●● IRC: #techbytes @ Techrights IRC Network: Friday, July 28, 2023 ●● ● Jul 28 [02:00] *jacobk (~quassel@r3yyu3n7xueai.irc) has joined #techbytes [02:47] *u-amarsh04 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) [02:52] *u-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@h9w2ackdz5nh2.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Jul 28 [03:52] schestowitz[TR] http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2023/07/board-of-appeal-poised-on-brink-of.html?showComment=1690447649383#c8446874996591769418 [03:52] schestowitz[TR] No other jurisdiction considers it necessary to force applicants to amend the description in line with the claims". Yes they do - the UK, for example. Discussed in section 18.59 of the MPP (in a different context, but the first reference I found on Google): Normally a proposal to amend the claims only (leaving consequential amendment of the description and drawings to be done when the claims are settled) would be regarded as [03:52] schestowitz[TR] such an attempt. A request to defer amendment of the description until the independent claims have been agreed upon should therefore be considered favourably [03:52] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | Board of Appeal poised on the brink of a referral on description amendments (T 56/21) - The IPKat ● Jul 28 [04:27] *psydroid2 has quit (connection closed) [04:28] *psydroid3 has quit (connection closed) [04:54] *u-amarsh04 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) [04:54] *u-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@h9w2ackdz5nh2.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Jul 28 [05:12] *jacobk has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [05:27] *jacobk (~quassel@r3yyu3n7xueai.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Jul 28 [09:45] schestowitz[TR]
  • [09:45] schestowitz[TR]
    How To Safely Remove Windows From Windows-Linux Dual Boot
    [09:45] schestowitz[TR]
    [09:45] schestowitz[TR]

    In this Step-by-Step article, I'll show you how to safely remove Windows from a Windows-Linux dual boot system. I'll cover the steps involved in deleting the Windows partition, updating the boot loader, and troubleshooting any problems that might occur.

    [09:45] schestowitz[TR]

    By the end of this article, you'll know how to uninstall Windows from your dual boot system without causing any damage to your data or your computer.

    [09:45] schestowitz[TR]
    [09:45] schestowitz[TR]
    • [09:45] schestowitz[TR] [09:45] schestowitz[TR] [09:45] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes- ( status 403 @ https://ostechnix.com/remove-windows-from-windows-linux-dual-boot/ ) [09:45] schestowitz[TR]
  • [09:45] schestowitz[TR]
    Understanding Cardinal George Pell prosecution, Institutional abuse & Debian cybertorture
    [09:45] schestowitz[TR]
    [09:45] schestowitz[TR]

    Yet we see a very similar phenomena in Debian and other open source communities today. Abusers like Enrico Zini have inflicted secret punishments on various developers. At the same time, Zini tells the victims he still wants us to sing for him. Dr Norbert Preining shared one of those messages in December 2018. Here is the bit about continuing to sing:

    [09:45] schestowitz[TR]

    All packages in which you are currently listed as maintainer or uploader will be added to your Debian Maintainer whitelist as soon as possible.

    [09:45] schestowitz[TR]

    Zini is telling Dr Preining: continue to work for us but you are not allowed to speak.

    [09:45] schestowitz[TR]
    [09:45] schestowitz[TR]
    • [09:45] schestowitz[TR] [09:45] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-danielpocock.com | Understanding Cardinal George Pell prosecution, Institutional abuse & Debian cybertorture [09:51] schestowitz[TR]
  • [09:51] schestowitz[TR]
    First Beta for Krita 5.2.0 Released
    [09:51] schestowitz[TR]
    [09:51] schestowitz[TR]

    Krita 5.2.0 is a major new release, and the first of the Krita 5.2 series of releases. Especially internally, there have been huge changes and improvements. While there are a lot of important user-visible changes that will make artists workflow smoother, most work has been inside Krita, preparing Krita for the future.

    [09:51] schestowitz[TR]
    [09:51] schestowitz[TR]
    • [09:51] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-krita.org | First Beta for Krita 5.2.0 Released | Krita ● Jul 28 [10:40] *psydroid2 (~psydroid@u8ftxtfux23wk.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Jul 28 [14:43] *Despatche (~desp@72ku2kbic5h5q.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Jul 28 [20:13] schestowitz[TR] http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2023/07/board-of-appeal-poised-on-brink-of.html?showComment=1690527501881#c1664630169963108100 [20:13] schestowitz[TR] "In [2023] EWHC 1495 (Pat), Judge May says the case is about " European Patent (UK) EP 2 489 332 C2" filed on 25 November 2010 about " handling of encoded information" but EP2489332 was filed in 2012 and is about "Acetabular cup with rotatable bearing", i.e. a totally unrelated invention. On the other hand, national British patent GB2489332 was filed on 25 November 2010 and has matching title " Han [20:13] schestowitz[TR] dling encoded information and identifying user" . The EPO has nothing to do with that UK patent. Incidentally, that also answers some questions on the assessment of novelty and inventive step and business methods.
    Otherwise, yes, amendments of the description can violate Art.123(2)." [20:13] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | Board of Appeal poised on the brink of a referral on description amendments (T 56/21) - The IPKat [20:13] schestowitz[TR] "I agree with you that amendments to the description are a serious matter and may well render a patent invalid via Art. 123(2)/(3) EPC. The EPO should not require applicants to add explicit statements that certain subject-matter in the description is outside the claims.

    In my view, what the EPO should require is that the description does not "claim" that something is within the scope of the invention when that c [20:13] schestowitz[TR] ontradicts the actual claims.

    I do not think that anyone who argues that the description should at least in certain cases be amended is suggesting that such amendments would play no role in opposition or national proceedings. Of course such amendments will play a role! That is the whole point, both of amendments to the claims and of amendments to the description.

    The whole point of the EPO examination process i [20:13] schestowitz[TR] s to ensure that the granted patent gives the patentee the rights they are entitled to, and not more.

    The EPO has no special right to require amendments to the description just as it has no special right to require amendments to the claims. The EPO does have the right (and duty) to say: in its current form the application does not meet the requirements of the EPC, so if you don't fix it we will refuse it. If an applicant [20:13] schestowitz[TR] does not want to fix a contradiction between claims and description by amending the description, they can try amending the claims." [20:13] schestowitz[TR] You have not replied in substance to my comment and it will thus not come as a surprise that your statements are not convincing.
    What is of importance in an invention has to be expressed in the description in normal and plain language and not in form of cryptic indications in something one does not know what it actually represents. Either claims or description, but not claim-like clauses. This creation from over the side of th [20:13] schestowitz[TR] e Atlantic has nothing to do in Europe.

    I doubt that the EPO needs more money and that is the reason why it does not accept claim-like clauses. Stating that claim-like clauses are part of the description is a clear misuse of R 42.

    Your argument is also very dangerous. Your statement boils down to say that what is not expressly forbidden by the EPC is authorised. The EPC does not forbid expressly to hold OP by [20:13] schestowitz[TR] ViCo, hence OP by ViCo, which have no legal basis in the EPC, are now the default form of OP in first instance. When a few years ago OP by ViCo were possible in examination, the applicant had to expressly give up his right of in-person ViCo. Where those lawyers at the EPO who introduced this necessity completely stupid?

    The day what you will consider that was is is not forbidden is against your interests you will have a [20:13] schestowitz[TR] different opinion. This the worse argument I ever heard!

    With a will to understand the EPC and not to misunderstand it, adaptation of the description to the claims is a requirement.
    That it should not end up in stupid formalism goes without saying.
    ● Jul 28 [21:13] *psydroid3 (~psydroid@u8ftxtfux23wk.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Jul 28 [22:23] *Despatche has quit (Quit: Read error: Connection reset by deer) ● Jul 28 [23:00] *psydroid3 has quit (connection closed) [23:04] *psydroid3 (~psydroid@u8ftxtfux23wk.irc) has joined #techbytes