IRC: #techbytes @ Techrights IRC Network: Tuesday, February 21, 2023

schestowitz[TR]

<h5><a href="https://drewdevault.com/2023/02/20/2023-02-20-Helios-aarch64.html">Porting Helios to aarch64 for my FOSDEM talk, part one</a></h5>

schestowitz[TR]

schestowitz[TR]

<p>Booting up is a sore point on most systems. It involves a lot of arch-specific procedures, but also generally calls for custom binary formats and annoying things like disk drivers — which don’t belong in a microkernel. So the Helios bootloaders are separated from the kernel proper, which is a simple ELF executable. The bootloader loads this ELF file into memory, configures a few simple

schestowitz[TR]

things, then passes some information along to the kernel entry point. The bootloader’s memory and other resources are hereafter abandoned and are later reclaimed for general use.</p>

schestowitz[TR]

</blockquote>

schestowitz[TR]

</li>

-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-drewdevault.com | Porting Helios to aarch64 for my FOSDEM talk, part one

schestowitz[TR]

<li>

schestowitz[TR]

<h5><a href="https://ostechnix.com/how-to-use-lvm-snapshot-to-backup-your-data-in-linux/">How To Use LVM Snapshot To Backup Your Data In Linux</a></h5>

schestowitz[TR]

schestowitz[TR]

<p>There are two options to safeguard your data from disk failures or other issues. You can take full or incremental backups and store N number of copies. Alternatively with LVM, you can create a snapshot volume that will take snapshots when changes are made to the source volume.</p>

schestowitz[TR]

<p>LVM snapshots use a copy-on-write mechanism to take snapshots. Initially, when you create a snapshot volume it will hold some metadata about the source logical volume and its block details. When you make any changes in the source volume, LVM will monitor the changes and take a snapshot of the modified blocks. Here LVM just stores the changes blocked to the snapshot volume.</p>

schestowitz[TR]

</blockquote>

schestowitz[TR]

</li>

-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-Resolving timed out after 10520 milliseconds ( status 0 @ https://ostechnix.com/how-to-use-lvm-snapshot-to-backup-your-data-in-linux/ )

Feb 21 08:10

schestowitz[TR]

<li>

schestowitz[TR]

<h5><a href="https://guix.gnu.org/blog/2023/dissecting-guix-part-2-the-store-monad/">Dissecting Guix, Part 2: The Store Monad</a></h5>

schestowitz[TR]

schestowitz[TR]

<p>In the last post, we briefly mentioned the with-store and run-with-store macros. Today, we'll be looking at those in further detail, along with the related monad library and the %store-monad!</p>

schestowitz[TR]

<p>Typically, we use monads to chain operations together, and the %store-monad is no different; it's used to combine operations that work on the Guix store (for instance, creating derivations, building derivations, or adding data files to the store).</p>

schestowitz[TR]

<p>However, monads are a little hard to explain, and from a distance, they seem to be quite incomprehensible. So, I want you to erase them from your mind for now. We'll come back to them later. And be aware that if you can't seem to get your head around them, it's okay; you can understand most of the architecture of Guix without understanding monads.</p>

schestowitz[TR]

</blockquote>

schestowitz[TR]

</li>

-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-guix.gnu.org | Dissecting Guix, Part 2: The Store Monad — 2023 — Blog — GNU Guix

schestowitz[TR]

<li>

schestowitz[TR]

<h5><a href="https://9to5linux.com/you-can-now-install-linux-kernel-6-2-on-ubuntu-heres-how">You Can Now Install Linux Kernel 6.2 on Ubuntu, Here’s How</a></h5>

schestowitz[TR]

schestowitz[TR]

<p>I don’t recommend installing a mainline kernel on an Ubuntu LTS (Long-Term Support) edition, such as Ubuntu 22.04 LTS, so I’ve only tested the install on Ubuntu 22.10, but it can be installed on any supported Ubuntu release.</p>

schestowitz[TR]

</blockquote>

schestowitz[TR]

</li>

-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-You Can Now Install Linux Kernel 6.2 on Ubuntu, Here's How - 9to5Linux

schestowitz[TR]

<li>

schestowitz[TR]

<h5><a href="https://daniel.haxx.se/blog/2023/02/20/7-88-1-the-second-final-one/">7.88.1 the second final one</a></h5>

schestowitz[TR]

schestowitz[TR]

<p>As this is a rushed patch-release, there is only a small set of bugfixes merged in this cycle. The following notable bugs were fixed.</p>

schestowitz[TR]

</blockquote>

schestowitz[TR]

</li>

-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-7.88.1 the second final one | daniel.haxx.se

Feb 21 08:19

*Mio14 has quit (Ping timeout: 120 seconds)

Feb 21 08:43

*Mio14 (~quassel@freenode-q1n.iak.fgsf49.IP) has joined #techbytes

Feb 21 08:45

schestowitz[TR]

Still getting trolled by a total nutcase:

schestowitz[TR]

Re: ft.meade

schestowitz[TR]

> Looking forwards to seeing one of the Top Brass going on-to live TV,

schestowitz[TR]

> saying "We here at the National Security Agency do not endorse nor do we

schestowitz[TR]

> condone the poking of little Kiddies in the Bum-Bum! However it has come

schestowitz[TR]

> to our attention that 80 Billion of you may have inadvertently gone out

schestowitz[TR]

> and bought a little Red Box Phone called "Lucifer" and we here at the

schestowitz[TR]

> national security would appreciate the return of our property by sending

schestowitz[TR]

> it to, aint-this-yur-red-phone-bitch@ftmeade.gov.us

schestowitz[TR]

schestowitz[TR]

> Oh hail Satan yes sir!Re: bright future

schestowitz[TR]

> Dont worry about it @ Roy

schestowitz[TR]

schestowitz[TR]

> It'll be a Bright Future, the president they have now, has a son that

schestowitz[TR]

> smokes crack and president 45's daughter still has daddy's nut stains on

schestowitz[TR]

> her back!

schestowitz[TR]

schestowitz[TR]

> We'll sprinkle them with holy water, whilst the fuck and fertilize your

schestowitz[TR]

> daughter!

schestowitz[TR]

Re: Troll magazine

> https://line.dealmakersforums.com/download-issue-2/

schestowitz[TR]

> <https://line.dealmakersforums.com/download-issue-2/>

schestowitz[TR]

schestowitz[TR]

Site barely usable

-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-line.dealmakersforums.com | Download Issue 2 - Dealmakers Forums

https://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2023/02/14/quality-at-the-epo-one-modest-and-one-serious-proposal/

schestowitz[TR]

Feb 21 09:05

-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-patentblog.kluweriplaw.com | Quality at the EPO – One Modest and one Serious Proposal - Kluwer Patent Blog

Feb 21 09:05

*psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has left #techbytes

Feb 21 09:07

*psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has joined #techbytes

Feb 21 09:09

schestowitz[TR]

https://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2023/02/14/quality-at-the-epo-one-modest-and-one-serious-proposal/

schestowitz[TR]

"Patent robot

schestowitz[TR]

FEBRUARY 14, 2023 AT 5:48 PM

schestowitz[TR]

I would abolish the maintenance fees before grant and compensate them with higher designation fees proportional to the number of designated states.

schestowitz[TR]

I also would deduct (one or) two points of the examiner if a patent is (partially) revoked after opposition/appeal proceedings.

schestowitz[TR]

A quality problem at the EPO? You must be mistaken!

schestowitz[TR]

FEBRUARY 14, 2023 AT 6:55 PM

schestowitz[TR]

I am on the opinion that both your proposals appear not fully thought through.

schestowitz[TR]

Your first proposal would require an amendment of the EPC for various reasons:

schestowitz[TR]

– According to Art 79(1) all contracting states are designated in the application as filed.

schestowitz[TR]

– There is presently one designation fee for all contracting states and according to Art 79(2) + R 39(3), in principle, no designation is reimbursed.

schestowitz[TR]

– According to Art 79(3) a designation of a Contracting State can be withdrawn at any time up to grant.

schestowitz[TR]

Do not confuse designations with validations after grant.

schestowitz[TR]

I see thus little chance for your proposal to be considered.

schestowitz[TR]

The second proposal is as well not envisageable.

schestowitz[TR]

– For a start a decision in appeal on an opposition is taken years after grant. To be effective any sanction has to be as immediate as possible.

schestowitz[TR]

– A second problem is that in some technical areas there are no oppositions. Some technical areas are laden with oppositions. Oppositions can also vary in time in a given technical area. Oppositions can also vanish when proprietors sign non-aggression pacts.

schestowitz[TR]

– Overall only around 5% of the patents are opposed. Only focussing on the results of appeals in opposition would thus disadvantage certain examiners.

schestowitz[TR]

– Last but not least, an examiner gets his points in each calendar year and his production is an important part of the marking scheme. It is therefore not possible to retroactively reduce the number of points an examiner has acquired in the past. There would be no legal certainty for examiners. even the ILO-AT would not agree.

schestowitz[TR]

The problem lies with the upper management of the EPO.

schestowitz[TR]

Do not blame first those working in dreadfull conditions.

schestowitz[TR]

Examiner

schestowitz[TR]

FEBRUARY 14, 2023 AT 8:53 PM

schestowitz[TR]

I think you might have overlooked some of the irony…

schestowitz[TR]

A quality problem at the EPO? You must be mistaken!

schestowitz[TR]

FEBRUARY 16, 2023 AT 10:47 AM

schestowitz[TR]

Knowing Patent Robot and his usual comments, I do not think irony has a place….

schestowitz[TR]

Patent robot

schestowitz[TR]

FEBRUARY 17, 2023 AT 8:22 AM

schestowitz[TR]

Actually, my first proposal was not ironic at all.

schestowitz[TR]

The second one was a little more provocative.

schestowitz[TR]

Patent robot

schestowitz[TR]

FEBRUARY 15, 2023 AT 9:09 AM

schestowitz[TR]

Maybe you are young enough not to remember that some years ago designation fees were proportional to the number of designated States. There is no need to amend Art. 79 for this purpose.

schestowitz[TR]

On the other hand, Art. 86 has to be amended to avoid renewal fees for pending applications. You could also obtain the same effect by reducing the renewal fees, which are really high, even higher than the renewal fees for granted unitary patents.

schestowitz[TR]

High renewal fees for pending applications are a deterrent for the EPO to grant patents quickly.

schestowitz[TR]

A quality problem at the EPO? You must be mistaken!

schestowitz[TR]

FEBRUARY 16, 2023 AT 11:07 AM

schestowitz[TR]

I can agree that in the early days of the EPO, the designation fees were only proportional to the number of designations. This was only valid up to 6 designations.

schestowitz[TR]

By paying 7 designation fees all contracting states were designated.

schestowitz[TR]

Under EPC 1973, the designation fees were originally due at filing, later before entering examination as they had an influence on the prior art under Art 54(3), cf. Art 54(4) EPC73.

schestowitz[TR]

In EPC 2000 the system was simplified and since, the ED do not have to check whether there are common designated states in case of prior art under Art 54(3). Art 54(4) EPC1973 was deleted.

schestowitz[TR]

If you want to levy a fee per designation, you will have to amend not only Art 79(1) but also Art 54.

schestowitz[TR]

Just compare the text of Art 79(1) EPC 2000 with Art 79(1) EPC1973.

schestowitz[TR]

As the contracting states are keen on getting their share of renewal fees, they want patents to be granted as quickly as possible. And the upper management has done and continues to do everything possible in this respect. You do not see many files ending as “submarines” in a cupboard.

schestowitz[TR]

Patent robot

schestowitz[TR]

FEBRUARY 17, 2023 AT 9:07 AM

schestowitz[TR]

Gosh, I forgot Art 54(4) EPC1973!

schestowitz[TR]

The renewal fees for pending EP applications are quite high. I do not understand why the AC allows their steady increase: the slower the EPO grants patents, the less the MS receive after grant.

schestowitz[TR]

One of those examiners....

schestowitz[TR]

FEBRUARY 17, 2023 AT 9:31 AM

schestowitz[TR]

High renewal fees are a deterrent….

schestowitz[TR]

Weird, our management is pushing us to grant as fast as possible, which seems to counteract your reasoning completely.

schestowitz[TR]

Why would our management do that?

schestowitz[TR]

Furthermore, I as examiner are not concerned with how old my files are, beyond the fact that I am penalised for being in a field that has always been understaffed, and thus has never been able to treat examinations with any priority (my grants are “too old”, and that reflects my “timeliness”, which is measured by the average age of files I grant – not average age of files in stock).

schestowitz[TR]

My pay simply does not depend on whether my files get old or not.

schestowitz[TR]

Concerned observer

schestowitz[TR]

FEBRUARY 14, 2023 AT 5:58 PM

schestowitz[TR]

Thorsten, I fully agree.

schestowitz[TR]

It would be nice if the EPO were to sit up and take notice of your proposals. Given that serious complaints about quality are now coming from users whose fee payments fund the EPO, it is hard to imagine that the EPO’s management can continue to (completely) ignore those complaints.

schestowitz[TR]

Nevertheless, I do think that the EPO’s management will be far more inclined to adopt your first proposal than your second. Whilst you and I may be horrified by the thought of the EPO turning into a rubber-stamping authority, this is (and has been for about a decade) the undeniable direction of travel. Increases in the EPO’s “profitability” provide financial rewards for the EPO’s management and (the offices of) the AC dele

schestowitz[TR]

gations / delegates. Therefore, asking them to prioritise actual quality over such financial rewards is like asking turkeys to vote for Christmas.

schestowitz[TR]

When the EPC was first drafted, I imagine that its authors envisaged the national patent offices as being competitors to the EPO … and hence that a supervisory body run by delegations from the national offices would provide suitable governance / oversight. Whether or not this view was justified at the time, it is probably the biggest mistake made by the EPO’s founding fathers. Indeed, things have got so bad now that when one loo

schestowitz[TR]

ks at the dictionary definition of “regulatory capture”, it just reads “See the Administrative Council of the EPO”.

schestowitz[TR]

Thus, for your more serious proposal to stand any chance of gaining traction, my view is that it really needs to be coupled with an overhaul of the EPO’s governance … as otherwise, whilst the turkeys may throw users a few scraps, there is zero chance of them ever voting for Christmas!

schestowitz[TR]

Don’t

schestowitz[TR]

FEBRUARY 14, 2023 AT 10:37 PM

schestowitz[TR]

As long as the tail will be wagging the dog, there is no chance that things will improve at the EPO.

schestowitz[TR]

The founders of the EPO never envisaged that the „cooperation“ budget would actually be misused as bribery system to buy votes.

schestowitz[TR]

All presidents of the EPO played with the cooperation budget, but none, besides the Napoleon of the 10th floor and his successor, developed it to such a corruption instrument. After each AC session the cooperation budget is tailored to the voting behaviour of the delegations at the AC. Like in the EU, the principle of one country one vote has led to such problems!

schestowitz[TR]

When the boards were exiled to Haar, the vote was acquired thanks to the smaller countries which file very few applications, but have full vote!

schestowitz[TR]

The same delegations are now voting, without any shame for bringing the boards back into town!

schestowitz[TR]

It is not only the the EPO’s governance which needs to change, but also the AC to revise its position in order to play again their role of controlling the EPO!

schestowitz[TR]

francis hagel

schestowitz[TR]

FEBRUARY 17, 2023 AT 7:57 AM

schestowitz[TR]

You have every right to express criticism on the management of the EPO and the delegations of the AC, but assertions of corruption and bribery are clearly beyond the pale.

schestowitz[TR]

A. Nonymous

schestowitz[TR]

FEBRUARY 18, 2023 AT 5:46 PM

schestowitz[TR]

Mr Hagel,

schestowitz[TR]

You have every right to have your own opinion, but I doubt you have evidence that the cooperation budget is used as you imagine. First, should there even be a cooperation budget, which after all is financed by the fees applicants have to pay. Then if there should be a cooperation budget, should it be as large as it is. The cooperation budget is approved by the Member States for their own benefit. Doesn’t that say enough?

schestowitz[TR]

Are you aware of what the money really is used for, whether it is used for projects that benefit the EP applicants? What has been reported in previous comments could have been proven incorrect if this budget was transparent. It has been a while now that delegations do not dare vote against the EPO proposals for fear of reductions in a share of the cooperation budget that they (unfortunately) need. Lately, the German delegation must

schestowitz[TR]

have felt lonely …

schestowitz[TR]

Thus, in my opinion, the words that you criticise alas reflect a situation that I sincerely hope will change.

schestowitz[TR]

Stop misusing the EPO

schestowitz[TR]

FEBRUARY 19, 2023 AT 10:42 AM

schestowitz[TR]

I can only support what has been said by A. Nonymous.

schestowitz[TR]

It is the sad reality.

schestowitz[TR]

Now you know why the AC is not controlling the EPO, but the upper management is controlling the AC.

schestowitz[TR]

A lot of money from the users is being wasted in order for the AC to abide by the wishes of the upper management.

schestowitz[TR]

This cannot be criticized enough!

schestowitz[TR]

A quality problem at the EPO? You must be mistaken!

schestowitz[TR]

FEBRUARY 14, 2023 AT 8:09 PM

schestowitz[TR]

Thanks to T. Bausch who managed again to combine an amusing story with very serious proposals.

schestowitz[TR]

It should become more and more difficult for the upper management of the EPO to deny quality problems. especially at search level. But denial and verbose statements without content are nothing new in the Isar building and especially on the 10th floor.

schestowitz[TR]

If people are pushed to grant, they will do as required since they do not want to get fired for incompetence.

schestowitz[TR]

I am of the opinion that incompetence is not with examiners but with those taking decisions without having any clue of the work done.

schestowitz[TR]

This is going on a par with a big disdain for examiners and their work. As a famous tenant of the 10th floor once said “duds go into the patents”, not realising that he was himself belonging to this group. He has then started to harass its staff. And its successor continues. We see the result today.

schestowitz[TR]

The problem is that those people and the delegations in the AC do not realise that they are actually sawing the branch on which they are sitting. You can milk a cow for a long time, but it comes a moment when the cow will dry up.

schestowitz[TR]

It is a pity to see an organisation like the EPO run into the wall by would-be managers.

schestowitz[TR]

Caballero

schestowitz[TR]

FEBRUARY 15, 2023 AT 9:03 AM

schestowitz[TR]

EP grant numbers for 2022 are down to 81.762, another 24.8% decrease. Although I am only a humble service provider and not a patent attorney I understand the quality over quantity argument. However, the current situation of ever more filings (just under 5% per annum) and vastly reduced number of closed files, will not improve the quality of patents. A growing backlog puts more pressure on the patent office and the examiners. Unless

schestowitz[TR]

the pressure is reduced patent quality will continue to deteriorate. How long until the first patent is granted just in time to pay the 20th annuity?

schestowitz[TR]

Another examiner

schestowitz[TR]

FEBRUARY 15, 2023 AT 10:09 AM

schestowitz[TR]

The figures about revocation rate can be explained in a slightly different manner.

schestowitz[TR]

Basically, what we are discussing here is inventive step. Novelty is simple enough and clarity is not a ground for opposition.

schestowitz[TR]

Obviously inventive step depends on the prior art found. If the search is bad, everything is novel and inventive. I certainly agree that search should be as good as possible. But, generally speaking, search is not that bad. Other patent offices rarely find much better documents (and when they do, we usually check them and introduce them in the procedure). There is room for improvement, but not necessarily a lot.

schestowitz[TR]

The examination side may be more of a problem. If the criteria in the examination procedure is lower than the one in the opposition procedure, you will have more revocations. My feelings are that some of this is at play. I don’t know whether my feelings are true, I only see a small part of the Office as a whole, but the latest instructions on inventive step appear to make it very difficult to draft a rejection, unless everything i

schestowitz[TR]

s in the prior art, including how to combine the documents. That is very close to novelty.

schestowitz[TR]

A quality problem at EPO? You { must d! S w

schestowitz[TR]

FEBRUARY 15, 2023 AT 11:05 PM

schestowitz[TR]

The problem is that it is more difficult to find proper documents for IS in an electronic search.

schestowitz[TR]

For novelty

schestowitz[TR]

“But when the opponent comes with a highly relevant novelty destroying novelty, or even prior art under Art 54(3), do not tell me the search was OK!

schestowitz[TR]

Whilst I can follow your considerations about the quality of the application , this point might be turned around. What was first there, the bad search or the bad applications. In other words, what was first, the chicken or the egg?

schestowitz[TR]

There is room for improvement: search correctly!:

schestowitz[TR]

15 – 20 years ago, the idea was raising the bar for IS.

schestowitz[TR]

Now it seems more lowering the bar, so that there are more grants. ?

schestowitz[TR]

Another examiner

schestowitz[TR]

FEBRUARY 16, 2023 AT 10:04 AM

schestowitz[TR]

I cannot that that it is more difficult to find documents for inventive step in an electronic search, but I suppose it may be different in different technical fields.

schestowitz[TR]

And again: I don’t think the quality of the search is generally bad. That, again, may depend on the technical field, some are very difficult to search (and they were also difficult to search on paper, I think). But in the few fields I know, I can compare the searches in the EPO with searches in other offices and I don’t feel that they are vastly different. Of course, patent offices check the searches of the others, so I can only

schestowitz[TR]

compare the earliest search of one file to the earliest search of another file.

schestowitz[TR]

A quality problem at the EPO? You must be mistaken!

schestowitz[TR]

FEBRUARY 17, 2023 AT 6:44 AM

schestowitz[TR]

You are bringing forward that the quality of search is still better than that of other offices. This is exactly what is claimed by the upper management of EPO.

schestowitz[TR]

The problem is however that it happens that when the patent is revoked or maintained in amended form. It is only in very few cases due to prior art which could not be available in the search documentation, like public prior uses, catalogues etc.

schestowitz[TR]

When the opponent brings the highly relevant document when the search Report is laden with X or A documents, it is difficult to consider that the search was of good quality. The same applies when the opponent turns out with Art 54(3) prior art, sometimes from the patent proprietor.

schestowitz[TR]

This is the problem which has been put to light!

schestowitz[TR]

Examiners are not to be blamed as such. It is the whole system set up by the management of the EPO which is the cause.

schestowitz[TR]

If the measures mentioned in the quality charter would be actually applied, the EPO would not be under criticism.

schestowitz[TR]

Quality is more than timeliness,

schestowitz[TR]

It is delivering searches which gives a high presumption of validity.

schestowitz[TR]

When barely 15% of patents do come out untouched after opposition it becomes alarming. In the past, this proportion was around 1/3. Those days have gone

schestowitz[TR]

Another examiner

schestowitz[TR]

FEBRUARY 15, 2023 AT 10:15 AM

schestowitz[TR]

Another, separate comment. You mentioned artificial intelligence. It goes without saying that the management of the EPO is interested in artificial intelligence, if is very fashionable at the moment.

schestowitz[TR]

There are two problems:

schestowitz[TR]

1: very few people are able to design AI systems and private companies can offer them considerably more than what the EPO is prepared to pay.

schestowitz[TR]

2: AI is very sensitive to adversarial poisoning. That means that any AI system can be “poisoned” by somebody deliberately feeding it specially crafted data. That will be a problem for patents.

schestowitz[TR]

Max Drei

schestowitz[TR]

FEBRUARY 15, 2023 AT 12:51 PM

schestowitz[TR]

Thorsten, you are very persuasive but I’m not (yet) totally convinced how vital it is for the EPO, before it grants somebody a patent, to work with a fine-toothed comb through each and every provision which the EPC makes about patentability. As everybody agrees, the EPO is a “public service” organisation and what service the public needs from a patent system is that good inventions receive protection that is speedily enforceab

schestowitz[TR]

le against infringers and that bad inventions are weeded out and quckly shown to be unworthy of exclusive rights. Who provides that public service is debatable. With 10 year petty patents, or copyright, for example, it is more the courts than the Patent Office. Prior to 1978, the UK Patent Office looked at novelty but not at obviousness (because back then it was thought that only in inter Partes proceedings can the obviousness enqui

schestowitz[TR]

ry be conducted effectively). It was the courts, not the Office, that did the weeding out. It is not absurd to argue that the Patent Office (like the pre-1978 UK Patent Office) should deliver a first class search report but then, after that, the Applicant (as opposed to an EPO Examiner, or Examining Division) should take care to go to grant with documents that will withstand a determined and well-financed post-issue assault on valid

schestowitz[TR]

ity and courts will decline to help those patentees who were negligent in their conduct prior to grant. Caveat emptor is a very good principle. Rely on the self-interest of Applicants to do their own scheme of prosecution amendment, after they have been given a first class search report to work with.

schestowitz[TR]

Times change. I am not convinced that all those corporations demanding better examination performance from the EPO are willing to pay for it. They want the EPO to refuse all the applications from their competitors while allowing all of the applications they themselves file. The AC members so busy slicing up the EPO profits cake will say that public service is pre-eminent, in that they are taxing the big corporations and spending EPO

schestowitz[TR]

dividends on public services, that the best way to deliver ever greater “public service” from the EPO is to adopt your “modest proposal” in full. Milk the cash cow ever more efficiently for the good of the public. Grant entry tickets to the courts, and let the courts grant patent owners all the financial relief from infringement that they crave. Then there will be no further fall-off in the number of patent applications fil

schestowitz[TR]

ed, even when the EPO fees are exorbitant.

schestowitz[TR]

Management performs to “make the numbers”. Counting how many patents are granted per quarter year is an easy number to count. Counting how many hours it takes (on average) to perform an FTO analysis for Europe is hard enough already. Suppose the EPO grants willy-nilly, without any examination of patentability. How many more hours will an FTO analysis then take? 10% more? 500% more%. Who knows? And anyway, who cares?

schestowitz[TR]

Anonymous Attorney

schestowitz[TR]

FEBRUARY 15, 2023 AT 4:55 PM

schestowitz[TR]

Given the commoditization of patent attorney services, I too am not convinced that these corporations actually want to pay for the services that they demand from the EPO. Words are cheap.

schestowitz[TR]

A quality problem at EPO? You must be mistaken!

schestowitz[TR]

FEBRUARY 15, 2023 AT 10:28 PM

schestowitz[TR]

@Max Drei,

schestowitz[TR]

What you suggest is another way to look at the usefulness of patents.

schestowitz[TR]

Just carry out a search and leave the courts to decide is what has been done in France after 1968. And yet France has now started examination and opposition procedures. There must be a good reason for it.

schestowitz[TR]

If you go further, it is best to let peer review decide.

schestowitz[TR]

But why should we then need qualified representatives as well as substantiveexaminer

schestowitz[TR]

The problem is that the search quality at the EPO is going down!

schestowitz[TR]

Why is it that there are more revocations than maintenance in amended form. ‘

schestowitz[TR]

The number of rejections of oppositions is modest in comparison.

schestowitz[TR]

Another examiner

schestowitz[TR]

FEBRUARY 16, 2023 AT 10:06 AM

schestowitz[TR]

France does not examine novelty or inventive step. Check the instructions for the examiners published at the INPI web site.

schestowitz[TR]

If they did, they would need vastly more examiners than what they presently have.

schestowitz[TR]

A quality problem at the EPO? You must be mistaken!

schestowitz[TR]

FEBRUARY 16, 2023 AT 11:23 AM

schestowitz[TR]

I do no know which version of the instructions to examiners you have consulted.

schestowitz[TR]

Just look at page 97 and following of the document with the following link:

https://www.inpi.fr/sites/default/files/DIRECTIVES_BREVETS_LIVRE1_INSTRUCTION%20DES%20DEMANDES_140422.pdf

schestowitz[TR]

schestowitz[TR]

I quote directly page 103 Activité Inventive 5.5. Examen par l’Institut

schestowitz[TR]

Pour les demandes de brevet ayant une date de dépôt antérieure au 22

schestowitz[TR]

mai 2020, le Code n’a pas prévu le rejet d’une demande de brevet pour défaut d’activité inventive.

schestowitz[TR]

L’examinateur ne pourra pas notifier de rejet sur la base de ce motif.

schestowitz[TR]

Néanmoins, l’activité inventive est prise en compte par l’Institut pour établir le rapport de recherche préliminaire et l’opinion l’accompagnant, le rapport de recherche accompagnant le brevet délivré (cf. titre I, section C, chapitre VIII) et l’avis documentaire (cf. titre II, section C).

schestowitz[TR]

Pour les demandes de brevet déposées à partir du 22 mai 2020, le Code a prévu le rejet des demandes pour lesquelles l’invention n’implique pas d’activité inventive en considérant que son objet n’est pas brevetable selon le premier paragraphe de l’article L.611-10 (cf. titre I, section E).

schestowitz[TR]

Le rejet pour défaut d’activité inventive peut s’appliquer à une ou plusieurs revendications d’une demande

schestowitz[TR]

Even if French is not your mother tongue, as EPO examiner you should be able to understand that inventive step plays a role in the examination by the INPI.

schestowitz[TR]

Bring about

schestowitz[TR]

FEBRUARY 17, 2023 AT 9:48 AM

schestowitz[TR]

Very off-topic here, but this is indeed a quite recent change that has come with the “loi PACTE” from 2019. The INPI has been recruiting examiners to cope with it.

schestowitz[TR]

Another examiner

schestowitz[TR]

FEBRUARY 17, 2023 AT 1:18 PM

schestowitz[TR]

Indeed the INPI instructions changed in 2020, I had not realized that. The text you cited explicitly said an application could not be rejected for lack of inventive step before that date: “L’examinateur ne pourra pas notifier de rejet sur la base de ce motif.”

schestowitz[TR]

Still the conditions for rejection at page 122-123 are similar to what the practice was before that date: the applicants are asked to comment and/or change the claims on the basis of the search report. If they do that, it is a patent. In my opinion, this is still not an examination system.

schestowitz[TR]

Aliens in Underpants

schestowitz[TR]

FEBRUARY 15, 2023 AT 4:27 PM

schestowitz[TR]

An important aspect not mentioned above is quality at source. Whatever about the effectiveness of the quality filter function of the EPO it is very difficult to make a silk purse out of a sow‘s ear. The drafting quality and size of the incoming applications very often leaves a lot to be desired.

schestowitz[TR]

The quality of search is clearly dependent on the intellectual investment of the examiner in analyzing the application and defining a proper search strategy. The next hurdle is the sheer volume of information sources and databases which have to be consulted. The amount of possible prior art sources has increased dramatically over the last 10-15 years with the surging availability of information in the digital transformation. There i

schestowitz[TR]

s no such thing as a perfect search nor is the requisite time envisaged. The search fees on average don’t even cover the costs of the initial search and opinion.

schestowitz[TR]

A quality problem at EPO? You must be mistaken!

schestowitz[TR]

FEBRUARY 15, 2023 AT 11:18 PM

schestowitz[TR]

What you are saying here is the mere repetition of what every search generation says: life was easier for the preceding generation.

schestowitz[TR]

When searching electronically, you can compare it with a fisher on the side of a lake.

schestowitz[TR]

He will have a hit for a novelty destroying document much easier than for inventive step.

schestowitz[TR]

The search as such can be quick. What is needed is more intellectual investment!

schestowitz[TR]

Searching is more than using a few “preparations”!

schestowitz[TR]

The procedural fees do not cover the costs. The renewal fee do the trick.

schestowitz[TR]

Ever compared the fee for appeal with the actual costs a dealing with an appeal?

schestowitz[TR]

A. Nonymous

schestowitz[TR]

FEBRUARY 18, 2023 AT 5:28 PM

schestowitz[TR]

Aliens in the patent world.

schestowitz[TR]

“The search fees on average don’t even cover the costs of the initial search and opinion.”

schestowitz[TR]

Of course, they don’t. The cost of a search is somewhere above 3000€, and that is what patent offices have to pay. Applicants pay less, but they pay maintenance fees. QED.

schestowitz[TR]

Docte Cagalló

schestowitz[TR]

FEBRUARY 15, 2023 AT 10:06 PM

schestowitz[TR]

Happily someone mentioned quality at source. EPO examiners alone cannot create quality patents from poor-quality applications. Does this make sense? Thorsten was talking about patents with 100 claims. Come on! No invention deserves 100 patent claims, but we see such applications everyday. Remember claims conciseness and indication of essential features, art.84, rule 43? Do applicants have access to the prior art relevant for their i

schestowitz[TR]

nventions themselves when drafting? Do they only rely on the EPO search? Remember rule 43? Similarly with art.83…. Some quality pre-requisites must come with the application ex tunc. No quality search can be reasonably performed where this is lacking, and examination then becomes extremely inefficient. For quality patents must necessarily result from a fair and loyal applicant-examiner cooperation. Should we devote some thoughts t

schestowitz[TR]

o the fatal combination of huge numbers of low quality applications and EPO management serving only greed-driven big corporations? Would that help complete the picture?

schestowitz[TR]

Docte Cagalló

schestowitz[TR]

FEBRUARY 16, 2023 AT 8:36 AM

schestowitz[TR]

The second “rule 43” was obviously rule 42, which I quote: 1) The description shall: (b) indicate the background art which, as far as is known to the applicant, can be regarded as useful to understand the invention, draw up the European search report and examine the European patent application, and, preferably, cite the documents reflecting such art;

schestowitz[TR]

(c) disclose the invention, as claimed, in such terms that the technical problem, even if not expressly stated as such, and its solution can be understood, and state any advantageous effects of the invention with reference to the background art.

schestowitz[TR]

This is not wishful thinking; this is the EPC: this is what applicants must provide with their applications upon filing if they want a quality search and examination; this is their part in the deal.

schestowitz[TR]

A quality problem at the EPO? You must be mistaken!

schestowitz[TR]

FEBRUARY 17, 2023 AT 6:52 AM

schestowitz[TR]

If the quality of incoming applications was as bad as you claim, then a search would not be possible and lots of communications under R 63 should be issued.

schestowitz[TR]

The quality of the incoming applications has very little to do with the quality of the search.

schestowitz[TR]

If the claims are understandable from a technical point of view, a search is possible and should deliver the best basis for a thorough examination, and not to patents which come out maimed from opposition in 85% of the cases, on the basis of documents which were in the search files for more than 90% of the cases

schestowitz[TR]

Docte Cagalló

schestowitz[TR]

FEBRUARY 17, 2023 AT 11:42 AM

schestowitz[TR]

A quality patent application fully disclosing novel and inventive subject-matter would result in a 100% quality patent even without search and examination filters. The real problem is the tons of crap patent applications distorting the patent system in the interest of a few and patent office policies serving these interests.

schestowitz[TR]

A quality problem at the EPO? You must be mistaken!

schestowitz[TR]

FEBRUARY 18, 2023 AT 2:16 AM

schestowitz[TR]

I might agree with you that there are “tons of crap patent applications distorting the patent system in the interest of few”, but have you asked yourself why?

schestowitz[TR]

That the EPO grants any crap does certainly play a role. The number of refusals is rather law, but the number of patents coming out maimed from opposition shows that in all those cases that the patent should never have been granted in the form it was granted.

schestowitz[TR]

If all applications were “fully disclosing novel and inventive subject-matter” would render examiners redondant. Have you ever thought of this?

schestowitz[TR]

A. Nonymous

schestowitz[TR]

FEBRUARY 18, 2023 AT 5:30 PM

schestowitz[TR]

Where is the problem? Crap patent applications must be refused. Full stop.

schestowitz[TR]

Der Nörgler

schestowitz[TR]

FEBRUARY 15, 2023 AT 11:40 PM

schestowitz[TR]

A few thoughts on this:

schestowitz[TR]

1. I can empathise with some of the criticisms raised by the IPQC. Clearly it can help applicants (and examiners, and 3rd parties) to get a thorough search. Similarly, deeming certain claim features unclear or non-technical before the search and then not searching them is unhelpful for the applicant (and others). The claimed subject-matter should be searched, any objections can still be raised in the search opinion.

schestowitz[TR]

2. Another example of poor quality is poorly reasoned objections (e.g. just reciting the claim language with a few reference signs from D1 usually isn`t very helpful or convincing). Providing scarce analysis / objection on 54, 56, while trying to get the applicant to narrow a claim based on far-fetched clarity/essential features objections is another irritation. Sometimes feels as if examiners see that as a quicker/easier way to get

schestowitz[TR]

a more limited claim and an allowance. Not really fair to either the applicant or 3rd parties. And don’t get me started on examiner amendments to the claims at 71(3) stage with no indication of basis..

schestowitz[TR]

3. All that said, the EPO still provides a high quality, in my experience better than other national offices in Europe and better than other major patent offices.

schestowitz[TR]

4. Re the statistic on grants cited in the article: From other statistics I’ve seen, the grant rate has gone up over recent years but so has the refusal rate. So the ratio grant/refusal hasn’t shifted that much. Deemed withdrawals are down. Perhaps because examination is quicker, fewer applicants lose interest before a final decision?

schestowitz[TR]

5. Re the statistics on revocations cited in the article: The decrease in revocations at 1st instance is interesting. My subjective view is that OD’s have become more patentee friendly in recent years, but that is hardly based on a statistical sample size. As for the Boards, is the higher rate of revocation driven in part by the tougher procedural rules? In any event, the difference in % revocations between 1st instance and appeal

schestowitz[TR]

is interesting. Perhaps part of the difference can be explained by appellant behaviour, i.e. which party (patentee or opponent) is more likely to appeal a 1st instance decision? Finally, from other statistics I’ve seen, the final outcomes of opposition proceedings (i.e. final decision, whether that was reached at 1st instance if no appeal, or if reached after appeal) haven’t moved so much over recent years, i.e. ratios of paten

schestowitz[TR]

ts maintained as granted, amended, revoked.

schestowitz[TR]

6. Admittedly this is nitpicking a bit, but the sentence “As many as 46% of those patents that have been granted and opposed are now revoked by a Board of Appeal” isn’t quite right. This is 46% of the patents that have been opposed and that have gone to appeal. That is a skewed sample of all of the patents that have been opposed. See my comment above about which party is more likely to appeal – I’d have to check, but I thi

schestowitz[TR]

nk opponents appeal more often than patentees, e.g. where a patent is maintained in amended form.

schestowitz[TR]

7. In my view, whether timeliness is considered part of ‘quality’ or not, it is nevertheless still important. If you think back ~ 15 years the EPO was slow and many applicants didn’t like that, especially paying renewal fees while nothing happened. A patent office should deliver reasonable decisions (not perfect ones) in a reasonable timeframe. By comparison, I routinely see communications from the German PTO stating that “i

schestowitz[TR]

n view of the number of earlier filed applications and the workload of the examiners no date can be given for when this application will be examined. In recent years the number of examination and search procedures has increased considerably and with it the workloads of the examiners. Therefore, longer waiting times unfortunately cannot be avoided at the present time”. That’s not good service to the applicant or to the public. It

schestowitz[TR]

prolongs legal uncertainty for applicants and 3rd parties. Imagine the criticism the EPO would get if it routinely sent out communications like that…

schestowitz[TR]

8. Following on from 7, as I’ve raised before on here, it does seem ‘easier’ to criticise the EPO than national institutions. Maybe it is a psychological thing, it being more ‘difficult’ to criticise your own country’s institution, at least on a forum with foreign readers. e.g. there was an article in praise of the outgoing DPMA head on here recently, while that same patent office sends out communications as mentioned ab

schestowitz[TR]

ove. And can we Germans criticise the quality at the EPO and the need for a quality examination (see the article “Of course, you can leave everything to Opposition Divisions, Boards of Appeal and/or Courts, but you should also consider the less desirable consequences……contentious proceedings before each of these bodies take a considerable amount of time and are expensive,….. It is thus in the interest of a democratic society

schestowitz[TR]

that awards equal rights to everyone (and every company) to provide, as a public service, an effective filter that separates the good from the bad inventions and provides for a reasonable certainty that the rights eventually awarded to patentees are good and valid”) while simultaneously maintaining our utility model system?

schestowitz[TR]

Adam Blondel

schestowitz[TR]

FEBRUARY 16, 2023 AT 8:27 AM

schestowitz[TR]

A modest proposal would be to respect the Law (EPC art52) and restore freedom of programming computers.

schestowitz[TR]

Another more radical proposal would be to transform the EPO into an EU agency, without any ‘self-financed’ objective to pressure examiners to grant as many patents as possible.

schestowitz[TR]

A quality problem at the EPO? You must be mistaken!

schestowitz[TR]

FEBRUARY 16, 2023 AT 11:32 AM

schestowitz[TR]

You must be a friend of Zoobab.

schestowitz[TR]

The case law of the EBA and BA has made clear how to deal with CII.

schestowitz[TR]

Not allowing patentabilty just because you need a program would be denying lots of inventions the possibility of being patented. Is this what you want? For instance, lots of control functions are nowadays using CII. Denying protection for those technical items would be ludicrous.

schestowitz[TR]

What is not patentable is a program AS SUCH! As soon as a program has a link with a technical reality, it is patentable. And rightly so.

schestowitz[TR]

Transforming the EPO as an EU agency is not possible as there are 39 contracting states at the EPO and only 27 at the EU.

schestowitz[TR]

Printed on A3 paper.

schestowitz[TR]

FEBRUARY 16, 2023 AT 6:25 PM

schestowitz[TR]

“Good quality needs time, and better quality needs more time”.

schestowitz[TR]

It is now on my office door.

schestowitz[TR]

Thanks for your efforts Thorsten.

schestowitz[TR]

I’ll come to you when I am fired from the EPO.

schestowitz[TR]

A quality problem at the EPO? You must be mistaken!

schestowitz[TR]

FEBRUARY 17, 2023 AT 7:06 AM

schestowitz[TR]

Good quality does not necessarily need more time,

schestowitz[TR]

It needs a good training to start with.

schestowitz[TR]

Well trained examiners will know what to do.

schestowitz[TR]

This is not any longer the case.

schestowitz[TR]

Experienced examiners are leaving the office as soon as soon as they can.

schestowitz[TR]

A big source of knowledge is thereby lost.

schestowitz[TR]

Examiners cannot be blamed when they play with the system as well as the system plays with them.

schestowitz[TR]

I feel deeply sorry for examiners. They are “managed” by a bunch of incompetent people who do not have a clue about the work done and are hypnotised by Excel tables!

schestowitz[TR]

The biggest problem at the EPO is that those who carry out the work have the same qualifications as people sitting in management. The management has never understood this. The present management even less than their ancient predecessors

schestowitz[TR]

Follow the money

schestowitz[TR]

FEBRUARY 17, 2023 AT 3:09 PM

schestowitz[TR]

Why does the upper management push for patents to be granted as quickly as possible?

schestowitz[TR]

Mr bausch complained on this same blog about this frantic move to quick grants!

schestowitz[TR]

When patents are granted as soon as possible, it means that renewal fees go much earlier to national patent offices/national budgets, as they can keep 50% of the renewal fees.

schestowitz[TR]

This combined with a very specific use of the “cooperation budget” explains why the AC has given up its control function and the tail is wagging the dog.

schestowitz[TR]

All presidents of the EPO have at times played with the “cooperation budget”, but the present incumbent and its predecessor have institutionalised the process to their clear advantage.

schestowitz[TR]

The AC is rubber stamping anything coming from the 10th floor. Whether it corresponds to the letter and spirit of the EPC has become irrelevant. The chair of the BA also plays a role when looking at decisions like G 3/19 and G 1/21.

schestowitz[TR]

The president of the EPO and its predecessor are primarily to blame for the degradation of quality, but the AC is contributing too!

schestowitz[TR]

In the past it happened that the AC sometimes first refused the financial discharge to a president and even nipped in the bud a president’s desire to build a new building for the EPO, cf. EPO 2000 in Voorburg.

schestowitz[TR]

This also explains why in The Hague it took so long to built a replacement for the tower built at the time by the IIB.

schestowitz[TR]

In those days the AC played the role it was meant too!

schestowitz[TR]

Some explanations about the present situation

schestowitz[TR]

FEBRUARY 19, 2023 AT 10:53 AM

schestowitz[TR]

When the EPO was set up, existing international organizations were more controlled by the AC than by the heads of the organization.

schestowitz[TR]

At the EPO, the head should get more power.

schestowitz[TR]

This worked fine as long as the heads of the office were reasonable. Since roughly 2010 this is not any longer the case.

schestowitz[TR]

The presidents just think that immunity means impunity. They act accordingly. They think the office is their private playground.

schestowitz[TR]

The AC, is for obvious reasons, see above, not any longer controlling the office.

schestowitz[TR]

Hence the present problems of bad staff relations combined with dwindling quality."

schestowitz[TR]

^ all comments

Feb 21 09:12

schestowitz[TR]

some might have been censored already

Feb 21 09:12

schestowitz[TR]

> Refocussing on patents, not FOSS:

schestowitz[TR]

> http://www.fosspatents.com/2023/02/gradually-refocusing-foss-patents-on.html?m=1 <http://www.fosspatents.com/2023/02/gradually-refocusing-foss-patents-on.html?m=1>

schestowitz[TR]

schestowitz[TR]

Yes, his blog became useless to us.

schestowitz[TR]

He probably needs money.

schestowitz[TR]

<li>

schestowitz[TR]

<h5><a href="https://portswigger.net/daily-swig/most-web-api-flaws-are-missed-by-standard-security-tests-corey-j-ball-on-securing-a-neglected-attack-vector">‘Most web API flaws are missed by standard security tests’ – Corey J Ball on securing a neglected attack vector</a></h5>

schestowitz[TR]

schestowitz[TR]

<p>He subsequentially obtained CEH, CISSP, and OSCP certificates before eventually being offered an opportunity to help lead penetration testing services at public accounting firm Moss Adams, where he still works as lead web app pen tester.</p>

schestowitz[TR]

<p>Recently focusing more narrowly on web API security – a largely underserved area – Ball has launched a free online course on the topic and published Hacking APIs: Breaking Web Application Programming Interfaces (No Starch Press, 2022).</p>

schestowitz[TR]

<p>In an interview with The Daily Swig, Ball explains how the growing use of web APIs requires a change of perspective on how we secure our applications.</p>

schestowitz[TR]

</blockquote>

schestowitz[TR]

</li>

schestowitz[TR]

schestowitz[TR]

<li>

schestowitz[TR]

<h5><a href="https://jpieper.com/2023/02/20/moteus-clock-synchronization/">moteus clock synchronization</a></h5>

schestowitz[TR]

schestowitz[TR]

<p>To make this work, there are two pieces. First we need to be able to change the rate at which the microcontroller’s clock operates. The microcontroller does provide a trim mechanism for exactly this purpose. At the factory it is calibrated and then the firmware is able to further tweak the result in approximately 40kHz increments, as compared to the 16MHz base RC oscillator frequency. For

schestowitz[TR]

moteus, that works out to about 0.25% increments of speed. This trim was already exposed as an undocumented configuration option clock.hsitrim, but not in a form suitable for modification online.</p>

schestowitz[TR]

</blockquote>

schestowitz[TR]

</li>

schestowitz[TR]

<li>

schestowitz[TR]

<h5><a href="https://buttondown.email/hillelwayne/archive/code-review-vs-code-proofreading/">Code review vs code proofreading</a></h5>

schestowitz[TR]

schestowitz[TR]

<p>The further up the rung you go, the more editing becomes an art. I’ve had lots of different people help edit my blog posts and I’ve noticed that people tend to “settle” on one style of feedback. It also seems to form a pyramid: it’s a lot easier to find people who like to do proofreading and copyediting than who do substantive editing. That’s likely because proofreading is very

schestowitz[TR]

objective while substantive editing is heavily subjective.</p>

schestowitz[TR]

<p>The important thing is that these are different skills and activities. The techniques and challenges of proofreading are different from the challenges and techniques of copyediting, which are different from substantive editing.</p>

schestowitz[TR]

</blockquote>

schestowitz[TR]

</li>

-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.fosspatents.com | FOSS Patents: Gradually refocusing FOSS Patents on patents WHILE exploring alternatives for antitrust analysis and commentary

Feb 21 09:25

-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-portswigger.net | ‘Most web API flaws are missed by standard security tests’ – Corey J Ball on securing a neglected attack vector | The Daily Swig

Feb 21 09:25

-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-jpieper.com | moteus clock synchronization | A Modicum of Fun

Feb 21 09:26

-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-buttondown.email | Code review vs code proofreading • Buttondown

Feb 21 09:26

*psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has left #techbytes

Feb 21 09:27

*GNUmoon2 has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)

Feb 21 09:27

*psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has joined #techbytes

Feb 21 09:31

schestowitz[TR]

<li>

schestowitz[TR]

<h5><a href="https://www.securityweek.com/twitter-shuts-off-text-based-2fa-for-non-subscribers/">Twitter Shuts Off Text-Based 2FA for Non-Subscribers</a></h5>

schestowitz[TR]

schestowitz[TR]

<p>The decision — and the way it is positioned as a paid feature — attracted backlash from security professionals who argue that text-based 2FA is better than nothing at all. Worse, it creates a false sense of security among paying subscribers who may think the weakest form of 2FA is a premium feature.</p>

schestowitz[TR]

<p>Twitter’s own internal data shows that multi-factor adoption remains startlingly low. According to a 2021 transparency report, Twitter found that barely 2.3 percent of all its active accounts have enabled at least one method of two-factor authentication between July and December 2020.</p>

schestowitz[TR]

</blockquote>

schestowitz[TR]

</li>

-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-Twitter Shuts Off Text-Based 2FA for Non-Subscribers - SecurityWeek

*GNUmoon2 (~GNUmoon@etygfgxsisyta.irc) has joined #techbytes

Feb 21 09:42

schestowitz[TR]

<li>

schestowitz[TR]

<h5><a href="https://blog.apnic.net/2023/02/20/opinion-to-dnssec-or-not/">[Opinion] To DNSSEC or not?</a></h5>

schestowitz[TR]

schestowitz[TR]

<p>The canonical specification of the DNS that is normally cited are the pair of RFCs, RFC 1034, ‘Domain names – concepts and facilities’, and RFC 1035, ‘Domain names – implementation and specification’, both published in November 1987. However, these two core specifications are just the tip of a rather large iceberg. One compendium of all the RFCs that touch upon the DNS l

schestowitz[TR]

ists some 292 RFCs. That implies that to claim that the DNS is essentially unchanged over this forty-year period might be a bit of a stretch, but nevertheless, the fundamentals of the DNS have been constant. Those additional 292 RFCs illustrate the observation that we’ve spent a huge amount of time and effort over these forty years focused on tinkering at the edges!</p>

schestowitz[TR]

</blockquote>

schestowitz[TR]

</li>

-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-blog.apnic.net | [Opinion] To DNSSEC or not? | APNIC Blog

schestowitz[TR]

<li>

schestowitz[TR]

<h5><a href="https://www.helsinkitimes.fi/finland/finland-news/domestic/22996-yle-publishes-search-engine-for-schools-drawing-criticism.html">YLE publishes search engine for schools, drawing criticism</a></h5>

schestowitz[TR]

schestowitz[TR]

<p>Jouko Jokinen, an acting editor-in-chief at YLE, on Sunday expressed his puzzlement with the public debate prompted by the article.</p>

schestowitz[TR]

<p>“Our duty is to produce new and meaningful information for society, and the number of [pupils learning Finnish as a second language] and their distribution between different parts of the country are simple facts. Telling them is important and interesting,” he stated to Helsingin Sanomat.</p>

schestowitz[TR]

</blockquote>

schestowitz[TR]

</li>

schestowitz[TR]

-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-Empty reply from server ( status 0 @ https://www.helsinkitimes.fi/finland/finland-news/domestic/22996-yle-publishes-search-engine-for-schools-drawing-criticism.html )

*psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has left #techbytes

Feb 21 10:07

*psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has joined #techbytes

Feb 21 10:11

schestowitz[TR]

<li>

schestowitz[TR]

<h5><a href="https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/inside-the-covert-firm-that-spreads-lies-and-chaos-around-the-world-a-3c55e1cd-7d61-4cf8-8321-999da1996aa8">How a Covert Firm Spreads Lies and Chaos Around the World</a></h5>

schestowitz[TR]

schestowitz[TR]

<p>Former Israeli agents have apparently manipulated nearly three dozen elections. Their clients: power-hungry politicians and wealthy businessmen. They are part of a rapidly growing global disinformation industry in which Russia is far from the only player.</p>

schestowitz[TR]

</blockquote>

schestowitz[TR]

</li>

-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.spiegel.de | How a Covert Firm Spreads Lies and Chaos Around the World - DER SPIEGEL

*MinceR has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)

schestowitz[TR]

<li>

schestowitz[TR]

<h5><a href="https://qz.com/microsoft-activision-blizzard-deal-eu-hearing-1850135969">Microsoft is getting ready to defend its Activision Blizzard acquisition to EU regulators</a></h5>

schestowitz[TR]

schestowitz[TR]

<p>The Redmond, Washington-based software giant will make a “last-ditch effort” to defend its bid at a closed hearing in Brussels tomorrow (Feb. 21), Reuters reported. The company will counter the statement of objections from the European Commission warning about the deal being anti-competitive.</p>

schestowitz[TR]

</blockquote>

schestowitz[TR]

</li>

-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-qz.com | Microsoft presents Activision Blizzard deal defense to the EU