Techrights logo

IRC: #techbytes @ Techrights IRC Network: Sunday, August 20, 2023

(ℹ) Join us now at the IRC channel | ䷉ Find the plain text version at this address (HTTP) or in Gemini (how to use Gemini) with a full GemText version.

*GNUmoon2 has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)Aug 20 00:07
*GNUmoon2 (~GNUmoon@r9irv7kyrpv3c.irc) has joined #techbytesAug 20 00:08
*MinceR gives voice to GNUmoon2Aug 20 00:09
*DaemonFC has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)Aug 20 00:44
*DaemonFC (~daemonfc@ws9r4ubuc37b6.irc) has joined #techbytesAug 20 00:46
*MinceR gives voice to DaemonFCAug 20 00:47
*rianne__ has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)Aug 20 01:19
*asusbox has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)Aug 20 01:19
geertschestowitz i havent yet got too much experience with it, with openrc, currentlyAug 20 02:08
geertalthough its on the agenda pretty soonish i suspectAug 20 02:08
schestowitzit is simpleAug 20 02:10
schestowitzand predictableAug 20 02:11
schestowitzlike, you add a job to itAug 20 02:11
schestowitzand it's there in a simple fileAug 20 02:11
schestowitzyou back up the fileAug 20 02:11
schestowitzK.I.S.S.Aug 20 02:11
*geert has quit (connection closed)Aug 20 02:48
*GNUmoon2 has quit (connection closed)Aug 20 02:50
*GNUmoon2 (~GNUmoon@i9qtak2d2eia6.irc) has joined #techbytesAug 20 02:50
*MinceR gives voice to GNUmoon2Aug 20 02:53
*asusbox (~rianne@3stvfjh5iuw88.irc) has joined #techbytesAug 20 04:31
*rianne__ (~rianne@3stvfjh5iuw88.irc) has joined #techbytesAug 20 04:31
*psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has left #techbytesAug 20 04:53
*DaemonFC has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)Aug 20 06:32
*DaemonFC (~daemonfc@gfb5nj2ry585q.irc) has joined #techbytesAug 20 06:46
*rianne__ has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)Aug 20 08:51
*asusbox has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)Aug 20 08:51
*DaemonFC has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)Aug 20 08:53
*DaemonFC (~daemonfc@tyh9uypqaqvwk.irc) has joined #techbytesAug 20 08:54
*Fucking-Riannes-Ass (~Fucking-Riannes-Ass@5j2hsrvteqpeu.irc) has joined #techbytesAug 20 10:12
*Fucking-Riannes-Ass has quit (Quit: leaving)Aug 20 10:15
*psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has joined #techbytesAug 20 11:44
*MinceR gives voice to DaemonFC psydruidAug 20 13:41
schestowitz"Sorry, I did not mean to imply that the output of an "AI" is automatically ( or ever) covered by a copyright. I just wanted to say, that the camera certainly does not own any right to the picture (nor an ape using a camera, compare the PETA case...)" 20 18:12
-TechBytesBot/ | Bad cases make bad law: Has DABUS "the AI inventor" actually invented anything? - The IPKatAug 20 18:12
schestowitz"On Friday, Judge Beryl Howell issued an opinion in Dr. Stephen Thaler’s challenge against the U.S. Copyright Office (USCO) over the denial of his application for a work generated entirely using generative artificial intelligence (AI) technology. The opinion supports the USCO’s refusal to register a work in which the claimant disclosed in the application that the image was the result of an AI system, called The Creativity Machine. TAug 20 18:12
schestowitzhe case is Stephen Thaler v. Shira Perlmutter and The United States Copyright Office (1:22-cv-01564) (June 2, 2022)."Aug 20 18:12
schestowitz 20 18:12
-TechBytesBot/ | Court Says No Copyright Registration for Works Created by Generative AIAug 20 18:12
schestowitz 20 20:16
schestowitz">Mr Thomas, you have correctly identified the fact that the EPO's approach to interpreting the claims has implications for other provisions that the EPO examines, such as novelty and inventive step. But why should that fact make any difference to the validity (or otherwise) of my observations?<br /><br />You also ask how I can speak of a &quot;non-EPC&quot; approach to interpreting the claims. I would answer that with questions of my oAug 20 20:16
schestowitzwn: Is there any provision of the EPC <b>other than</b> Art 69 that sets out how the claims should be interpreted? And do we not agree that the EPO does <b>not</b> follow (all of) Art 69 when interpreting the claims?<br /><br />To be clear, I do not &quot;reproach&quot; the EPO for the manner in which they choose to interpret the claims of patents and patent applications. I merely observe that how they approach that task is not in accorAug 20 20:16
schestowitzdance with Art 69 EPC (and its Protocol). Indeed, as you will see from one of my earlier comments, I believe that it would be unreasonable to expect EPO examiners to conduct the kind of thorough, detailed analysis that is demanded by Art 69 EPC.<br /><br />A pragmatic approach to claim interpretation is clearly needed to prevent examination of patent applications turning into a long, drawn out and eye-wateringly expensive process. HowevAug 20 20:16
schestowitzer, it is important to remember that the results of such a pragmatic approach will only represent a rough approximation of the <i>true</i> (ie Art 69 EPC) result.  Sometimes the rough approximation will be surprisingly close to the true result. Other times not so much ... as evidenced by the outcome of some opposition proceedings.<br /><br />Relying upon a rough approximation may not be ideal when assessing novelty and inventive step. HAug 20 20:16
schestowitzowever, doing so is unlikely to result in amendments <i>to the claims</i> that add subject matter. This is because such amendments will need to be based squarely upon the disclosure of the application as filed.<br /><br />By way of contrast, relying upon a rough approximation (of the meaning of the claims) is <b>highly</b> likely to lead to added matter problems if the description is <b>strictly</b> adapted to the <i>roughly approximateAug 20 20:16
schestowitz</i> meaning of the claims. For example, matter could be added (as per Ensygnia v Shell) if reliance upon the rough approximation leads to the <b>mis</b>labelling of an embodiment as &quot;not the invention according to the claims&quot;.<br /><br />The problem here is the use of a roughly approximate meaning of the claims as a guide for amendments to the description. It is really self-evident that a practice that insists upon <b>strict<Aug 20 20:16
schestowitz/b> conformity with such a <i>rough</i> approximation is, at least on occasion, going to produce some terrible results."Aug 20 20:16
-TechBytesBot/ | Adding matter by amending the description to exclude embodiments (Ensygnia v Shell [2023] EWHC 1495 (Pat)) - The IPKatAug 20 20:16
schestowitz 20 20:16
schestowitz"It could indeed be, Daniel, that Ensygnia is of little help but can that also be said of the pemetrexed case, limited during prosecution in the EPO to the sodium salt of pemetrexed because i) that was the only worked example, and ii) in the application as filed there was no claim at the &quot;pemetrexed&quot; level of generalisation. Instead, the inventive concept was expressed at a level of generalisation wider than just pemetrexed. HAug 20 20:16
schestowitzad the drafter of the patent included a claim at the &quot;pemetrexed salt&quot; intermediate level of generalisation there would likely have been no litigation and no controversy. The potassium salt would have been an infringement, no doubt, no controversy.<br /><br />But there was litigation, as to whether the potassium salt infringed the sodium salt claim under any pertaining Doctrine of Equivalents.  The judges had to decide betweenAug 20 20:16
schestowitz legal certainty and a scope of protection that gave &quot;fair&quot; protection to the patentee, having regard to the nature of the inventive concept given to the public through the 18 month WO A publication..<br /><br />We can contemplate what would have happened if the current strict Art 84 conformity regime had been in effect, in the case of the pemetrexed patent application. A description of the sodium embodiment and everything elsAug 20 20:16
schestowitze expunged from the description or labelled &quot;not the invention&quot;. Consequence: inventive concept re-defined as the sodium salt, nothing more. Little or no chance then for the patent owner successfully to assert the patent successfully against the potassium variant. And all for want of a dependent claim at the key intermediate level of generalisation.<br /><br />Not sure whether asking the EBA whether the EPO should, prior to grAug 20 20:16
schestowitzant, acknowledge the existence of Art 69 EPC will sweep away at a stroke the entire Art 84 &quot;conformity&quot; controversy. Not even sure there is any point in asking the EBA the question.  <br /><br />The only lesson we can take from all this debate is that drafters need to be more thoughtful, prosecuters need to be ultra-careful and that (some) EPO Examiners need to be mindful of the statutory obligation to i) grant patents and ii)Aug 20 20:16
schestowitz allow Applicants the chance to acquire a scope of protection that is &quot;fair&quot; and commensurate with what they have disclosed to the public as their valuable, new, useful and inventive contribution to the progress of technology.  Guidelines authors, please note!"Aug 20 20:16
-TechBytesBot/ | Adding matter by amending the description to exclude embodiments (Ensygnia v Shell [2023] EWHC 1495 (Pat)) - The IPKatAug 20 20:16
schestowitzURGENT: An IMPOSTER account posting ILLEGAL and EXTREMIST stuffAug 20 20:54
schestowitzThis account is an IMPOSTER:Aug 20 20:54
schestowitz 20 20:54
schestowitzPlease remove ASAP.Aug 20 20:54
schestowitzRegards,Aug 20 20:54
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-Dr. Roy Schestowitz (罗伊) ( - Linux.PizzaAug 20 20:54
*Disconnected (Connection reset by peer).Aug 20 21:03
*Now talking on #techbytesAug 20 21:03
*Topic for #techbytes is: Welcome to the official channel of the TechBytes AudiocastAug 20 21:03
*Topic for #techbytes set by schestowitz!~roy@haii6za73zabc.irc at Tue Jun 1 20:21:34 2021Aug 20 21:03
*libertybox (~schestowitz_log@3stvfjh5iuw88.irc) has joined #techbytesAug 20 21:03
*MinceR gives voice to schestowitz-TR2 liberty_box_ libertybox__Aug 20 21:04
*MinceR gives voice to viera DaemonFC XFaCEAug 20 21:04
*MinceR gives voice to liberty_box tool Techrights-secAug 20 21:04
*MinceR gives voice to rianne_ psydruid GNUmoon2Aug 20 21:04
*MinceR gives voice to Noisytoot TechBytesBot techrights[sec]_Aug 20 21:04
*MinceR gives voice to libertybox_ Techrights-sec2 libertyboxAug 20 21:05
*MinceR gives voice to schestowitz[TR2]Aug 20 21:05
*You are now known as schestowitzAug 20 21:06
schestowitz"@ Proof of the pudding,<br /><br />Your considerations are interesting and deserve to be commented. <br /><br />In my eyes, one problem has to be cleared first: it has to be decided first whether Art 69 is at all applicable in proceedings before the EPO or only by way of exception, when features in a claim are unclear or when assessing whether the scope of protection has been extended in opposition. The present case law of the boards iAug 20 23:01
schestowitzs diverging on this matter. Without this clarification any further discussion, also on the adaptation of the description does not appears very effective. <br /><br />You reproach the EPO that it “does not properly (i.e. using Art 69 EPC) determine the meaning of the wording of the claims”. As said it has to be decided first whether and how Art 69 is to be applied in procedures before the EPO. <br /><br />Examiners at the EPO are notAug 20 23:01
schestowitz stupid and it can be considered that they have the knowledge of the person skilled in the art in their technical area. It will thus allow them to discriminate between a cat and a dog, and even between the different races of cats and dogs. If there is a claim to a Great Dane and the description says that under a Great Dane one can also understand a Chihuahua, we have a problem. Or do we not?<br /> <br />You claim that there is a bigger Aug 20 23:01
schestowitzrisk with option 2, but I have not yet seen one case like this. You infer this risk from Ensygnia v Shell, but in this case, the applicant tried, by amending the description in view of a potential infringement, to give a broader meaning to a feature contained in a claim. <br /><br />Whether the applicant had previously conceded in the description what has to be understood as being the claimed invention could not have played a determininAug 20 23:01
schestowitzg role. It was more convenient for the judge to start with the own acknowledgment of the proprietor, but even without this acknowledgment, I doubt that the decision of the judge would have been different. I am therefore of the opinion that Ensygnia v Shell does not help very much either way. <br /><br />You further claim that the EPO never determines the true meaning of the wording of the claims. I beg to disagree. How could a deciding Aug 20 23:01
schestowitzbody of the EPO decide on Novelty, Inventive Step as well as added-matter or sufficiency without giving the features in a claim their ordinary meaning? I certainly do not share your view that, it is improper for the EPO to remedy to “alleged contradictions / inconsistencies (between the claims and the description), in that they derive from a non-EPC interpretation of the claims”? What allows you to speak about a non-EPC interpretatiAug 20 23:01
schestowitzon of the claims? <br />"Aug 20 23:01
schestowitz 20 23:01
-TechBytesBot/ | Adding matter by amending the description to exclude embodiments (Ensygnia v Shell [2023] EWHC 1495 (Pat)) - The IPKatAug 20 23:02
*psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has left #techbytesAug 20 23:06
*Cornhole-Roy (~Cornhole-Roy@wes48ghdwvgn2.irc) has joined #techbytesAug 20 23:09
*Cornhole-Roy has quit (Killed (MinceR (no)))Aug 20 23:09
*Roy-roofied-chicks (~Roy-roofied-chicks@ag8reaw4f8w8n.irc) has joined #techbytesAug 20 23:10
*Roy-roofied-chicks has quit (Killed (MinceR (get a job, matt)))Aug 20 23:14

Generated by 2.6 | ䷉ find the plain text version at this address (HTTP) or in Gemini (how to use Gemini) with a full GemText version.