Techrights logo

IRC: #techbytes @ Techrights IRC Network: Wednesday, August 23, 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.

*jacobk (~quassel@6wygwq2t5e2hw.irc) has joined #techbytesAug 23 00:48
*MinceR gives voice to jacobkAug 23 00:49
*jacobk has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)Aug 23 01:13
*jacobk (~quassel@6wygwq2t5e2hw.irc) has joined #techbytesAug 23 01:34
*MinceR gives voice to jacobkAug 23 01:36
*rianne__ has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)Aug 23 02:40
*asusbox has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)Aug 23 02:40
*techrights[sec]_ has quit (connection closed)Aug 23 03:12
*jacobk has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)Aug 23 03:31
*tokwe (~tokwe@3stvfjh5iuw88.irc) has joined #techbytesAug 23 04:47
*tokwe is now known as techrights-[sec]Aug 23 04:47
*MinceR gives voice to techrights-[sec]Aug 23 04:47
schestowitz>> Watch the shirt he wears: freedo of gnu linux-libreAug 23 05:24
schestowitz>> 23 05:24
schestowitz> Cool, eh?Aug 23 05:24
schestowitz> Aug 23 05:24
schestowitz> I wonder if that's the T shirt design by Jeff Moe, or someone else's.Aug 23 05:24
schestowitz> Aug 23 05:24
schestowitz> Thanks for the link!Aug 23 05:24
-TechBytesBot/ | The Fall of Linus Tech TipsAug 23 05:24
schestowitzAug 23 10:59
schestowitz<p>Microsoft fired 50 people at MSN News in 2020, then turned the &#8220;content&#8221; over to an &#8220;AI&#8221; Chaff Bot that told vacationers to Canada to <a href="">visit a food pantry while they&#8217;re hungry</a>.</p>Aug 23 10:59
schestowitz<p>This is not surprising. In fact, it&#8217;s to be expected. &#8220;AI&#8221; spew doesn&#8217;t cost them anything to post, they can put ads on it, and the audience is people who aren&#8217;t smart enough to remove Windows from their PC and get a real Web browser.</p>Aug 23 10:59
schestowitz<p>Microsoft is barely investing in their products and MSN News isn&#8217;t really even a corner case. Windows is decrepit and fading into irrelevance. They fire people tending to that corpse too, but can&#8217;t simply turn it over to a bot because bots don&#8217;t even know how to answer simple programming questions, much less replace programmers. </p>Aug 23 10:59
schestowitz<p>(Although many lose their jobs because of a bad economy, and the fact that they only had work because of low interest debt.)</p>Aug 23 10:59
schestowitz<p>Unfortunately, actual news sites are also looking into the &#8220;cost savings&#8221; side of Chaff Bot &#8220;content&#8221;. </p>Aug 23 10:59
schestowitz<p>The Chaff Bot Problem is helping the <a href="">Dead Internet Theory</a> along. No humans, just PR firms and Chaff Bot spew.</p>Aug 23 10:59
schestowitz<p>It&#8217;s not quite there yet, but the bots don&#8217;t have to sleep and can spew things all over the place that are morbid, stupid, incorrect, and low quality for corporations such as Microsoft to slap advertising on. </p>Aug 23 10:59
schestowitz<p>The article, which Microsoft removed, about Canada, was so low quality it was essentially a word salad like no human would ever write, cobbled together with random and low quality (even pixelated) images. (The one of the food bank was just a maple leaf.)</p>Aug 23 10:59
schestowitz<p>What&#8217;s also not helping is the fact that real Web browsers that are not designed by billion dollar corporations, are choking on an enormous amount of garbage invented mostly by Google. It&#8217;s amazing that SeaMonkey&#8217;s view of the Web platform is hardly a few years old, and already so much falls apart. Even trying to keep the Web working in a year under a still-supported version of Firefox ESR starts to become a problemAug 23 10:59
schestowitz.</p>Aug 23 10:59
schestowitz<p>The Web must be replaced.</p>Aug 23 10:59
schestowitz<p>It&#8217;s terrifying, depressing, how we all just walk around hitting up the same 5-10 sites, few of which are even people anymore. Most of them hosted on CloudFlare, which is the enemy of your privacy.</p>Aug 23 10:59
schestowitz<p>It takes no effort to flood the Web with crap, and companies like Microsoft (and their useful idiots) obviously have no reservations about doing it, which is why we need to take our cheese and leave.</p>Aug 23 10:59
schestowitz<p>It&#8217;s really aggravating to see what even the New York Times has decayed into, and they still expect you to pay money to read it. Imagine what happens when they replace Paul Krugman, who is a propagandist, who writes utterly predictable &#8220;content&#8221;, with a &#8220;KrugmanBot&#8221; that just blasts how, hey, sure your husband is losing all his hours at Walmart because nobody buys anything anymore while plenty of people Aug 23 10:59
schestowitzare stealing things and setting the place on fire, and the economy under Biden is a miracle. </p>Aug 23 10:59
schestowitz<p><strong>All day long, miracle. (No sleep. Just miracles, and ads.)</strong></p>Aug 23 10:59
schestowitz<p>Web 4.0</p>Aug 23 10:59
schestowitzx 23 10:59
schestowitzx 23 10:59
schestowitz<p>Miracle.</p>Aug 23 10:59
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-Microsoft retracts AI-written article advising tourists to visit a food bank on an empty stomach | EngadgetAug 23 10:59
-TechBytesBot/ | Dead Internet theory - WikipediaAug 23 10:59
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-Microsoft integrates the Python programming language into Excel - SiliconANGLEAug 23 11:00
-TechBytesBot/ | Python scripting in Microsoft Excel now in public preview • The RegisterAug 23 11:00
*DaemonFC has quit (Quit: ChatZilla 0.17 [SeaMonkey 2.53.17/20230804000000])Aug 23 11:23
*GNUmoon2 has quit (Quit: Leaving)Aug 23 11:48
*GNUmoon2 (~GNUmoon@r9irv7kyrpv3c.irc) has joined #techbytesAug 23 11:51
*MinceR gives voice to GNUmoon2Aug 23 13:23
*jacobk (~quassel@32hz32it3ih2k.irc) has joined #techbytesAug 23 13:28
*schestowitz gives voice to jacobkAug 23 13:35
*asusbox (~rianne@3stvfjh5iuw88.irc) has joined #techbytesAug 23 14:49
*rianne__ (~rianne@3stvfjh5iuw88.irc) has joined #techbytesAug 23 14:49
*MinceR gives voice to asusbox rianne__Aug 23 14:51
*asusbox has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)Aug 23 15:00
*rianne__ has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)Aug 23 15:00
*asusbox (~rianne@3stvfjh5iuw88.irc) has joined #techbytesAug 23 15:19
*rianne__ (~rianne@3stvfjh5iuw88.irc) has joined #techbytesAug 23 15:19
*MinceR gives voice to asusbox rianne__Aug 23 15:26
*asusbox has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)Aug 23 15:29
*rianne__ has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)Aug 23 15:30
*jacobk has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)Aug 23 15:56
*jacobk (~quassel@6wygwq2t5e2hw.irc) has joined #techbytesAug 23 16:09
*MinceR gives voice to jacobkAug 23 16:11
*jacobk has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)Aug 23 17:05
*jacobk (~quassel@99ed6ukzxymmc.irc) has joined #techbytesAug 23 17:13
*MinceR gives voice to jacobkAug 23 17:15
*jacobk has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)Aug 23 17:16
*jacobk (~quassel@99ed6ukzxymmc.irc) has joined #techbytesAug 23 17:17
*MinceR gives voice to jacobkAug 23 17:19
*jacobk has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)Aug 23 17:28
*jacobk (~quassel@6wygwq2t5e2hw.irc) has joined #techbytesAug 23 18:47
*MinceR gives voice to jacobkAug 23 18:48
schestowitz 23 19:20
schestowitz Aug 23 19:20
schestowitz Aug 23 19:20
schestowitz @DXT<br />It does not help your cause, nor advance the debate here one iota, if you do not engage in good faith. Your most recent response includes examples of:<br />1) failing to follow a train of thought to its logical conclusion (eg Art 69 and the EPO's &quot;non-EPC&quot; claim interpretation approach);<br />2) shifting the debate to a different point (interpretation of Art 69 EPC) without concluding the original debate (interpretaAug 23 19:20
schestowitztion of Art 84 EPC);<br />3) &quot;whataboutery&quot; (eg alleged problems with a &quot;strict&quot; interpretation of Art 69 EPC);<br />4) attacking others for allegedly holding views that they never espoused (eg: my alleged desire for a &quot;perfect&quot; interpretation of claim wording during EPO proceedings);<br />5) maligning the motives of others (eg the allegation that I wish to &quot;<i>push the boundaries further than the actuAug 23 19:20
schestowitzal contribution to the art</i>&quot;); and<br />6) dismissing / minimising issues clearly demonstrated by others (eg the risk of added matter from <i>limiting</i>amendments to the description).<br /><br />To me, the presence of so many examples of failure to engage in good faith suggests that the commentator has perception bias, is wilfully blind, and reinterprets &quot;uncomfortable&quot; facts to make them fit with a preconceived worlAug 23 19:20
schestowitzd view.<br /><br />I also find point 5 above to be particularly amusing, in that it relies upon turning logical reasoning on its head. Wishing for more protection than that provided by the EPO's &quot;rough approximation&quot; of the meaning of the claims (ie the strict, literal meaning of that wording) could simply be wishing for the scope of protection afforded by Art 69 EPC and its Protocol. That Article and Protocol were drafted speAug 23 19:20
schestowitzcifically in order to provide a <b>fair</b> reward for the patentee's contribution to the art. So how can wishing for such a scope of protection possibly represent pushing <i>beyond</i> the contribution to the art?<br /><br />Also, with regard to point 6 above, I would simply ask the following questions. Firstly, does the EPO case law not include numerous examples of addition of subject matter by <i>limiting</b> amendments (eg deletionsAug 23 19:20
schestowitz from multiple lists, intermediate generalisations and insertion of non-disclosed disclaimers)? Secondly, why would the national courts not apply the same (or similar) principles from that case law when assessing the validity of pre-grant amendments to the description? Thirdly, what is language such as &quot;<i>not the invention according to the claims</i>&quot; other than a form of non-disclosed disclaimer?<br /><br />Whether you realiAug 23 19:20
schestowitzse it or not, I have been seeking to establish the common ground between us, so that I can identify and then analyse (the reasons for) the point where our views diverge. This is not so that I can rubbish your reasoning, but instead so that I can better <b>understand</b> the points that you find so persuasive. Indeed, I remain open to the possibility that I might just find those points to be persuasive too. So it really is counter-producAug 23 19:20
schestowitztive to your cause if you do not engage in good faith ... not least because it makes me suspect that the reason you are so defensive / evasive is that you are concerned that your reasoning might not stand up to detailed scrutiny.Aug 23 19:20
schestowitz Aug 23 19:20
schestowitz Aug 23 19:20
schestowitz Aug 23 19:20
schestowitz And so once again the pemetrexed decision comes up, and once again we go off on a series of tangents that have, at best, marginal relevance to the actual issue of concern.<br /><br />We all understand that DXT seems to be particularly aggrieved by the pemetrexed decisions - or perhaps just by the decision of the UK Supreme Court? It would be interesting to know whether the decisions of other national courts in this litigation are also Aug 23 19:20
schestowitzso upsetting to you, and if so why.<br /><br />However, let's try to get the discussion back on track:<br /><br />It is <i>completely irrelevant</i> what a retired judge said, in a different forum, about a decision which he was not involved with.<br /><br />It is <i>completely irrelevant</i> why certain claims or statements at various levels of generalisation were present, or not present, in the pemetrexed application as originally fileAug 23 19:20
schestowitzd.<br /><br />It is <i>completely irrelevant</i> whether or not the EPO was right to object under Article 123(2).<br /><br />It is <i>completely irrelevant</i> what amendments were made during prosecution, and why.<br /><br />What <i>is</i> relevant is the content of the patent <i>as granted by the EPO</i> and what influence, if any, the granted description had on the interpretation of the granted claims.<br /><br />With that in mind, cAug 23 19:20
schestowitzan we please try to refocus on the actual problem?Aug 23 19:20
-TechBytesBot/ | Adding matter by amending the description to exclude embodiments (Ensygnia v Shell [2023] EWHC 1495 (Pat)) - The IPKatAug 23 19:20

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.