●● IRC: #techbytes @ Techrights IRC Network: Thursday, February 27, 2025 ●● ● Feb 27 [02:32] schestowitz[TR2] https://www.thelayoff.com/t/1jn1rd036 [02:32] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes- ( status 403 @ https://www.thelayoff.com/t/1jn1rd036 ) [02:32] schestowitz[TR2] " [02:32] schestowitz[TR2] Alvind should just move CHQ To India. Thats where everything is going anyways [02:32] schestowitz[TR2] 35 minutes ago by Anonymous [02:32] schestowitz[TR2] | 1 reaction (+1/-0) [02:32] schestowitz[TR2] Post ID: @bd+1jn1rd036 [02:32] schestowitz[TR2] 0 [02:32] schestowitz[TR2] DataSucks just has more Indian management, so Alvind should feel right at home with the acquisition. The biographies on their site are somewhat off putting... [02:32] schestowitz[TR2] some things never change [02:32] schestowitz[TR2] " [02:32] schestowitz[TR2] " [02:32] schestowitz[TR2] Which company is IBM buying next? [02:32] schestowitz[TR2] " ● Feb 27 [03:54] schestowitz[TR2] http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2025/02/review-of-ai-patent-drafting-software.html?showComment=1740497792136#c4788347582035287138 [03:54] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | Review of AI patent drafting software for life sciences: Qatent - The IPKat [03:54] schestowitz[TR2] "In my experience, if you are doing anything more complicated than adding a dependent claim to an independent claim, automatic numbering fails more often than it works. An important client of mine forbids automatic claim numbering for this reason.

There are never hundreds of claims to renumber because that would cost a huge amount of money and I have never paid an excess claims fee. If your clients can afford to pay hund [03:54] schestowitz[TR2] reds of claims fees or allow you to charge them for writing hundreds of claims, you do not need to worry about how efficiently you can renumber claims because your clients clearly have more money than sense. It takes seconds to renumber a set of 15 claims." [03:55] schestowitz[TR2] "Not sure there are many attorneys who would actively choose to include word styles and numbered lists in their drafts"

So do you manually write out and correct all the claim numbers whenever you change the claim? What do you do when there are a hundred of claims? Do you also manually write the page numbers? For an industry that definitionally works at the forefront of technology, it seems that some patent monopol [03:55] schestowitz[TR2] y attorneys are remarkably slow at adopting even the most basic of automation tools and in realising that automation in most cases decreases, not increases, the risk of error." [03:55] schestowitz[TR2] http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2025/02/review-of-ai-patent-drafting-software.html?showComment=1740495894495#c7689286263847542757 [03:55] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | Review of AI patent drafting software for life sciences: Qatent - The IPKat [03:55] schestowitz[TR2] http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2025/02/the-description-of-patent-should-always.html?showComment=1740494372604#c5127279605974823014 [03:55] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | The description of a patent should "always" be used to interpret the claims (DexCom vs. Abbott, UPC_CFI_230/2023) - The IPKat [03:55] schestowitz[TR2] ""I guess that we shall just have to agree to differ.

For me, the best way to interpret a claim is to look at both the specification as filed and the claim of the granted patent.

For reasons outlined in my 23 Feb comment, I think that the practice of adapting the description to allowed claims is problematic on the grounds that, by changing description text that provides context for the claimed in [03:55] schestowitz[TR2] vention, it can (inadvertently) change the meaning afforded to terms used in the claims. However, even if we assume that a description has been "perfectly" adapted to the allowed claims, what could we possibly learn from the amended description that is not derivable from the claims upon which the amendments to the description were based?

As I understand it, file wrapper estoppel is a way to ensure that p [03:55] schestowitz[TR2] atentees cannot disown, or argue contrary to, the reasons why they made certain claim amendments during prosecution. We do things differently in Europe, as national courts prefer to reach their own conclusions regarding the subject matter encompassed by the wording of the claims as granted.

The way that we do things in Europe means that both the patentee and the patent monopoly office might be surpri [03:55] schestowitz[TR2] sed to learn that their pre-grant interpretation of the wording of a claim is different to a national court's preferred (post-grant) interpretation. In such scenarios, file-wrapper estoppel might, at least on some occasions, prevent the national court from settling upon a divergent interpretation that they might otherwise prefer (based upon their consideration of various intrinsic and extrinsic factors). But how might amendm [03:55] schestowitz[TR2] ents to the description achieve the same effect? Only by changing (relative to the description as filed) the interpretation of terms used in the claims. In other words, only by adding new matter.

Is that really a coherent, workable and just solution? [03:55] schestowitz[TR2] " [03:55] schestowitz[TR2] "The exported word document had line numbering headings, but no other word formatting, e.g. no bold headings, no use of word Styles for headings for easy navigation and formatting, and the claims were not a numbered list. This made making further edits to the document rather cumbersome..."

Not sure there are many attorneys who would actively choose to include word styles and numbered lists in their drafts. They are [03:55] schestowitz[TR2] a recipe for disaster with broken ref codes and the like sneaking into filed docs. US-first drafts are the worst for this.

It actually highlights how and why these kinds of tools are doomed to fail on UI/UX. Just because you like to draft using certain styles and formatting, it does not mean everyone else does. This means tool providers end up trying to satisfy too many individuals' quirky demands and end up with a patch [03:55] schestowitz[TR2] work of features, most of which are useless for most users.

It's similar to what happens in most IP management systems. Ever wonder what 99% of the features are in your IPMS that no one on your team uses? The answer is that it was one corporate client asking for feature X, and the the tool provider implementing it. Then another asking for feature Y, and the tool provider implementing it, and so on. Neither uses the featu [03:55] schestowitz[TR2] res built for the other. The features are sort of overlapping but it's not clear why and that has long since been forgotten. The tool provider doesn't want to combine them because they were explicitly requested by big corporate clients.

It turns out that the profession is too small for there to be a universal, generalizable set of "best" features in these kinds of tools. Given that it is easier than ever to bui [03:55] schestowitz[TR2] ld cheap, custom, in-house solutions that do everything you'd want according to your team's style and requirements, while using the exact same models that every over-priced 3rd party tool is selling, there is no excuse for most firms not to in-house their drafting tools." [03:55] schestowitz[TR2] http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2025/02/review-of-ai-patent-drafting-software.html?showComment=1740490282675#c8426889462764632523 [03:56] schestowitz[TR2] http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2025/02/the-description-of-patent-should-always.html?showComment=1740490066470#c4639983823230405845 [03:56] schestowitz[TR2] "The answer? For me, BOTH the A and the B publication must be taken into account. The legislator deliberately excluded as a ground of invalidity a lack of clarity. The court has to do the best it can with the claims given to it by the EPO. The best way to arrive at the proper interpretation of the claim is to look at both the description as filed and the description of the granted patent. Focus on the prosecution amendments and mi [03:56] schestowitz[TR2] lk them for what they tell us about (in the words of the UK Supreme Court) what the patent monopoly applicant was using the words of the issued claim to mean. As judges in the USA like to warn "Be careful what you ask for".

What is the alternative? File wrapper estoppal? Yet more extrinsic evidence? No Thank You. Remember what Robin Jacob used to counsel "We can learn a lot from the Americans: observe c [03:56] schestowitz[TR2] losely what they do, and then make sure not to make the same mistakes".

The UPC is feeling its way forward. Perhaps its ambiguity is deliberate. You know, like The Insurrectionist, say something outrageous (Riviera luxury hotels along the Gaza waterfront) see how everybody reacts and on the basis of the feedback make ever more robust decisions. One calls it "judicial economy" rig" [03:56] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | Review of AI patent drafting software for life sciences: Qatent - The IPKat [03:56] schestowitz[TR2] "That is a very good question. What do you think the answer might be? Can you see anything in the EPC which supports either of the options that you mention?

Personally, I think that option a) is the only sensible / logical choice. But that is mainly because I believe that option b) would give rise to far more questions than it answers, and would likely also produce some nonsensical results." [03:56] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | The description of a patent should "always" be used to interpret the claims (DexCom vs. Abbott, UPC_CFI_230/2023) - The IPKat [03:56] schestowitz[TR2] http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2025/02/the-description-of-patent-should-always.html?showComment=1740483177185#c2711148353113620507 [03:56] schestowitz[TR2] "I have a question. I fear it is a stupid question but I am buoyed by the thought that "There are no stupid questions". I look forward to a quick, clean and clear answer from a fellow reader.

When the court decreed that when construing a claim having validity date X, "the description" which provides the obligatory "support" for that claim cannot be ignored, was it talking about A or B, namel [03:56] schestowitz[TR2] y a) the description as filed on date X or b) the description in the B-publication? In its judgement, did it make it directly and unambiguously clear which of those two descriptions it was talking about? Or is the answer no more than "derivable" from what is implicit in the text of the judgement?" [03:56] schestowitz[TR2] http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2025/02/the-description-of-patent-should-always.html?showComment=1740478919093#c5476581424873955518 [03:56] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | The description of a patent should "always" be used to interpret the claims (DexCom vs. Abbott, UPC_CFI_230/2023) - The IPKat [03:57] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | The description of a patent should "always" be used to interpret the claims (DexCom vs. Abbott, UPC_CFI_230/2023) - The IPKat [03:57] *x-amarsh04 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) [03:58] *x-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@h5zkbfemmwig6.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Feb 27 [05:57] schestowitz[TR2] https://www.thelayoff.com/t/1jmyjj33q [05:57] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes- ( status 403 @ https://www.thelayoff.com/t/1jmyjj33q ) [05:58] schestowitz[TR2] " [05:58] schestowitz[TR2] 'He looks like he ate his $37 million in hamburgers. And yes, it's ok to fat shame him. He can afford Ozempic. He has health insurance. Meanwhile, people have been made food insecure by this greedy pustule's actions. The guy is shoveling wagyu burgers and truffle fries with his greasy, fat fingers into his fat piehole as he trims the bottom line with your lives.' [05:58] schestowitz[TR2] sounds like he is raising the group health insurance price [05:58] schestowitz[TR2] time to purge him from ibm now [05:58] schestowitz[TR2] " ● Feb 27 [07:50] schestowitz[TR2] "Satya Nadella says AI is yet to find its killer app" [07:50] schestowitz[TR2] x https://www.theregister.com/2025/02/26/microsofts_nadella_wants_to_see/ [07:50] schestowitz[TR2] # satya sez; [07:50] schestowitz[TR2] # el reg parrots revisionism uncritically [07:50] schestowitz[TR2] # see instead Visicalc on the Apple II [07:50] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.theregister.com | Satya Nadella says AI is yet to find its killer app The Register [07:53] schestowitz[TR2] "Now Live: Ransomware Resilience & Recovery Summit - Join the Virtual Event In-Progress" [07:53] schestowitz[TR2] x https://www.securityweek.com/virtual-event-today-ransomware-resilience-recovery-summit/ [07:53] schestowitz[TR2] # windoze tco [07:53] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes- ( status 403 @ https://www.securityweek.com/virtual-event-today-ransomware-resilience-recovery-summit/ ) ● Feb 27 [09:00] *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has left #techbytes [09:38] *frontin has quit (Ping timeout: 120 seconds) ● Feb 27 [12:27] *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has joined #techbytes [12:37] *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has left #techbytes ● Feb 27 [13:01] *fantom (~fantom@freenode-drv.aab.2jssns.IP) has joined #techbytes [13:24] *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has joined #techbytes [13:46] *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has left #techbytes ● Feb 27 [15:05] *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has joined #techbytes [15:19] schestowitz[TR2]
  • [15:19] schestowitz[TR2]
    DietPi 9.11 Arrives with Pi-hole 6 Support
    [15:19] schestowitz[TR2]
    [15:19] schestowitz[TR2]

    One of the central highlights of this update is introducing support for the recently released Pi-hole 6, allowing DietPi users to take full advantage of an advanced network-wide ad-blocking experience right out of the gate.

    [15:19] schestowitz[TR2]
    [15:19] schestowitz[TR2]
    • [15:19] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-linuxiac.com | DietPi 9.11 Arrives with Pi-hole 6 Support ● Feb 27 [16:03] schestowitz[TR2] https://www.thelayoff.com/t/1jmr1wn7e [16:03] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes- ( status 403 @ https://www.thelayoff.com/t/1jmr1wn7e ) [16:03] schestowitz[TR2] "You have definitely paid your dues and work to full career by age 68. Do you see no alternative to spending your time working. What about hobbies, even if new, traveling etc? We're all different but at 59 (soon) I can barely wait a couple more years to accumulate enough money to be able to retire. [16:03] schestowitz[TR2] 1 hour ago by had enough [16:03] schestowitz[TR2] | 1 reaction (+0/-1) [16:03] schestowitz[TR2] Post ID: @yt+1jmr1wn7e [16:03] schestowitz[TR2] 0 [16:03] schestowitz[TR2] I'm out, done, toast, going to be 68, current on tech yet I know end of March I'm out. I have lots of tread left, never want to retire, retire and go insane. [16:03] schestowitz[TR2] 1 hour ago by Anonymous [16:03] schestowitz[TR2] | 2 reactions (+1/-1) [16:03] schestowitz[TR2] Post ID: @yq+1jmr1wn7e [16:03] schestowitz[TR2] +3 [16:03] schestowitz[TR2] @sx [16:03] schestowitz[TR2] you are absolutely right - It's a game for Alvind and his evil Pipmunks, but death and destruction of your family. IBM management operates like any other crooked capitalist US employer - they use you, abuse you and then put you out. It should happen to their families too, and it will. They only care for moving jobs to India right now since Alvind made his promise to Modi to create more jobs there. AI might be the death of that acti [16:03] schestowitz[TR2] vity in due course - even India is getting expensive to operate in. IBM is progressing in it's death cycle. Management can run but they cannot hide fast enough. [16:03] schestowitz[TR2] " ● Feb 27 [18:55] *jacobk (~quassel@syp65ggum2ibk.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Feb 27 [19:15] *jacobk has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [19:17] *jacobk (~quassel@syp65ggum2ibk.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Feb 27 [20:20] *x-amarsh04 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) [20:26] *x-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@h5zkbfemmwig6.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Feb 27 [23:01] *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has left #techbytes [23:25] *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has joined #techbytes