IRC: #techbytes @ Techrights IRC Network: Friday, April 21, 2023

schestowitz[TR2]

There is just no problem here. Article 116 EPC establishes that oral proceedings shall take place in certain circumstances. It is silent about whether these are in person or by teleconference (video or phone). In the past, it was more convenient to hold them in person because teleconferencing software was inadequate. Now, teleconferencing software is very good. Where the case only involves arguments between representati

schestowitz[TR2]

ves and the EPO, videoconferencing technology does nothing to diminish the quality of the discussion as compared with in person conferences. In the vast majority of cases, any arguments based on the loss of body language cues are irrelevant, provided the party is heard, which is clearly perfectly possible with videoconference. While the party has a right to be heard, it is also the representative's responsibility to ens

schestowitz[TR2]

ure that their client is heard. If that requires a change of approach compared with in person hearings, so be it. The situation is more complex in the tiny minority of cases which involve evidence of fact being given by a witness in person. In these cases, non-verbal cues may provide information about the character or reliability of the witness. This evidence should continue to be heard in person. In so far a

schestowitz[TR2]

s logistical difficulties or access issues arising from extended screen use or communicating within a team are concerned, these are clearly the party's problem and not those of the EPO or the Boards of Appeal. It is just reality that most representatives will spend 9 to 10 hours of every single day of their lives staring at a screen. They can be expected to be able to do this, just as they previously were expected to fly to Munich

schestowitz[TR2]

, the Hague, Berlin or Haar and sit in an auditorium for hours on end. Headaches and bad backs are an occupational hazard for the European patent attorney. Similarly, when sat in the auditorium it was not particularly easy to communicate with team members - this involved passing scribbled notes and hushed whispers back and forth while trying not to disturb the speaker. It is in many ways easier to have a side-bar in a separate c

schestowitz[TR2]

hannel with VC hearings. The problems are different, but they are not necessarily worse. Indeed, the pros of VC clearly outweigh the cons in almost all circumstances, and since neither in person hearings are prescribed nor VC hearings proscribed, VC hearings should be preferred. This is perhaps the one issue that the EPO is dead right on.

-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | ViCo oral proceedings: True gold or fool's gold? (T 0758/20) - The IPKat

*liberty_box_ has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)

Apr 21 04:32

*rianne_ has quit (Ping timeout: 120 seconds)

Apr 21 04:33

*liberty_box_ (~liberty@3stvfjh5iuw88.irc) has joined #techbytes

Apr 21 05:44

*rianne_ (~rianne@freenode-7uc.ra8.a7lnth.IP) has joined #techbytes

Apr 21 05:44

*rianne__ (~rianne@3stvfjh5iuw88.irc) has joined #techbytes

Apr 21 06:09

schestowitz[TR2]

<li>

schestowitz[TR2]

<h5><a href="https://www.linuxjournal.com/content/mastering-journalctl-command-comprehensive-guide">Mastering the journalctl Command: A Comprehensive Guide</a></h5>

schestowitz[TR2]

schestowitz[TR2]

The journalctl command is a utility that allows users to view and interact with systemd journal logs. These logs include information from various sources, such as the kernel, initrd, system services, applications, and systemd itself. The logs are stored in a binary format and can be queried efficiently using journalctl.

schestowitz[TR2]

</blockquote>

schestowitz[TR2]

</li>

schestowitz[TR2]

-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.linuxjournal.com | Mastering the journalctl Command: A Comprehensive Guide | Linux Journal

schestowitz[TR2]

<li>

schestowitz[TR2]

<h5><a href="https://www.theregister.com/2023/04/20/ubuntu_2304_lunar_lobster/">Ubuntu 23.04 Lunar Lobster scuttles into public view</a></h5>

schestowitz[TR2]

schestowitz[TR2]

As with all odd-year Ubuntu updates, 23.04 is a short-term release. In this case, that means in just six months Lunar Lobster will climb down into its lava tube, shed its carapace, and metamorphize into the yet unnamed 23.10 release. And, three months after that, Lunar Lobster's support will come to an abrupt end.

schestowitz[TR2]

But if you can live with the short nine-month support window, or are a frequent distro-hopper, Ubuntu 23.04 includes a few notable improvements over last October's Kinetic Kudu, or the now year-old long-term support (LTS) release.

schestowitz[TR2]

</blockquote>

schestowitz[TR2]

</li>

-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.theregister.com | Ubuntu 23.04 Lunar Lobster scuttles into public view • The Register

schestowitz[TR2]

<li>

schestowitz[TR2]

<h5><a href="https://blog.josefsson.org/2023/04/20/sigstore-for-apt-archives-apt-cosign/">Sigstore for Apt Archives: apt-cosign</a></h5>

schestowitz[TR2]

schestowitz[TR2]

As suggested in my initial announcement of apt-sigstore my plan was to look into stronger uses of Sigstore than rekor, and I’m now happy to announce that the apt-cosign plugin has been added to apt-sigstore and the operational project debdistcanary is publishing cosign-statements about the InRelease file published by the following distributions: Trisquel GNU/Linux, PureOS, Gnuinos, Ubuntu, Debia

schestowitz[TR2]

n and Devuan.

schestowitz[TR2]

</blockquote>

schestowitz[TR2]

</li>

schestowitz[TR2]

-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-blog.josefsson.org | Sigstore for Apt Archives: apt-cosign – Simon Josefsson's blog

schestowitz[TR2]

<li>

schestowitz[TR2]

<h5><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/20/world/europe/ukraine-social-media-influencers.html">Ukraine’s Social Media Stars Rethink How They Wield Their Influence</a></h5>

schestowitz[TR2]

schestowitz[TR2]

Moscow’s invasion last year has caused a cultural upheaval in Ukrainian society that has run parallel to the fighting. Monuments to Russian heroes have been torn down or defaced, and Russian writers, painters and composers, lionized for decades by the Soviet education system, are suddenly vilified in a process called “de-Russification.”

schestowitz[TR2]

At the heart of that transformation is language, with more Ukrainians — most of whom understand both languages — switching to use Ukrainian. The transition had begun years earlier, starting with independence, but accelerated last year.

schestowitz[TR2]

</blockquote>

schestowitz[TR2]

</li>

schestowitz[TR2]

-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.nytimes.com | Ukraine’s Social Media Stars Ditch Russian in Pivot to a War Footing - The New York Times

schestowitz[TR2]

<li>

schestowitz[TR2]

<h5><a href="https://www.vice.com/en/article/qjv8mw/chromebooks-are-trash-literally">Chromebooks Are Trash (Literally)</a></h5>

schestowitz[TR2]

schestowitz[TR2]

A new report from U.S. PIRG finds that Chromebooks’ cheap design and short lifespan means people are treating them as disposable, and is creating piles of ewaste.

schestowitz[TR2]

</blockquote>

schestowitz[TR2]

</li>

-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.vice.com | Chromebooks Are Trash (Literally)

schestowitz[TR2]

schestowitz[TR2]

WikiLeaks is now so hamstrung by attacks on its finances, personnel and logistics as to be almost inoperable. Propaganda outfit Bellingcat was conceived as a way to counter it, by producing material with the frisson of secret access but actually as an outlet for the security services. An astonishing amount of “liberal opinion” falls for it.

schestowitz[TR2]

Similarly the Intercept, like the Guardian, was subject to an internal takeover that delivered it entirely into the hands of the neo-conservatives.

schestowitz[TR2]

Neither the alleged journalists of New York Times, Washington Post, nor Bellingcat did the most basic things a real journalist would do.

schestowitz[TR2]

</blockquote>

https://original.antiwar.com/craig_murray/2023/04/18/snowden-and-texeira-ten-years-of-disaster/

schestowitz[TR2]

-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-original.antiwar.com | Snowden and Teixeira: Ten Years of Disaster - Antiwar.com Original

schestowitz[TR2]

<li>

schestowitz[TR2]

<h5><a href="https://baronhk.wordpress.com/2023/04/20/a-bunch-of-mastodon-posts-from-mstdn-social-were-deleted-for-fake-news-and-violent-and-harassing-and-i-was-finally-banned-heres-a-few/">A Bunch of Mastodon Posts (from mstdn.social) Were Deleted for “Fake News” and “Violent and Harassing”, and I Was Finally Banned. Here’s a Few.</a></h5>

schestowitz[TR2]

schestowitz[TR2]

These are actual examples of what I was shown as the reason behind the bans.

schestowitz[TR2]

Making fun of CNN and TikTok, criticizing the law in Illinois, discussing that Facebook and Reddit are nasty and spy on people.

schestowitz[TR2]

And insulting the King of Mstdn.social.

schestowitz[TR2]

[...]

schestowitz[TR2]

What’s going on in Mastodon, the “banned server list” is public, and that’s a “feature” of the software, they decide what you get to see _for you_, is that they’re building a Tower of Babel where it may be open source, but it’s an echo chamber of fools and idiots.

schestowitz[TR2]

</blockquote>

schestowitz[TR2]

</li>

-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-baronhk.wordpress.com | A Bunch of Mastodon Posts (from mstdn.social) Were Deleted for “Fake News” and “Violent and Harassing”, and I Was Finally Banned. Here’s a Few. | BaronHK's Rants

schestowitz[TR2]

<li>

schestowitz[TR2]

<h5><a href="https://edri.org/our-work/spyware-is-only-the-tip-of-the-iceberg-we-need-to-protect-journalists-from-all-forms-of-surveillance/">Spyware is only the tip of the iceberg: we need to protect journalists from all forms of surveillance</a></h5>

schestowitz[TR2]

schestowitz[TR2]

In the context of the “new push for European Union Democracy”, the European Commission released in September 2022 its legislative proposal for a European Media Freedom Act (EMFA), which seeks to protect journalists and media services providers through the introduction of safeguards against their targeting by Member States governments with so-called spyware.

schestowitz[TR2]

EDRi welcomes the Commission’s attempt to regulate the surveillance powers of states against journalists and journalistic sources. The abuse of power by governments, intelligence services and law enforcement agencies in the EU, illustrated by the Pegasus and Predator spyware cases and well documented in the upcoming report of the European Parliament’s Committee of Inquiry to investigate the us

schestowitz[TR2]

e of Pegasus and equivalent surveillance spyware (PEGA), highlights the importance to have strong, common European measures to protect journalists, journalistic sources and human rights defenders.

schestowitz[TR2]

</blockquote>

schestowitz[TR2]

</li>

-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-edri.org | Protect journalists from surveillance - European Digital Rights (EDRi)

http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2023/04/vico-oral-proceedings-true-gold-or.html?showComment=1682097507825#c6712279548695840143

schestowitz[TR2]

schestowitz[TR2]

This is akin to "boots on the ground diplomacy". That is, the EPO is seeking to establish a situation that is incompatible with a proper interpretation of G 1/21... thus ensuring that the Boards are faced with a choice between following the rule of law or killing their careers by creating (administrative) chaos within the EPO. A similar approach is evident in the inadequate physical space that has allocated to the Boards

schestowitz[TR2]

for when they relocate to central Munich.

-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | ViCo oral proceedings: True gold or fool's gold? (T 0758/20) - The IPKat

http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2023/04/vico-oral-proceedings-true-gold-or.html?showComment=1682092798590#c7101933333413670815

schestowitz[TR2]

schestowitz[TR2]

@ Time to move on Either you are part of the upper circles of the EPO or you are a representative sitting far away from Munich, The Hague or Berlin, or you want to have OP without having to move from your residence. This is all acceptable. What is not acceptable is that you want to impose your views on other users of the EPO. As shown by Proof of the Pudding, you have forgotten the most important

schestowitz[TR2]

point. In G 1/21, the EBA has made clear that the gold standard in matters of OP is in-person OP. Until the EBA gives another interpretation, boards are bound to G 1/21 and this interpretation stands. Boards do not have the competence to declare G 1/21 as outdated, cf. art 21 RPBA 20. Boards do neither have the competence to require that the parties have to show that the case is not suitable for OP by ViCo. This second

schestowitz[TR2]

ary aspect in G 1/21 cannot become a further pretext for boards not to abide by the gold standard. It is for the parties to decide what form of OP suits best their interests. It is neither for the EPO and its boards or another representative to tell them what they should do. The convenience of the EPO and of its boards, or that of some representatives is not the yardstick against which to measure the form of OP. <

schestowitz[TR2]

br />In the absence of reasons impairing parties to attend OP in person, the default form of OP is in-person OP. If all parties agree on OP by ViCo, then OP by ViCo can be held. If all parties agree on OP in-person, it is not for the EPO or its boards to decide the contrary. If the parties do not agree on the form of OP, then a mixed mode of OP should be offered. You also overlook one important aspect: what is the legal

schestowitz[TR2]

basis in the EPC for allowing deciding bodies of the EPO, be it first instance divisions or boards of appeal, not to sit together when deciding on the fate of an application or of a patent/opposition. In a legal system, the end does not justify the means. The rule of law has to apply. In G 1/21, the EBA accepted one exception to OP in person, when parties are impaired in their travel. It is nothing new that exceptions

schestowitz[TR2]

have to be applied with care and cannot be generalised. There are dozens of decisions of the boards insisting upon this aspect. Furthermore, there is a difference in sitting alone in front of a screen for many hours a day and to sit in front of a screen whilst you have to follow what other people say. My experience in teaching by ViCo and teaching in person shows the discrepancy between the two forms of teaching. Teachi

schestowitz[TR2]

ng by ViCo does not have the same impact as in person. Why should it be different for OP?

-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | ViCo oral proceedings: True gold or fool's gold? (T 0758/20) - The IPKat

http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2023/04/vico-oral-proceedings-true-gold-or.html?showComment=1682092561609#c3986787066645671582

schestowitz[TR2]

schestowitz[TR2]

schestowitz[TR2]

point. In G 1/21, the EBA has made clear that the gold standard in matters of OP is in-person OP. Until the EBA gives another interpretation, boards are bound to G 1/21 and this interpretation stands. Boards do not have the competence to declare G 1/21 as being outdated, cf. Art 21 RPBA 20. Boards do neither have the competence to require that the parties have to show that the case is not suitable for OP by ViCo. This

schestowitz[TR2]

secondary aspect in G 1/21 cannot become a further pretext for boards not to abide by the gold standard. It is for the parties to decide what form of OP suits best their interests. It is neither for the EPO and its boards or another representative to tell them what they should do. The convenience of the EPO and of its boards, or that of some representatives is not the yardstick against which to measure the form of OP. <

schestowitz[TR2]

br /> In the absence of reasons impairing parties to attend OP in person, the default form of OP is in-person OP. If all parties agree on OP by ViCo, then OP by ViCo can be held, but boards can decide nevertheless to hold OP in person. There are plenty of examples. If all parties agree on OP in-person, it is not for the EPO or its boards to decide the contrary. If the parties do not agree on the form of OP, then a mixed mode o

schestowitz[TR2]

f OP should be offered. You also overlook one important aspect: what is the legal basis in the EPC for allowing deciding bodies of the EPO, be it first instance divisions or boards of appeal, not to sit together when deciding on the fate of an application or of a patent/opposition? In a legal system, the end does not justify the means. The rule of law has to apply. In G 1/21, the EBA accepted one exception t

schestowitz[TR2]

o OP in person: when parties are impaired in their travel. It is nothing new that exceptions have to be applied with care and cannot be generalised. There are dozens of decisions of the boards insisting upon this aspect. Furthermore, there is a difference in sitting alone in front of a screen for many hours a day and to sit in front of a screen whilst you have to follow what other people say. My experience in teaching b

schestowitz[TR2]

y ViCo and teaching in person shows the discrepancy between the two forms of teaching. Teaching by ViCo does not have the same impact as in person. Why should it be different for OP?

-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | ViCo oral proceedings: True gold or fool's gold? (T 0758/20) - The IPKat

http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2023/04/vico-oral-proceedings-true-gold-or.html?showComment=1682068836700#c9216748713543106799

schestowitz[TR2]

schestowitz[TR2]

I have just seen in LinkedIn the EPO advert on its "flexible working policy": You have explored 11.98% of the world” – How much have you explored? A colleague informed us in a team meeting that he has travelled to over 100 different countries. With the European Patent Office flexible working policy I am keen on taking up this challenge! Try this interactive map to find out your % Of course,

schestowitz[TR2]

prompting visiting the world is very "green"...if done by walking. But I'm not sure that this is the idea underpinning the message. Sad reality is that a consistent part of EPO people either have bent their back to EPO upper crust dictat or are truly happy with the possibility to work from distance. This explains how useless is any legal fight of (most?) stakeholders to see the indications of the EBoA respected.

☞ http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2023/04/vico-oral-proceedings-true-gold-or.html?showComment=1682065515954#c6578051641827671141

schestowitz[TR2]

schestowitz[TR2]

Thank you. Now we have your views on the relative pros and cons of VICO. All very well, but completely irrelevant to the issue at hand, which is the legal basis for conducting "without consent" VICO proceedings. I am frankly astonished by the number of individuals within the patent profession who confuse a situation that they consider to be desirable with a situation that is lawful. Even ta

schestowitz[TR2]

king into account the possibility of "dynamic" interpretations, the law simple does not work like that. So yes, there is a problem here. The problem is a blatant breach of a Board's obligations under Article 21 RPBA. That is, whilst the Board may have felt that there were reasons to diverge from the ruling in G 1/21, they should not have "creatively" interpreted that ruling without first referr

schestowitz[TR2]

ing questions to the EBA.

-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | ViCo oral proceedings: True gold or fool's gold? (T 0758/20) - The IPKat

schestowitz[TR2]

"I see what you mean, but you can also just set up ...</a></h5><blockquote>I see what you mean, but you can also just set up multiple stations in the same room. This allows for backchannel communications and one face per camera/headsets. In some ways this is superior for communication with your team - people can be muted and/or off camera for example. There's a good comment from "Time to move on" b

schestowitz[TR2]

elow: "The problems are different, but they are not necessarily worse."

schestowitz[TR2]

-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | ViCo oral proceedings: True gold or fool's gold? (T 0758/20) - The IPKat