[10:37] schestowitz[10:37] schestowitzDevuan GNU+Linux releases version 5 codenamed "Daedalus" on Tuesday, 15 August 2023. It is based on Debian 12 "Bookworm" and coincidentally released close to Debian's thirtieth birthday. We strongly recommend to download via torrent instead of regular links --if you can-- because Devuan torrent shows all choices in one place to you and you can just pick which one you wish. Congratulations to Devuan Community and h [10:37] schestowitz appy downloading!
[10:37] schestowitz
[10:39] schestowitz[10:39] schestowitzThis weeks openSUSE Tumbleweed snapshots were steady and there were no large updates.
[10:39] schestowitzWhile updating openSUSE rolling release once a week could result in a larger update, daily updates throughout this week would have meant smaller updates each day.
[10:39] schestowitz
Santa, as to "think" I had in mind that a patent claim is a definition of an inventive concept and that (at least in the USA) the inventor is the one who "conceives" that concept. The way I see it, the present day AI is a tool, which generates an output, and that output does not (yet) rise to the level of a conception of an inventive concept. [20:57] schestowitz Accordingly, the intelligence that studies the output and conceives as a result of that study a concept that can be defined in a patent claim is what one should identify as the inventor. The UK definition of the inventor as the "actual deviser" might not be helpful any more, in these times of AI as an ever more useful tool for outputting processed data.
But I have to confess that I have zero experience of any AI an [20:57] schestowitz d what it outputs. Perhaps already it is hard to distinguish between the "feature combination" set forth in a patent claim and an AI output that can also plausibly be argued to be a stating a "combination" of technical features at the level of generalisation of a patent claim." [20:57] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | Bad cases make bad law: Has DABUS "the AI inventor" actually invented anything? - The IPKat [20:57] schestowitz http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2023/08/of-policy-space-and-actors-in-policy.html?showComment=1692380758330#c5924359291850136680 [20:57] schestowitz "Thank you for admitting that IP rights can incentivise 'investments'. You haven't justified your assertion that obesity (the disease mentioned in my original post) is a cosmetic ailment. Sounds like you think Americans deserve to suffer from being overweight. Nor have you justified your assertion that all the pharmaceutical industry is doing is making trivial/minor modifications of existing drugs (aspirin wasn't even developed by the i [20:57] schestowitz ndustry but by a tree!). Do you have any understanding of molecular structure and structure activity relationships? No, so you have been buying the nonsense produced by those whose high income comes from defaming the industry with their click bait, buy-my-article, fund-my-privileged lifestyle arguments, and then regurgitating it. My income comes from protecting the industry that develops new drugs to treat disease, including obesity. Th [20:57] schestowitz e patents don't block access to any medicines - it just means those that those care about the poor need to put their hands in their pockets, while those who purport to care prefer to misrepresent patents and the industry.
The developing country link? Try "Anyone working in the field of IP law from developing countries particularly on the African continent understands the tension between IPRs and access to IP-protected ma [20:57] schestowitz terials based on human rights imperatives.". The clue there is in the use of the terms "developing countries".
Evidence of the effect of "higher levels of patent protection"? What higher levels? The United States has been reducing patent rights for many inventions thans to the Supeme Court, but you won't hear about that in the articles I refer to. The Bolar provisions gave increased options to generic [20:57] schestowitz s. TRIPs has resulted in huge increases in Chinese R&D spending and patenting - try WIPO's website for numbers of patent filings by country, see China's increase then look at the number of science/medicine articles produced in China.
The implementation of TRIPs in the 2000's was in countries where there was limited patent protection, practically non-existent for pharmaceuticals, and those countries had large generic industries [20:57] schestowitz . Most still don't have any industry investing in R&D. The biggest investors in R&D are have always been in countries where pharma patents have been available and the investment has grown sginficantly since pharmaceutical compounds have been directly protectable. A simple comparison of the new drugs from countries that support drug patents versus countries that don't should provide all the evidence you need. But, all the evidenc [20:57] schestowitz e will not change your view, because it does not suit your position.
Feel free to have the last word." [20:57] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | Of policy space and actors in the policy space: The role of courts in developing countries in IP policymaking - The IPKat [20:58] schestowitz http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2023/08/adding-matter-by-amending-description.html?showComment=1692374531149#c2973093219918760296 [20:58] schestowitz ">It seems that, depending upon one's perspective, the Ensygnia v Shell either supports or undermines the EPO's "strict" practice regarding adaptation of the description.
For those inclined to support the EPO's practice, the UK case demonstrates that an incompletely / improperly aligned description can be used to afford the wording of the claims a meaning completely different to that deemed patentable during prosecu [20:58] schestowitz tion.
For the rest of us, the UK case demonstrates that amendments to the description can change the meaning afforded to unchanged claim language.
Really, these two views are two sides of the same coin. That is, they both recognise the fact that the meaning affording the wording of the claims can be influenced by the content of the description. In this respect, it seems to me that what causes a divergence of views [20:58] schestowitz is whether this fact is viewed as either:
(a) a compelling reason to insist upon "strict" adaptation of the description to the claims as allowed; or
(b) cause for alarm about a practice that requires adaptation of the description in the absence of a properly determined (and mutually agreed) meaning afforded to the wording of the claims.
I guess that the side that one picks therefore could have a lot to do [20:58] schestowitz with what one perceives as the greater evil, namely either:
1) patentees being able to use an "improperly" amended (or completely unamended) description to argue, in national court proceedings, for an over-broad scope of protection; or
2) patents being either invalidated or afforded an unreasonably narrow scope of protection due to description amendments made to meet the EPO's "strict" requirements.
For me, it is not difficult to pick option 2 as the greater evil. This is because the risks:
- affect potentially every patent granted by the EPO; and
- are enhanced by the fact that the EPO does not properly (i.e. using Art 69 EPC) determine the meaning of the wording of the claims.
On the other hand, option 1 gives rise to risks:
- only for those patents whose claims contain unclear terms (a [20:58] schestowitz s it is only for those patents that the description will be used to help interpret the claims); and then
- only if a national court is hoodwinked by the patentee's arguments in favour of an over-broad scope of protection (and does not invalidate the patent in view of that broad scope).
As far as I am aware, there is not one single example of the risks under option 1 ever having crystallised in practice. As the EPO [20:58] schestowitz 's "strict" description adaptation practice is relatively new, this strongly suggests that, even when faced with descriptions containing the kind of contradictions / inconsistencies that are now apparently verboten at the EPO, the national courts are still perfectly capable of delivering fair results." [20:58] *asusbox (~rianne@3stvfjh5iuw88.irc) has joined #techbytes [20:58] *rianne__ (~rianne@3stvfjh5iuw88.irc) has joined #techbytes [20:58] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | Adding matter by amending the description to exclude embodiments (Ensygnia v Shell [2023] EWHC 1495 (Pat)) - The IPKat [20:58] schestowitz http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2023/08/adding-matter-by-amending-description.html?showComment=1692364359977#c2223295335046297819 [20:58] schestowitz "I'm not a parent but, nevertheless, the most recent exchange between Hemingway and Pudding, immediately above, reminds me of the eternal parent-child exchange in which the child poses the eminently reasonable question "Why? only to be met with the oh so infuriating response, from the exasperated parent who has no other reply available "Because I say so!". Only in Europe can the Patent Office suppose itself to be the fath [20:58] schestowitz er of child-like patents courts ignorant of the rights and wrongs of the law of patent infringement, and sorely in need of disciplined instruction on the matter.' [20:58] schestowitz http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2023/08/of-policy-space-and-actors-in-policy.html?showComment=1692362870650#c4536926440686121271 [20:58] schestowitz "Thank you for admitting that you have not read the book. Also, yes, your comments are largely irrelevant to the topics addressed in the book, and I don't see how that is down to the review. The book is about the decisions of national courts and that is the focus of this review.
We can have debates about the role of IP in pharmaceutical innovation, but again that is not the focus of this book or review. What would be helpful [20:58] schestowitz is if you can provide empirical studies and data to back up your assertions that stronger IP rights always lead to more innovative drugs. I hope you will be able to supply evidence to show that more new drugs have been approved annually in the last 30/40/50 years due to higher levels of patent rights; and by new drugs, I don't mean drugs for cosmetic ailments or trivial/minor modifications of existing drugs.
Of course, prop [20:58] schestowitz erty rights can incentivise investment but that does not necessarily translate to more innovation. I think you are conflating more property rights with more innovation. That is not to say patent rights or IP rights are not important (and the author of the book does not say they are not important) but, perhaps, we should be more 'realistic' about the precise role of IP rights in innovation." [20:59] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | Adding matter by amending the description to exclude embodiments (Ensygnia v Shell [2023] EWHC 1495 (Pat)) - The IPKat [20:59] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | Of policy space and actors in the policy space: The role of courts in developing countries in IP policymaking - The IPKat [20:59] schestowitz http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2023/08/of-policy-space-and-actors-in-policy.html?showComment=1692312430707#c1304835965091559627] [20:59] schestowitz "Not sure if we read the same review, but as the review notes, this book is about the role of national courts in addressing the tension between patent rights and access to medicines from a human rights perspective. Nothing is said in the review about what the author of the book thinks about pharmaceutical companies (or what they should or should not do). Moreover, I am sure if the author of the book was advocating for the abolishment of [20:59] schestowitz TRIPS, that would not have escaped the attention of the reviewer as that would be a rather radical claim that would be hard to miss. By the way, if you have read the book itself, as I have, nowhere does the author advocate for the abolishment of patent rights or TRIPS.
So, your comment above seems like accusing a cat (pun intended) of not barking like a dog." [20:59] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | Of policy space and actors in the policy space: The role of courts in developing countries in IP policymaking - The IPKat ● Aug 19 [21:11] *MinceR gives voice to asusbox rianne__ [21:42] schestowitz systemd? [21:50] geert openrc seems improvement to me [21:56] *GNUmoon2 has quit (connection closed) [21:56] *GNUmoon2 (~GNUmoon@6byxczt6txq2u.irc) has joined #techbytes [21:59] *MinceR gives voice to GNUmoon2 ● Aug 19 [23:32] schestowitz http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2023/08/bad-cases-make-bad-law-has-dabus-ai.html?showComment=1692371213874#c6807821608902137382 [23:32] schestowitz "MaxDrei, the EPC (or any national legislation to my knowledge) does not require the inventor to 'think'. That is also a test that we would not know how to carry out. Also the inventor is not required to 'own' the data/invention. Also human perception at any point is not needed (though it would of course happen). The reality is that we have a pretty low threshold for inventorship in that everyone that was involved at an early stage of d [23:32] schestowitz iscussion is often an inventor. The exact way their mind works is not relevant. Whilst I do not believe AI should be an inventor, I see no actual rational reason for this apart from 'legal discrimination' which for now is necessary because our laws on who a 'person' is cannot deal with anyone apart from a human. [My initial comment above mentions 'slavery' as I have a very uncomfortable feeling of not protecting AI's rights properly, wh [23:32] schestowitz atever those rights might be]" [23:32] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | Bad cases make bad law: Has DABUS "the AI inventor" actually invented anything? - The IPKat [23:32] schestowitz geert: we use that in tuxmachines [23:32] schestowitz and in techrights [23:32] schestowitz for the new alpine servers