IRC: #techbytes @ Techrights IRC Network: Tuesday, January 28, 2025

-TechBytesBot/#techbytes- ( status 403 @ https://www.thelayoff.com/t/1jjf4kar7 )

schestowitz[TR2]

schestowitz[TR2]

AK and the exec management team learned long ago that there is only one kind of surprise allowed on Wall Street, and that’s a surprise to the up side. Given that IBM guides very conservatively, 4th q earnings should be a wash. Nothing growing like mad to move the needle, but nothing shrinking like mad to move the needle. IBM will make their numbers and possibly exceed by a penny or two. The real elephant in the room will be flat

schestowitz[TR2]

growth. Legacy within IBM continues to shrink at just about the same speed as innovation within IBM. NET NET = flat growth, and the only way IBM can move the needle is shrink costs. IBM has been doing this via offshoring of labor for the last 10 years, but if they are finally down to the SVP and VP level, we are at the end of the line for cost take out within the first world economies. What’s left for AK to do? Most likely watch

schestowitz[TR2]

for the sell off or partner off of the low end crown jewels (eg TSS, low end power, and cloud)

schestowitz[TR2]

schestowitz[TR2]

" The bargaining power of staff increases with every new SUEPO member – please consider joining SUEPO TH if you have not done so yet. And a warm thank you to all our members: you are the backbone of our union!"

Jan 28 06:50

*haver (~newyear@freenode-drv.aab.2jssns.IP) has joined #techbytes

Jan 28 07:17

*jacobk (~quassel@syp65ggum2ibk.irc) has joined #techbytes

Jan 28 07:24

*jacobk has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)

Jan 28 09:02

*jacobk (~quassel@syp65ggum2ibk.irc) has joined #techbytes

Jan 28 09:04

schestowitz[TR2]

"Bill Gates on growing Elon Musk influence on global politics: 'Insane s---'"

x https://thehill.com/policy/technology/5109227-bill-gates-elon-musk-influence-global-politics/

schestowitz[TR2]

schestowitz[TR2]

# bill sez

schestowitz[TR2]

# wrongly tries to misframe him as a "philanthropist" rather than the

schestowitz[TR2]

# weak politician he is

-TechBytesBot/#techbytes- ( status 403 @ https://thehill.com/policy/technology/5109227-bill-gates-elon-musk-influence-global-politics/ )

schestowitz[TR2]

"Microsoft builds open source document database on PostgreSQL"

https://www.theregister.com/2025/01/27/microsoft_builds_open_source_document/

schestowitz[TR2]

schestowitz[TR2]

# the jaundiced eye of redmond turns its baleful gaze towards postgresql...

-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.theregister.com | Microsoft builds open source document database on PostgreSQL • The Register

*psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has left #techbytes

Jan 28 10:55

*psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has joined #techbytes

Jan 28 11:28

*psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has left #techbytes

Jan 28 12:06

*psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has joined #techbytes

Jan 28 12:23

*kwa (~amarsh04@yrifiesvn57du.irc) has joined #techbytes

Jan 28 12:55

*psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has left #techbytes

Jan 28 13:33

schestowitz[TR2]

<li>

schestowitz[TR2]

<h5><a href="https://linuxiac.com/mozilla-thunderbird-134-brings-real-time-notifications/">Mozilla Thunderbird 134 Brings Real-Time Notifications</a></h5>

schestowitz[TR2]

schestowitz[TR2]

But first, let’s make this perfectly clear—this version is not intended for general use; instead, it offers a glimpse into what the next stable release might hold. Those curious to try it out can do so on Windows 10 or later, macOS 10.15 or later, and Linux with GTK+ 3.14 or higher.

schestowitz[TR2]

</blockquote>

schestowitz[TR2]

</li>

-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-linuxiac.com | Mozilla Thunderbird 134 Brings Real-Time Notifications

https://lxer.com/module/forums/t/36936/

*psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has joined #techbytes

Jan 28 15:59

*kwa has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)

Jan 28 16:44

schestowitz[TR2]

-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-LXer: How much did they pay?: If you're ready to break up with Windows, this is the Linux distro I suggest for new users

schestowitz[TR2]

"So if the 'going rate' two decades ago was 50-200 bucks then I'm guessing it would be on the high end of that these days.. $150-200. That sound about right? I'm just trying to get an idea for my own interests."

https://lxer.com/module/forums/t/36937/

schestowitz[TR2]

-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-LXer: They're Blocking Linux Articles While Running Linux Servers?: Facebook flags Linux topics as 'cybersecurity threats' — posts and users being blocked

schestowitz[TR2]

"How can they block Linux content when you, me and everybody else knows they are running Linux on their servers to keep their site on the Internet..LoL!"

http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2025/01/guestpost-referral-broadened-to-have.html?showComment=1737966787525#c6465429904136523142]

*x-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@yrifiesvn57du.irc) has joined #techbytes

Jan 28 16:51

*GNUmoon2 has quit (connection closed)

Jan 28 17:29

*GNUmoon2 (~GNUmoon@enapcbbwqfn6y.irc) has joined #techbytes

Jan 28 17:30

schestowitz[TR2]

-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | GuestPost: A referral broadened? To have one’s cake, to eat it...or not yet to get it (G 1/24) - The IPKat

schestowitz[TR2]

"T 1886/22 has been discussed in my blog and gave rise to a large number of comments. It will have to be seen whether in G 1/24, the patent monopoly will be accepted as its own dictionary and if it is the case, what consequences should follow. In any case, it should be avoided that any feature in a claim can be given in the description a more limited or a more general meaning. The UPC is free, li

schestowitz[TR2]

ke any other national jurisdiction in an EPC contracting state to have its own interpretation of the claims. To conclude that adaptation of the description is not necessary, is a step which I am not prepared to go. In the famous Hanshow case, UPC-CFI-292/2023, the Munich LD interpreted the claim in the light of the amendments carried out during examination. In its decision APL_8/2024, see Point 26(i), the CoA UPC made

schestowitz[TR2]

clear that interpretation of the claims has to be carried in accordance with Art 69 EPC and the Protocol on its Interpretation. Furthermore, the Njoy v Juuls decision is a decision of the CFI. We will have to see what the CoA will say before any conclusions can be drawn."

http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2025/01/guestpost-referral-broadened-to-have.html?showComment=1737973486007#c3495173291098043193

schestowitz[TR2]

-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | GuestPost: A referral broadened? To have one’s cake, to eat it...or not yet to get it (G 1/24) - The IPKat

schestowitz[TR2]

"The fact that the president referred to T 56/21 is due to the fact that this decision actually pre-empts G 1/24 by debating over the relevance of Art 69 in grant proceedings. In T 56/21, the board decided that Art 69 was not generally applicable to proceedings before the EPO, besides when assessing the scope of protection in opposition under Art 123(3). As the board did not want to refer, it should have wai

schestowitz[TR2]

ted until G 1/24 was issued. The considerations in T 56/21 reinforces the president’s position that Art 69 is not applicable in procedures before the EPO. There is thus no surprise when the president quotes T 56/21. As the board, in T 56/21, did refrain from a referral, contrary to what had been announced, has indeed come as surprise to many. However, as the board did not refer, I do not see th

schestowitz[TR2]

e president referring a question to the EBA even if he considers T 56/21 to be “divergent”. T 56/21 also quoted G 2/12 which is much more recent than G 2/88 and G 6/88 quoted by the referring board. I allow myself to draw the attention to the fact that in point I.1 of my amicus curiae I referred to the situation created by T 56/21. In G 2/12 Reasons VIII.2. 6.(b), cf. point V.9 of my amicus

schestowitz[TR2]

curiae, the EBA held that: “A distinction needs to be made between, on the one hand, the aspects of patentability and, on the other hand, the (protective) effects of European patents or patent monopoly applications. The EPC clearly provides for such a clear division, as the requirements for patentability are governed by Articles 52 to 57, 76, 83, 84 and 123 EPC whereas the extent of protection and the rights conferred by E

schestowitz[TR2]

uropean patents or patent monopoly applications are specified in Articles 64(2) and 69 EPC in particular.” It is the hope of many that the EBA will agree that Art 69(1) and Art 1 of the Protocol of interpretation should be applied in proceedings before the EPO. It will be interesting to see how the EBA in G 1/24 deals with its previous decision G 2/12. Will we have another “dynamic interpretation” as in

schestowitz[TR2]

G 3/19? The oral proceedings in G 1/24 are scheduled for March 28th. It will be interesting to see if the EBA issues a communication about the referral prior to the oral proceedings, and what can be inferred from this communication. That the interpretation of claims in infringement can be different than in examination has been showed in many decisions of national jurisdictions. It would be ideal if the inter

schestowitz[TR2]

pretation in infringement would be the same as in examination/opposition, but it should not be ignored that the fathers of the EPO have introduced a clear separation between the granting of a patent monopoly and its later use in the event of infringement. "