●● IRC: #techbytes @ Techrights IRC Network: Monday, January 27, 2025 ●● ● Jan 27 [00:06] *x-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@yrifiesvn57du.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Jan 27 [01:46] *x-amarsh04 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) ● Jan 27 [02:11] *newyear25 has quit (Ping timeout: 120 seconds) [02:50] techrights-sec ans ● Jan 27 [08:08] schestowitz[TR2] e" [08:08] schestowitz[TR2] excellent [08:08] schestowitz[TR2] the ./ post yesterday was quite good' ● Jan 27 [09:04] schestowitz[TR2] "Bill Gates on Elon Musk: I admire a lot of what he has done" [09:04] schestowitz[TR2] x https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/technology/bill-gates-on-elon-musk-i-admire-a-lot-of-what-he-has-done/articleshow/117569879.cms [09:04] schestowitz[TR2] # bill sez [09:04] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-economictimes.indiatimes.com | Bill Gates on Elon Musk: I admire a lot of what he has done - The Economic Times ● Jan 27 [10:02] schestowitz[TR2]
  • [10:02] schestowitz[TR2]
    Maker builds their own pocket sequencer using a Raspberry Pi Pico 2
    [10:02] schestowitz[TR2]
    [10:02] schestowitz[TR2]

    This custom Raspberry Pi Pico iteration is made up of 25 buttons arranged in a matrix that are operated using the GPIO on the Pico. It has a speaker for audio output and relies on an audio amplification module to process the sound. The end result is a comparable sequencer with the added bonus of building something for yourself from the ground up.

    [10:02] schestowitz[TR2]
    [10:02] schestowitz[TR2]
    • [10:02] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.tomshardware.com | Maker builds their own pocket sequencer using a Raspberry Pi Pico 2 | Tom's Hardware ● Jan 27 [12:36] *schestowitz-TR has quit (Ping timeout: 120 seconds) [12:36] *schestowitz-TR2 (~acer-box@freenode/user/schestowitz) has joined #techbytes [12:46] *316BH4PGI has quit (Ping timeout: 120 seconds) [12:46] *techrights-sec1 has quit (Ping timeout: 120 seconds) [12:46] *techrights-sec4 has quit (Ping timeout: 120 seconds) [12:48] *techrights-sec4 (~quassel@freenode-rsn4et.ldvb.0amm.hij1op.IP) has joined #techbytes [12:48] *208CTMA8X (~quassel@freenode-rsn4et.ldvb.0amm.hij1op.IP) has joined #techbytes [12:48] *316BIZ190 (~quassel@freenode-rsn4et.ldvb.0amm.hij1op.IP) has joined #techbytes [12:53] schestowitz[TR2]
  • Incus 6.9 Container & Virtual Machine Manager Released

    Incus 6.9 introduces VM memory dumps, improved QEMU hooks, uplink addresses in OVN state, and direct ACL management on bridged networks.
    • [12:53] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-linuxiac.com | Incus 6.9 Container & Virtual Machine Manager Released [12:54] schestowitz[TR2]
  • Solus 4.7 Released, Enhances Support for NVIDIA GPUs and Flatpaks

    Solus 4.7 updates Budgie, GNOME, Plasma, and Xfce with the latest features, including Flatpak-ready software centers and refreshed multimedia tools.
    • [12:54] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-linuxiac.com | Solus 4.7 Released, Enhances Support for NVIDIA GPUs and Flatpaks [12:58] *x-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@yrifiesvn57du.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Jan 27 [13:52] schestowitz[TR2] http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2025/01/epo-referral-g224-on-third-party.html?showComment=1737891356431#c1381931046876810067 [13:52] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | EPO Referral (G2/24) on third-party interveners acquiring appellant status - a chance to depart from G 3/04? - The IPKat [13:52] schestowitz[TR2] "G 2/24 is justified by the upcoming of the UPC and the notions of intervention as defined in the UPC, cf. RoP 316 UPC, and of forced intervention, cf. RoP 316A UPC.

    An intervention at the UPC is totally different from intervention under Art 105 EPC at the EPO. An intervention before the EPO is a voluntary action by a potential infringer in reply to an action for alleged infringement while an opp [13:52] schestowitz[TR2] osition is running.

    An intervention before the EPO is often necessary while an opposition is running, as an action for infringement before a national court has in general to be filed within a given time limit. Tolerating an infringement for too long can lead the inadmissibility of a subsequent infringement action.

    At the UPC and according RoP 316 UPC, an intervention occurs upon invitation of the court, ex [13:52] schestowitz[TR2] -officio or upon request of a party, if it considers that a third party could be concerned by the outcome of the dispute before the UPC.

    According to RoP 316A UPC, if the third party invited to intervene refuses to intervene, and does not file a declaration denying that it is concerned by the outcome of the dispute, it shall be bound by the decision in the action as between himself and any other party to the action and [13:52] schestowitz[TR2] shall not be entitled to argue that the decision in the action was wrong or that the inviting party did not conduct the proceedings leading to the decision in the action properly. If a declaration is filed, the third party is again invited to intervene. If the third party fails to present an application=request to intervene, it shall be bound by the decision in the action.

    It could thus well be that in an opposition at [13:52] schestowitz[TR2] the EPO, the original opponent and the proprietor come to an agreement and the opposition is withdrawn. If the opposition is withdrawn in appeal, the appeal procedure stops according to G 3/04. The intervener has thus no chance left to centrally challenge the patent.

    It appears thus important that an intervention before the EPO can continue in appeal with the intervener in the meaning of Art 105 EPC. This is the more so [13:52] schestowitz[TR2] , since there is no time limit to file an infringement action before the UPC.

    This mere fact should actually lead to an amendment of the EPC so that the time limit of 9 months for filing an opposition is removed. It should be possible to file an opposition before the EPO as long the patent monopoly is valid in a contracting state. After all, the proprietor can limit his European patent monopoly as long as it is valid. [13:52] schestowitz[TR2]

    It has to be noted that the notion of intervention at the UPC has no basis in the UPCA itself, contrary to the EPC in which it is enshrined in Art 105 EPC. By only figuring in the RoP UPC, the notions of intervention and forced intervention at the UPC have totally escaped the scrutiny of the various parliaments when they ratified the UPCA.

    Even if the EPO intervener has not been summoned before the UPC, [13:52] schestowitz[TR2] he cannot escape the jurisdiction of the UPC in view of the UPC intervention or even the UPC forced intervention. It is thus necessary to give the EPO intervener the possibly to challenge centrally the patent monopoly even if the opposition is withdrawn." ● Jan 27 [14:19] schestowitz[TR2] http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2025/01/sweet-success-for-thatchers-in-court-of.html?showComment=1737922834907#c4608016816389891815 [14:19] schestowitz[TR2] "I agree (as did the court) that Aldi was being misleading with the use of the words "premium fruit" for the apples; consumers would obviously think it was referring to the lemons. But the question was whether that would tarnish the perception of Thatchers. I find myself agreeing with the court that the language on the front of a Thatchers can has no such ambiguity, so it wouldn't reasonably lead consumers to distrust Tha [14:19] schestowitz[TR2] tchers. Context is key - such as the different price point for the ciders." [14:19] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | Sweet success for Thatchers in Court of Appeal decision on Aldi's lookalike lemon cider - The IPKat ● Jan 27 [15:29] *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has left #techbytes [15:35] *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has joined #techbytes [15:51] *psydroid2 (~psydroid@8p6k6zizq5nqc.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Jan 27 [19:18] schestowitz[TR2] https://www.thelayoff.com/t/1jjetr12b [19:18] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes- ( status 403 @ https://www.thelayoff.com/t/1jjetr12b ) [19:18] schestowitz[TR2] " [19:18] schestowitz[TR2] Disagree. Its not International, Indian [19:18] schestowitz[TR2] Bullsh!t Machines! [19:18] schestowitz[TR2] 5 hours ago by Anonymous [19:18] schestowitz[TR2] | 1 reaction (+0/-1) [19:18] schestowitz[TR2] Post ID: @k5+1jjetr12b [19:18] schestowitz[TR2] -1 [19:18] schestowitz[TR2] Are the bullsh-t machines in question IBM managers? [19:18] schestowitz[TR2] " [19:51] *psydroid2 has quit (Quit: KVIrc 5.2.6 Quasar http://www.kvirc.net/) ● Jan 27 [20:25] *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has left #techbytes [20:34] *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has joined #techbytes