Techrights logo

IRC: #techbytes @ FreeNode: Thursday, July 30, 2020

Join us now at the IRC channel.

*liberty_box ( has joined #techbytesJul 30 01:00
*rianne ( has joined #techbytesJul 30 01:00
*rianne has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)Jul 30 02:22
*rianne_ ( has joined #techbytesJul 30 02:22
*rianne_ has quit (Client Quit)Jul 30 02:23
*rianne_ ( has joined #techbytesJul 30 02:23
*rianne_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)Jul 30 02:24
*rianne_ ( has joined #techbytesJul 30 02:24
acer-box\ 30 12:43
-TechBytesBot/ | TwitterJul 30 12:43
acer-box"Jul 30 12:43
acer-box41mJul 30 12:44
acer-box"Techrights Now Has All Pages (Nearly 3,000 of Them) About the Famous Police Arrest, an Arrest for Pedophilia by Engineer of Gill Bates, Working at His Home (the Bates Estate Where He Was Busted, Admitted Guilt)" #GillBatesVirus #GillBatesIsBullshit…Jul 30 12:44
acer-box"Jul 30 12:44
*oiaohm has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)Jul 30 17:56
*oiaohm (~oiaohm@unaffiliated/oiaohm) has joined #techbytesJul 30 17:57
schestowitz 30 20:42
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@PolishTI: Let's take a look at #IBM, another surveillance company. 30 20:42
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@schestowitz: [Meme] #IBM is Just Another #Surveillance Company (Usually Working With or For Governments) #GAFAM #GIAFAM #spyingJul 30 20:42
schestowitz"Jul 30 20:42
schestowitzThanks to Rose Hughes for making a tantalizing contrast of the approaches.Jul 30 20:42
schestowitzIn Floyd LJ's analysis, he was bound by law to start with McDonald, which he then heavily discounted (and thereby creating a bigger gap between McDonald and the invention in question) for the reason that in his views McDonald was a "mere paper proposal".Jul 30 20:42
schestowitzI would say that this case points to a flaw under the problem / solution approach, in that the choice of the CPA may not be straightforward and can make a material difference (like in relation to the present invention).Jul 30 20:42
schestowitzFor reference, the EPO Guideline states:Jul 30 20:42
schestowitzIn selecting the closest prior art, the first consideration is that it must be directed to a similar purpose or effect as the invention or at least belong to the same or a closely related technical field as the claimed invention.Jul 30 20:42
schestowitzThese guidelines aren't the clearest and they do not have express statutory basis. Instead of arguing what McDonald has disclosed to the skilled addressee, the real fight should be over whether McDonald may be the CPA.Jul 30 20:43
schestowitz"Jul 30 20:43
schestowitz 30 20:43
-TechBytesBot/ | Academic spotlight (I): Sterzi, Rameshkoumar and Van der Pol on NPE activity - The IPKatJul 30 20:43
schestowitz"Hi Merpel - you seem to be cut off in the last paragraph. "Jul 30 20:43
schestowitz 30 20:43
-TechBytesBot/ | Lord Justices Floyd and Arnold disagree on the inventiveness of expandable hoses [2020] EWCA Civ 871 - The IPKatJul 30 20:43
schestowitz"In this case the skilled person was taken as a hose designer, with knowledge of both garden hoses and other hoses (based on evidence that in the field of hose design there was no separate skilled person who would only look at garden hose design). Once it was accepted that the skilled person was in a technical field of hoses (rather than specific to garden hoses) the starting point appears to be more fair? I wonder if the possibleJul 30 20:43
schestowitzunfairness of the decision is simply due to the breadth of prior art available - sometimes you just have to be unlucky that a similar idea was identified but not successfully commercialised earlier?"Jul 30 20:43
schestowitz 30 20:43
-TechBytesBot/ | Lord Justices Floyd and Arnold disagree on the inventiveness of expandable hoses [2020] EWCA Civ 871 - The IPKatJul 30 20:43
schestowitz"Jul 30 20:43
schestowitzIf the claim is directed to a water hose, the closest prior art can only be a water hose. Starting with an aerospace hose would be blatant hindsight.Jul 30 20:43
schestowitzIf the claim is not limited to a water hose, then any hose, can be taken as closest prior art.Jul 30 20:44
schestowitzIt is worth noting that the IPC, cf. F16L 11/.., only relates to hoses in general irrespective of the fluid transiting trough the hose. Mac Donald was classified by the USPTO in A61B or A61M, as it dealt with a breathing tube. However within the EPO Mac Donald was also classified in F 16L 11/...Jul 30 20:44
schestowitzIn order not to inject cold air into the lungs of a patient during artificial ventilation, a flexible breathing tube contains a heating spiral wound around it. If in the prior art, a flexible pipe carrying water is equipped with a heating spiral so that the water is tepid or does not even freeze, I would consider that the water pipe is novelty destroying for the breathing tube and vice versa.Jul 30 20:44
schestowitzT 176/84 relates to a pencil sharpener comprising a movable closing so that the shavings would not fall from the box. At the time the board considered that the skilled person would not have looked at the closure system of a money box which also hinders the money falling out of the box. It is possible to say that T 176/84 corr4sponds to the position of Floyd LJ.Jul 30 20:44
schestowitzThe discussion was centred on whether the skilled person building a pencil sharpener would be looking at a money box or not. The decision was heavily commented, some approving it, some not.Jul 30 20:44
schestowitzIn spite of this very old decision, I am of the opinion that the majority decision is fully justified.Jul 30 20:44
schestowitzEven if the claims would have originally been limited to water hoses, the patentee would not have had a stronger stance.Jul 30 20:44
schestowitzIn that he envisaged himself other uses as just water hoses, shows that it is acceptable to also take into account hoses not only carrying water.Jul 30 20:44
schestowitzMost of the hoses disclosed as background art in the introductory part of the original description and in the patent do not relate to water carrying hoses.Jul 30 20:44
schestowitzIt is a pity that during the supplementary European search Mac Donald was not found as it bears the same classification unit, F 16L 11/12 as the patent.Jul 30 20:44
schestowitz"Jul 30 20:44
schestowitz 30 20:44
-TechBytesBot/ | Academic spotlight (II): Borghetti, Nikolic and Petit on FRAND licensing levels - The IPKatJul 30 20:44
schestowitz"These two papers were selected because they were the subject of recent webinars and online debates, hosted by two industry associations that are known for their advocacy in patent law, with often opposing views. These were the only two papers that were promoted by these associations in the timeframe that we worked on this submission. As you know, we strive to promote gender balance in our publications at IPKat--but in this instance,Jul 30 20:44
schestowitzthe selection criteria applied for choosing these papers simply resulted in these two papers, which indeed happen to have been authored by men."Jul 30 20:44
schestowitz 30 20:45
-TechBytesBot/ | European Council authorises signature of the EU-China agreement on geographical indications - The IPKatJul 30 20:45
schestowitz"Jul 30 20:45
schestowitzPart 2Jul 30 20:45
schestowitz2.3 – What is the business issue for each partner of the Agreement?Jul 30 20:45
schestowitzExport of European (= from EU member States) GI- (= PDO + PGI) labelled products in China is a matter of € 12.8 billion (as stated by the EU Commission report you cite in your paper) and this is certainly much more than the turnover corresponding to the export to the EU of Chinese GI-labelled products.Jul 30 20:45
schestowitzBesides, even if there are “leaders” (such as Bordeaux or Cognac) among the EU GI-labelled products sold in China, this business is composed of at least several hundreds different GIs. Are the Chinese GI-labelled products sold in the EU also “split” between so many different GIs or do a few dozens of these GIs represent most of the business?Jul 30 20:45
schestowitzOnly a clear knowledge of these facts combined with the few elements mentioned in § 2 above can enable to seriously evaluate the practical and business consequences of this Agreement. For example, by obtaining a protection for 100 Chinese GIs, does China secure in practice most of its GI-labelled products export business with the EU? On the other hand, obtaining a protection for 100 (or even 175) EU GIs is obviously far from securingJul 30 20:45
schestowitzmost of the EU “GI exports” in China. If the preceding hypothesis are correct, one should not be optimistic as regards the protection of more EU GIs in China…Jul 30 20:45
schestowitzOne might state that the preceding is “business speculation” rather than legal thinking. Yes and no: because if one cannot assess the actual business impact of this China-Eu Agreement on GIs, it can be feared that the comments will remain theoretical legal writing, even risking to be viewed as a paraphrase of the self-congratulation speeches made by the EU representatives, which is their role. In other words, we need criticalJul 30 20:45
schestowitzthinking in this matter… which drives back to business issues.Jul 30 20:45
schestowitz"Jul 30 20:45
schestowitz""Jul 30 20:46
schestowitz"Jul 30 20:46
schestowitzPart 1Jul 30 20:46
schestowitzEven if my professional practice deals most of the time with TMs, Designs and copyright, I am “sensitive” as regards “Appellations of origin” and all other related rights (in particular EU PDOs and PGIs). Moreover, I note that often even highly qualified lawyers do not take into account economic issues, whereas the content of laws in general and of treaties in particular depends, sometimes considerably, from power balance, inJul 30 20:46
schestowitzparticular in the business field. One cannot understand the basic underlying issues in the absence of any such light.Jul 30 20:46
schestowitzThis particularly the case as regards this type of treaties and I have therefore many remarks concerning this China-EU Agreement on GIs.Jul 30 20:46
schestowitz1 – Do we speak of Protected designation of origin (PDO) or of Protected geographical indications (PGI)?Jul 30 20:46
schestowitzEach of these expressions corresponds to a well-defined set of rules and a range of corresponding products. However, in the Agreement and in the IPKat’s comment, it is only referred to “geographical indications”, which is not correct if one reads Annex IV enumerating the “geographical indications” covered by this Agreement : for example, most of the enumerated French “geographical indications” are actually PDOs (“Jul 30 20:46
schestowitzChampagne”, “Médoc”, “Comté”, etc.) but “Pruneaux d’Agen” is a PGI. And this seems to be the case of many products from other EU member States cited in this Annex IV.Jul 30 20:46
schestowitzThus, there is total confusion here and explanations are highly necessary. But this is not the main issue.Jul 30 20:46
schestowitz2 – China-EU Agreement on “GIs”: is there a real balance?Jul 30 20:46
schestowitz2.1 – In many EU member States PDOs – and, to a lesser extent GIs – are an old and strong “industry”Jul 30 20:46
schestowitzIn certain EU member States, in particular France, PDOs have been existing often for decades. In France, the “AOC” [equivalent of PDA] legislation dates back to 1935, including the creation of a specialised administration, the “Institut national des appellations d'origine”(INAO) which still plays a very important role. Eventually, a certain number of European countries have based their controlled place name systems on the FrenchJul 30 20:46
schestowitzAOC classification.Jul 30 20:46
schestowitzInter alia, there are currently,Jul 30 20:46
schestowitz- 3716 EU PDOs and PGIs, among which 1611 on the wine register (source:;Jul 30 20:46
schestowitz- more than 171 cheeses, butters and creams from EU member States benefitting from the EU PDO label: among them, there are 50 from France and 51 from Italy.Jul 30 20:46
-TechBytesBot/ | eAmbrosia - European CommissionJul 30 20:46
schestowitz2.2 – In China a recent legislation and probably a limited importance for the Chinese “GIs”Jul 30 20:46
schestowitzFrom a synthesis on Chinese legislation on GIs dated February 2011 (, I understand that the first laws on GIs date back only to 1982. Unfortunately, this document apparently does not contain information regarding the actual number of registered Chinese GIs nor about the economic importance of the products protected by this legislation.Jul 30 20:46
schestowitzFrom a 2016 WIPO document, I understand that 7416 GIs of domestic (= Chinese) origin are in force in China in 2016: this would mean that within 34 years, China protected twice as many GIs than the EU until 2016 (3356), reminding the “strong seniority” of many PDOs in major EU member States; knowing the time and the considerable work (in-depth studies, consultations, negotiations, etc.) to create a PDO in Europe, one can wonder if weJul 30 20:46
schestowitzspeak of the same rights in practice…Jul 30 20:46
schestowitzFrançois GRIESMARJul 30 20:46
schestowitzSiglex FranceJul 30 20:46
schestowitz"Jul 30 20:46
schestowitz"Jul 30 20:46
schestowitzHey Mr François GRIESMAR,Jul 30 20:46
schestowitzThanks for your informative and thought-provoking commentsJul 30 20:46
schestowitz"Jul 30 20:46

Generated by 2.6 by Marius Gedminas - find it at!