IRC: #techbytes @ Techrights IRC Network: Saturday, April 20, 2024

schestowitz

<h5><a href="https://ubuntu.com//blog/disa-stig-ubuntu-22-04-lts">DISA publishes STIG for Ubuntu 22.04 LTS</a></h5>

schestowitz

schestowitz

DISA, the Defense Information Systems Agency, has published their Security Technical Implementation Guide (STIG) for Ubuntu 22.04 LTS. The STIG is free for the public to download from the DOD Cyber Exchange. Canonical has been working with DISA since we published Ubuntu 22.04 LTS to draft this STIG, and we are delighted that it is now finalised and available for everyone to use.

schestowitz

We are now developing the Ubuntu Security Guide profile with a target release in summer 2024.

schestowitz

</blockquote>

schestowitz

</li>

schestowitz

-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-DISA publishes STIG for Ubuntu 22.04 LTS | Ubuntu

schestowitz

"Rand Paul: If Congress Bans TikTok, Is Apple Next?"

x https://reason.com/2024/04/19/if-they-ban-tiktok-is-apple-next/

schestowitz

schestowitz

# troll post

-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-reason.com | Rand Paul: If Congress Bans TikTok, Is Apple Next?

http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2024/04/imminent-eba-referral-confirmed-on.html?showComment=1713534918724#c727001923556333893

*jacobk has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)

Apr 20 10:35

*SaphirJD (~SaphirJD@9iz9c2tcvthrn.irc) has joined #techbytes

Apr 20 10:37

*parsifal (~parsifal@uuar9r28yasyu.irc) has joined #techbytes

Apr 20 10:38

*psydroid2 (~psydroid@u8ftxtfux23wk.irc) has joined #techbytes

Apr 20 10:49

*jacobk (~quassel@32hz32it3ih2k.irc) has joined #techbytes

Apr 20 11:35

*x-amarsh04 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)

Apr 20 15:09

*x-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@qezxp5nudz5uq.irc) has joined #techbytes

Apr 20 15:14

schestowitz

-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | Imminent EBA referral confirmed on the question of using the description to interpret the claims (T 0439/22) - The IPKat

schestowitz

"Yes and No, Yo-Yo. To my mind, the essential question goes wider. How shall the EBA lay down a path that enriches rather than empoverishes EPO jurisprudence. IThe EBA has a duty to nurture rather than weaken the practical implementation of the EPC. By that, I mean that it has to lay down case law that will encourage tribunals to do justice between the litigants and, more widely, balance the legitimate interests of patent monopoly owner

schestowitz

s and of their competitors by delivering "fair" protection for inventors with "reasonable" legal certainty for those competing with the patent monopoly owner. Actions should have consequences. Incompetent drafting of patent monopoly applications should have negative consequences. But inventors ought not to lose all protection for a new, useful and clever contribution to the art just because (say) the draft

schestowitz

er was in the USA, conscientiously doing their best to get their client a full measure of scope due to the inventor, following best US patent monopoly drafting practice. Boards, courts and tribunals need to be given enough "wiggle room" on claim construction to strike the balance accurately. The EPO should allow inventors "their day in court" rather than using the combined effects of Art 84 and 123(2) in p

schestowitz

rosecution to deprive the Applicant of a chance, after grant, to enforce claims of scope proportionate to the contribution to the art. I think it not impossible for an enlightened EBA to achieve all these objectives. Fingers crossed, thumbs pressed"

http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2024/04/imminent-eba-referral-confirmed-on.html?showComment=1713511704511#c433065780536101469

*psydroid2 has quit (Quit: KVIrc 5.0.0 Aria http://www.kvirc.net/)

Apr 20 20:19

*jacobk has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)

Apr 20 20:25

schestowitz

schestowitz

"To me the problem seems to be, that the boards at the EPO do not seem to think about infringement. The approach of the German courts is to me more logical: to the wording of the claims can not be added or subtracted, but the claims are interpreted in a way that the claim matter is usually(!) meant to encompass the examples given in the description. Only in exceptional situations an interpretation that none of the examples in the

schestowitz

description is covered by the claims is possible. After all, the patentee will usually want to protect not only the examples, but the "general idea". If, as in this case, "spiralled" is not covered by "gathered" an infringement action should no longer be possible against a "spiralling" competitor (I am pretty sure Philips Morris will claim in infringement proceedings, that the Persian K

schestowitz

at is dry, while at the EPO it is wet...)."

-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | Imminent EBA referral confirmed on the question of using the description to interpret the claims (T 0439/22) - The IPKat

http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2024/04/imminent-eba-referral-confirmed-on.html?showComment=1713546750326#c5957673794964360271

schestowitz

-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | Imminent EBA referral confirmed on the question of using the description to interpret the claims (T 0439/22) - The IPKat

schestowitz

"The issue in this decision relates to the case of the description used as a dictionary for a term of a claim. It is interesting but very narrow and it did not deserve a referral to the EBA. In contrast, the issue of the application of Art 69 to validity assessments is handled on a broad level in recent decisions T 447/22 and T 1628/21 from different BOAs, which provide consistent and sensible insights : (i) the primacy of th

schestowitz

e claims, (ii) the « red line » that unclaimed examples cannot be relied upon by the patent monopoly owner to read limitations into the claim, as this is the case for examination of applications, and (iii) the claims must be given the broadest sensible interpretation, as this is the case also during the examination of applications. An significant implication is that disclaiming clauses or the deletion of unclaimed examples

schestowitz

are held irrelevant to the interpretation of claims, which removes the EPO’s argument in support of its policy requiring description amendments to remove inconsistencies between the description and the claims. On the latter issue, a referral to the EBA is already underway in T 56/21 but it seems to be at a standstill."