz > [19:05] schestowitz > Are they men, women, mostly men, mostly women? [19:05] schestowitz > [19:05] schestowitz > Just wondering. :-) [19:06] schestowitz I only know they are reading techrights because they wrote to thank me. [19:10] *rianne_ has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [19:10] *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [19:16] schestowitz https://twitter.com/empathyeducates/status/1405237719010361352 [19:16] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@empathyeducates: When in 2015 before the Iowa caucus, longtime Clinton Biden donor introduced easily comprised voting machines we kn https://t.co/MOGX94FW16 [19:16] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@empathyeducates: When in 2015 before the Iowa caucus, longtime Clinton Biden donor introduced easily comprised voting machines we kn https://t.co/MOGX94FW16 [19:16] schestowitz " [19:16] schestowitz When in 2015 before the Iowa caucus, longtime Clinton Biden donor introduced easily comprised voting machines we knew it was election interference: [19:16] schestowitz Microsoft, the pseudo charity Gates Foundation waged war on democracy and squashed free-open source software [19:16] schestowitz " [19:18] schestowitz https://twitter.com/EmiHermes/status/1405555931602116608 [19:18] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@EmiHermes: Raspberry PI [17/06/2021] Retwitted [17/06/2021] #RaspberryPI #EmiHermesBot https://t.co/ZpBTKVVKfb [19:18] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@schestowitz: "The #RasPad 3 is a neat project that enables you to turn your Raspberry Pi 4 into a full tablet! In this video, I' https://t.co/2fKbuYCkBo [19:19] schestowitz https://twitter.com/UndeadDrMcCoy/status/1405374544869675008 [19:19] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@UndeadDrMcCoy: @EButlerIV @schestowitz I mean, we all know *why* he did that, Roy has been a reactionary shitheel for a long time... [19:19] schestowitz https://twitter.com/EButlerIV/status/1405345632106254343 [19:19] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@EButlerIV: @schestowitz https://t.co/CB5Pq0zeET [19:19] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@Cavalorn: 'I never thought leopards would eat MY face,' sobs woman who voted for the Leopards Eating People's Faces Party. [19:20] schestowitz https://twitter.com/EButlerIV/status/1405345328392552451 [19:20] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@EButlerIV: @schestowitz IMO: spend less time acting shocked and more time seriously thinking about how/why you were wrong from https://t.co/FevXTVgrnF [19:20] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@EButlerIV: @schestowitz IMO: spend less time acting shocked and more time seriously thinking about how/why you were wrong from https://t.co/FevXTVgrnF [19:20] schestowitz "IMO: spend less time acting shocked and more time seriously thinking about how/why you were wrong from day one and spent weeks carrying water for the manic manbaby who spent the last month doing everything everyone (like the staffers who *unanimously* resigned) knew he would." [19:20] schestowitz https://twitter.com/VoinTsynk/status/1405325881585942528 [19:20] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@VoinTsynk: @schestowitz Two words: Andrew Lee. [19:21] schestowitz https://twitter.com/zoobab/status/1405083119359860736 [19:21] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@zoobab: @schestowitz @fsf You cannot quote people like this. [19:21] schestowitz https://twitter.com/SwerianBot/status/1405072733344612352 [19:21] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@SwerianBot: Hello @schestowitz @RealDonaldTrump #lie : 'Says that when his supporters chanted 'send her back' about Ilhan Omar, https://t.co/oYYeiMFD4b [19:21] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@SwerianBot: Hello @schestowitz @RealDonaldTrump #lie : 'Says that when his supporters chanted 'send her back' about Ilhan Omar, https://t.co/oYYeiMFD4b [19:21] schestowitz " [19:21] schestowitz Hello @schestowitz [19:21] schestowitz @RealDonaldTrump [19:21] schestowitz #lie : 'Says that when his supporters chanted 'send her back' about Ilhan Omar, he stopped it.' #Trump #MAGA #RacistInChief [19:21] schestowitz " [19:21] schestowitz https://twitter.com/gilescope/status/1405038532670988290 [19:21] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@gilescope: Pure rust Bpf lib: https://t.co/feeBoYCByb [19:21] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@schestowitz: Announcing Aya https://t.co/bZDshTHtR9 #rustlang #BPF [19:22] schestowitz https://twitter.com/umbrosious/status/1404964720067727361 [19:22] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@umbrosious: @schestowitz "lying media" campaign not going how you thought it would, Royboy? [19:22] schestowitz https://twitter.com/sohkamyung/status/1404962590447456256 [19:22] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@sohkamyung: @schestowitz Article does say legislation was introduced "to limit the use of the app and its subsequent data to in https://t.co/cxPUwoHAhP [19:22] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@sohkamyung: @schestowitz Article does say legislation was introduced "to limit the use of the app and its subsequent data to in https://t.co/cxPUwoHAhP [19:22] schestowitz "Article does say legislation was introduced "to limit the use of the app and its subsequent data to infectious disease contact-tracing purposes only."" [19:22] schestowitz https://twitter.com/peterfraserbris/status/1404907824547721219 [19:22] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@peterfraserbris: @schestowitz What's amazing is the Trump supporters who are not well off yet they think he's their Messiah. [19:22] schestowitz https://twitter.com/anikaraja_ibmer/status/1404833325613604866 [19:22] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@anikaraja_ibmer: oh this is good .. #IAMIBMEXPERT @ibm_in https://t.co/DvhK0Je3eX [19:22] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@schestowitz: "Best of #ibm you are allowed to bring person" https://t.co/5CM59EMLaJ IBM... is a private club os MBAs and reckles https://t.co/XecfCGPCCh [19:22] schestowitz https://twitter.com/zoobab/status/1404777051412963328 [19:22] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@zoobab: @schestowitz Right, nobody should be suspended, by I am not sure the EFF would agree with that. [19:22] schestowitz https://twitter.com/mektronik/status/1404776420727922691 [19:22] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@mektronik: @threedogsonekid @peterfraserbris https://t.co/zPaCw2PRvF [19:22] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@schestowitz: NEWS #CommonDreams #grifting #theft Analysis Highlights Biden Proposal to End $84 Billion Gift to #BigOil Bur https://t.co/IlHFi65bae [19:23] schestowitz https://twitter.com/sherrydiane1212/status/1404747450162761728 [19:23] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@sherrydiane1212: #RealityWinner & @EverybodyHatesSherry both survive #TexasHospitals https://t.co/5HQCPsMx0f [19:23] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@schestowitz: NEWS #Shadowproof Mother Of #NSA #Whistleblower #RealityWinner Describes Her Daughters Release From Prison https://t.co/8CFGfUKC20 [19:28] *rianne_ (~rianne@22e8m8t4gqjin.irc) has joined #techbytes [19:28] *liberty_box (~liberty@22e8m8t4gqjin.irc) has joined #techbytes [19:31] *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [19:32] *rianne_ has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [19:43] *rianne_ (~rianne@22e8m8t4gqjin.irc) has joined #techbytes [19:44] *liberty_box (~liberty@22e8m8t4gqjin.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Jun 17 [20:17] *rianne_ has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [20:17] *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [20:21] *rianne_ (~rianne@22e8m8t4gqjin.irc) has joined #techbytes [20:22] *liberty_box (~liberty@22e8m8t4gqjin.irc) has joined #techbytes [20:56] *DaemonFC_phone (~daemonfc@qyffu23nukq9n.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Jun 17 [21:15] *DaemonFC_phone has quit (connection closed) [21:17] *DaemonFC (~daemonfc@i2ug7yw84eszy.irc) has joined #techbytes [21:57] *rianne_ has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [21:57] *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) ● Jun 17 [22:01] *rianne_ (~rianne@22e8m8t4gqjin.irc) has joined #techbytes [22:01] *liberty_box (~liberty@22e8m8t4gqjin.irc) has joined #techbytes [22:17] *DaemonFC has quit (Quit: Leaving) [22:53] *DaemonFC (~daemonfc@bfk38rfbykmgc.irc) has joined #techbytes [22:55] *rianne_ has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [22:55] *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) ● Jun 17 [23:04] *rianne_ (~rianne@22e8m8t4gqjin.irc) has joined #techbytes [23:05] *liberty_box (~liberty@22e8m8t4gqjin.irc) has joined #techbytes