●● IRC: #techbytes @ Techrights IRC Network: Tuesday, April 25, 2023 ●● ● Apr 25 [03:26] schestowitz http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2023/04/when-generating-antibodies-for-target.html?showComment=1682333850801#c3397470792579230051">I [03:26] schestowitz I am not a specialist of the domain.

My question is: could such a claim be considered as a reach-through claim in the meaning of Guidelines F-III, 9? [03:26] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | When generating antibodies for a target is more than routine (T 0435/20) - The IPKat [03:26] schestowitz http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2023/04/first-leak-and-now-question-will.html?showComment=1682346033517#c1045884083633108818 [03:26] schestowitz The EU proposal appears to a large extent to be the wrong answer to a real problem.

When determining SEP/FRAND license fees different aspects have to be considered.

Firstly, which authority decides that a patent is a SEP? It is normally the Standard Setting Organisation (SSO), also sometimes referred to as SDOs. It cannot be the patent holder, although it might have contributed to the setting of the standard.
[03:26] schestowitz
Secondly, is the SEP at all valid and hence enforceable? If the patent is invalid, why should ever FRAND, or any license fee, be paid? Transparency should be made so that SEPs can easily be challenged.

Here we see the whole difficulties with SEP/FRAND licences.

The SSO cannot decide whether a patent is valid or not. This is normally a civil court in a country in which the granted SEP produces effects. We have [03:26] schestowitz thus the need to deal on the one hand with an administrative body and on the other hand with a judicial body.
That the present system is not satisfactory due to its lack of transparency is a real problem. Transparency is thus a necessity.

A first step towards transparency would be to forbid mixing SEPs and non-SEPs in a portfolio offered for licensing. This is the main cause of the lack of transparency.

Deco [03:26] schestowitz upling SEPs from non-SEPs is a bare necessity. A licensee should not be obliged to buy in a package both SEPs and non-SEPs. This is simply an abuse, although it is normal practice.

An EU directive requiring transparency in matters of SEP would be a good way in the direction of solving the transparency problem. A list of SEPs for a given standard should be held at the SSO. Then every potential licensee would know which patents [03:26] schestowitz can be licensed under FRAND conditions and which patents can be licensed under free market conditions. Bundle buying is too easy to conceal useless patents in an effort to monetarise their value. This is also why NPE have got such an importance in the present patent world.

Going any further from the side of the EU is most questionable. It might well be that IP is found in the name EUIPO, but the EUIPO in spite of its name do [03:26] schestowitz es not have the faintest idea about patents. Its present head might have been at the EPO, but in the administration not in the granting procedure.

SSOs should be given a much important role in the system, as they best know which patents are SEP and which are not. Why could the valuation of true SEPs not be given to SSOs? If there is a transparent list of what is considered a SEP, it would also be easier to challenge their val [03:26] schestowitz idity in court.

This is certainly not a proposal which will get an enthusiastic reply from patent holders in general and SEPs holders in particular, and especially NPEs, but it could be step in the right direction. The thrust should be towards SSOs and not towards another EU construction.

The IP Action Plan should not be published on April 26 by the European Commission. The basic idea is worth pursuing, but the way [03:26] schestowitz to implement it should be better thought through. The SEP/FRAND licensing problems have been around for some time.
Why all the rush? Have some lobbies been active again?

[03:26] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | First the leak and now the question: Will the European Commission go forward with its IP Action plan? - The IPKat [03:27] schestowitz psydruid: BUT THE UX !!! ● Apr 25 [09:32] schestowitz
  • [09:32] schestowitz
    IBM pauses counting its billions to trim Red Hat staff
    [09:32] schestowitz
    [09:32] schestowitz

    On Monday, Matt Hicks, CEO of IBM-owned Red Hat, said the Linux distro maker plans to lay off just under four percent of its roughly 20,000 person workforce, which amounts to less than 800 people.

    [09:32] schestowitz

    In a published note, Hicks said the staff reductions will occur over the next few months.

    [09:32] schestowitz
    [09:32] schestowitz
    • [09:32] schestowitz [09:32] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.theregister.com | IBM announces small layoff at Red Hat The Register ● Apr 25 [10:12] *GNUmoon2 has quit (Quit: Leaving) [10:12] *GNUmoon2 (~GNUmoon@wyxe7rh3zwtvg.irc) has joined #techbytes [10:13] *GNUmoon2 has quit (Quit: Leaving) [10:14] *GNUmoon2 (~GNUmoon@jm2zu333qz2k6.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Apr 25 [11:09] *GNUmoon2 has quit (connection closed) [11:10] *GNUmoon2 (~GNUmoon@4f5d7akf8z5fy.irc) has joined #techbytes [11:10] *GNUmoon2 has quit (connection closed) [11:15] *GNUmoon2 (~GNUmoon@4f5d7akf8z5fy.irc) has joined #techbytes [11:15] *GNUmoon2 has quit (Quit: Leaving) [11:16] *GNUmoon2 (~GNUmoon@4f5d7akf8z5fy.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Apr 25 [12:42] schestowitz
  • [12:42] schestowitz
    Audacity 3.3 Audio Editor Adds New Shelf Filter Effect, Experimental Beats and Bars
    [12:42] schestowitz
    [12:42] schestowitz

    Audacity 3.3 comes seven months after the Audacity 3.2 series and introduces a new Shelf Filter effect that can be set for High-shelf or Low-shelf, adds real-time capabilities to more built-in effects, including Bass & Treble, Distortion, Phaser, Reverb, and Wahwah effects, and implements an experimental Beats and Bar feature.

    [12:42] schestowitz
    [12:42] schestowitz
    • [12:42] schestowitz [12:42] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-Audacity 3.3 Audio Editor Adds New Shelf Filter Effect, Experimental Beats and Bars - 9to5Linux [12:52] schestowitz
  • [12:52] schestowitz
    The shrinking role of semaphores
    [12:52] schestowitz
    [12:52] schestowitz

    At its core, a semaphore is an integer counter used to control access to a resource. Code needing access must first decrement the counter but only if the counter's value is greater than zero; otherwise it must wait for the value to increase. Releasing the semaphore is a matter of incrementing the counter. In the Linux kernel implementation, acquisition of a semaphore happens with a call to [12:52] schestowitz down() (or one of a few variants); if the semaphore is unavailable, down() will wait until some other thread releases it. The release operation, unsurprisingly, is called up(). In the classic literature, as defined by Edsger Dijkstra, those operations are called P() and V() instead.

    [12:52] schestowitz
    [12:52] schestowitz
    • [12:52] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-The shrinking role of semaphores [LWN.net] [12:53] schestowitz
  • [12:53] schestowitz
    GNU Linux-Libre 6.3 Kernel Is Out for Those Seeking 100% Freedom for Their PCs
    [12:53] schestowitz
    [12:53] schestowitz

    The GNU Linux-libre project announced today the release and general availability of the GNU Linux-libre 6.3 kernel for those who seek 100% freedom for their GNU/Linux computers and software freedom lovers.

    [12:53] schestowitz

    Based on the recently released Linux 6.3 kernel, the GNU Linux-libre 6.3 kernel is here to clean up newly added drivers for ath12k, aw88395, and peb2466, as well as new devicetree files for AArch64 qcom devices.

    [12:53] schestowitz
    [12:53] schestowitz
    • [12:53] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-GNU Linux-Libre 6.3 Kernel Is Out for Those Seeking 100% Freedom for Their PCs - 9to5Linux ● Apr 25 [15:46] *XFaCE has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [15:49] *XFaCE (~XFaCE@uzfeivw9fp6ba.irc) has joined #techbytes