[07:53] schestowitz[07:53] schestowitzOnly a week after its previous 6.2.1 release, the KDE team rolled out a new bugfix update for KDE Plasma 6, versioned 6.2.2, which brought various new features and enhancements to enrich the desktop experience.
[07:53] schestowitzIt continues this trajectory by incorporating a weeks worth of new translations and crucial fixes from KDEs community. Although these may seem minor, they smooth out any lingering user issues, providing an even more stable and refined desktop environment.
[07:53] schestowitz
[14:10] schestowitz[14:10] schestowitzSystem76, a leading US-based manufacturer of Linux computers, has partnered with chipmaker Ampere to unveil Thelio Astra, an arm64 developer desktop designed for autonomous vehicles, advanced driver-assistance systems, and software-defined vehicle development.
[14:10] schestowitzLeveraging Amperes Altra processors enables automakers to bring their vision of self-driving vehicles closer to reality through arm-native development.
[14:10] schestowitz
[14:25] schestowitz[14:25] schestowitzIn addition to the visual updates, Tor Browser tackled significant technical challenges. Some key achievements include consolidating the Android codebase, improving APK reproducibility, reducing APK size, and enhancing the way Tor Browser spoofs its user agent to ensure user privacy.
[14:25] schestowitz
[14:29] schestowitz[14:29] schestowitzFor me, staying on top of my inbox has always seemed like an unattainable goal. Im not an organized person by nature. Periodic and severe email anxiety (thanks, grad school!) often meant my inbox was in the quadruple digits (!).
[14:29] schestowitzLately, somethings shifted. Maybe its working here, where people care a lot about making email work for you. These past few months, my inbox has stayed if not manageable, then pretty close to it. Ive only been here a year, which has made this an easier goal to reach. Treating my email like laundry is definitely helping!
But how do you get a handle on your inbox when it feels out of co [14:29] schestowitz ntrol? R.L. Dane, one of our fans on Mastodon, reminded us Thunderbird has a powerful, built-in tool than can help: the Grouped by Sort feature!
[14:29] schestowitz
Daniel, I am sure that you are right, that other Boards will decline to follow this reasoning, this decision, at least for the time being. The more interesting issue is what guidance to the Technical Boards the EBA will hand down, in the fullness of time. My impression is that the arguments that the ED's are correct to insist on prosecution amendments to achieve [20:45] schestowitz strict conformity are looking increasingly wobbly. The recent decision from the Munich court looks to me like an indication of the way the wind is blowing.
What if I myself were a UPC judge, called upon to adjudicate both infringement and validity. I would begin at the beginning, and read the WO (or EP-A) publication, to find out what the Applicant was declaring as their invention on the date of the claim in suit. What seem [20:45] schestowitz s to be the problem addressed, the solution declared, and the degree of support of it in the description and drawings, what is the most favoured mode, what variations and modifications are seen as being within the inventive concept. As T56/21 declares, to pare down this revelation of what was the invention on the date of the claim is to deprive me of what I need to do justice. Obliging me to compare and contrast grotesque text differenc [20:45] schestowitz es between the A and the B publications, and address the inevitable myriad of Art 123(2) EPC attacks, is extra work I would prefer not to have to do.
I agree that lay readers are liable to be confused by an unconformed description in a B publication. But lay readers and those skilled in the art, those competing to deliver more and better contributions to the art, ought to read A publications too, shouldn't they? Why should th [20:45] schestowitz ey? Perhaps because the purpose of the patent monopoly system is efficiently to disseminate enabling disclosures, as early as possible, disclosures which reveal the full width and depth of the Applicant's petition to the Patent Office. The days are gone, when the grant document was the first chance for interested members of the public to discover the disclosure content of a patent monopoly application in a First to File patent monopoly [20:45] schestowitz law country. Are there still engineers and scientists to read the B publication instead of the A publication? are there any patent monopoly judges troubled by "disconformity" between the granted claims and the text of the A publication?" [20:45] schestowitz http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2024/10/board-of-appeal-back-pedals-on-referral.html?showComment=1729594851626#c4987913382632237414 [20:45] schestowitz "As far as a decision of the CFI UPC, is concerned, and especially if it has been issued by the Munich LD, I consider the decision, in the absence of a confirmation by the CoA as merely indicative and by no means normative.
In the Hanshow case, the Munich LD interpreted the claim taking into account its history. The CoA UPC disagreed with this view, and considered that claims have to be interpreted according to Art 69(1) and [20:45] schestowitz Art 1 of the Protocol.
I expressed the view in different fora that for historical reasons the EPC introduced a dichotomy between grant of a patent monopoly and its interpretation in infringement. It would be ideal that in case of an EP, that validity and infringement were looked at it in the same way in pre-grant and in post-grant procedures, but history does not allow this way of looking at the claims.
Engineer [20:45] schestowitz s and scientists do not have to read the B specification, as knowledge dissemination is achieved by the A publication. For competitors, the situation is different, it is the B publication which matters. This publication should be as precise as possible.
In Europe, and according to the PCT, the applications have been published within 18 months for a long time. It took the US a while to come to publishing applications before g [20:45] schestowitz rant. Your corresponding argument is thus not valid.
What the UPC CoA actually want is to adopt the way of interpreting the claims as carried out in Germany. I am not sure that the EPO should follow this way. EPO case law has shown that it can be done differently.
By requiring claims to be supported by the description, Art 84 requires a one-to-one correspondence between the description and the claims. The descrip [20:45] schestowitz tion must not leave any doubt as to what is claimed, and any inconsistencies between the description and the granted claims must be removed at the time of grant or maintenance in amended form.
I would not be let by the impression that the arguments that the ED's are correct to insist on prosecution amendments to achieve strict conformity are looking increasingly wobbly. May be in your eyes, but not in those of the vast majo [20:45] schestowitz rity of the boards. When looking at the case law of the boards, the odds are clear.
It is only when the notion of support of the claims will be removed from Art 84 and a kind of US-style file-wrapper estoppel is introduced into European law, that there will be no need to adapt the description. " [20:45] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | Board of Appeal back-pedals on referral in view of "unequivocal" lack of legal basis for the description amendment requirement (T 56/21) - The IPKat [20:46] schestowitz http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2024/10/board-of-appeal-back-pedals-on-referral.html?showComment=1729622018587#c6406713303772304000 [20:46] schestowitz "Proof of the pudding [20:46] schestowitz It is nice that we came ind...@Proof of the pudding
It is nice that we came independently to the same conclusion as to which description is referred to in Art 69. I had pointed out in an article published in epi information 2023-1 ( About topical Art 84 issues ) the inconsistency between applying the description of the patent monopoly as granted for Art 69 purposes and assessing validity at a date wh [20:46] schestowitz ich is the filing (or priority) date. The CGK of the skilled person looking at the description is defined at the filing or priority date, not at the date of grant.
It is very positive in T 56/21 that the Board considers that it is none of the EPOs business to set guardrails restricting the interpretation of the EPC by the UPC and national courts, and that it squarely rejects as ill-based the assertion of an overarching [20:46] schestowitz objective by the BOA of T 3097/19.
To be sure, some BOA members are concerned by the emerging primacy of the UPC in the European patent monopoly arena. But the attempt to interfere with the decisions of the UPC is unwelcome in addition to be ill-based. After all, the EPO will reap huge benefits from the UP system and from the new missions it is entrusted (administration, register, handling of limitation requests).
There may be a sentiment at the EPO that they are the best and they know better . But UPC judges are very experienced in patent monopoly matters and have a broader angle than BOA members, in addition they benefit from the support of technically qualified judges. The diversity of legal cultures is also a plus.
On the other hand, I think UPC judges are wrong when they require that the EPO align with UPC case law [20:46] schestowitz . There must be mutual respect" [20:46] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | Board of Appeal back-pedals on referral in view of "unequivocal" lack of legal basis for the description amendment requirement (T 56/21) - The IPKat ● Oct 23 [21:36] *jacobk has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) ● Oct 23 [22:07] *psydroid2 has quit (Quit: KVIrc 5.0.0 Aria http://www.kvirc.net/)