Techrights logo

IRC: #boycottnovell @ FreeNode: Tuesday, April 20, 2021

(ℹ) Join us now at the IRC channel | ䷉ Find the plain text version at this address.

*rianne (~rianne@host81-154-169-167.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovellApr 20 03:26
*asusbox2 (~rianne@host81-154-169-167.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovellApr 20 03:27
Techrights-sechttps://nitter.cc/EngelsSimp/status/1384336720771047425#mApr 20 04:35
-TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-nitter.cc | Daniel📕🐟 (@EngelsSimp): "techrights.org/2020/07/16/mi…" | nitterApr 20 04:35
Techrights-sechttps://nitter.cc/thomas_lord/status/1384337065161101323#mApr 20 04:35
-TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-nitter.cc | Thomas Lord (@thomas_lord): "All I know is that all I was told about RMS' bad behavior at that one Kuhn talks was simply not true. What I heard was lies compared to what I saw. I'm as shocked as the techrights guy that parts of the FSF board voted to give him an award." | nitterApr 20 04:35
schestowitzre x https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Microsoft-MANA-LinuxApr 20 05:48
-TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-www.phoronix.com | Microsoft Adding Azure "MANA" Driver To Linux - PhoronixApr 20 05:48
schestowitzhttps://joindiaspora.com/posts/20561082Apr 20 05:48
-TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@schestowitz@joindiaspora.com: ● NEWS ● #TheVerge #Politics ☞ #Facebook ramps up moderation around Derek Chauvin trial, will delete posts mocking George Floyd’s death https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/19/22391664/facebook-minneapolis-george-floyd-derek-chauvin-trial-moderation-enforcement Apr 20 05:48
-TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell--> www.theverge.com | Facebook ramps up moderation around Derek Chauvin trial, will delete posts mocking George Floyd’s death - The VergeApr 20 05:48
schestowitzhttp://www.tuxmachines.org/node/150187Apr 20 05:48
-TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-www.tuxmachines.org | Phoronix on KFence and Phoronix Taking 'Free' Stuff From Microsoft to Promote Proprietary Software and Surveillance | Tux MachinesApr 20 05:48
Techrights-sechttps://nitter.cc/thomas_lord/status/1384337065161101323#mApr 20 06:10
schestowitzI have noticed that Google now links to https in techrights (WTH!!) and more so over time... would it be worth at least putting there a self-signed cert that is not expired?Apr 20 06:25
Techrights-secrms-swpatents-eu.transcript.txtApr 20 06:37
schestowitzthanks, adding...Apr 20 06:37
Techrights-sechttps://nitter.cc/secalertsasia/status/1384381183497318400#mApr 20 07:19
-TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-nitter.cc | Cybersecurity Alerts (@secalertsasia): "Last week, we noted and tried the unofficial Raspberry Pi Pico Arduino Core that works on RP2040 boards, including Raspberry Pi Pico. https://cstu.io/779ca6 #InformationTechnology" | nitterApr 20 07:19
schestowitzhttps://cio.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/data-center/microsoft-to-invest-1-billion-in-malaysia-to-set-up-data-centres-pm-says/82143478Apr 20 10:22
-TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-cio.economictimes.indiatimes.com | Microsoft Investment: Microsoft to invest $1 billion in Malaysia to set up data centres, PM says, IT News, ET CIOApr 20 10:22
Techrights-sechttps://nitter.cc/mikko__2011/status/1384428746741014531#mApr 20 17:16
-TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-nitter.cc | Mikko tweets from 2011 (@mikko__2011): "Happy BP Deepwater Horizon Anniversary everybody! The Windows NT Connection: http://bit.ly/fDtE24 Amazing pictures: http://bit.ly/geDtlf #bp" | nitterApr 20 17:16
schestowitzhttp://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2021/04/15/will-the-epo-still-be-normal-under-the-new-normal/Apr 20 19:11
-TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-patentblog.kluweriplaw.com | Will the EPO still be normal under the „New Normal“? - Kluwer Patent BlogApr 20 19:11
schestowitz"Apr 20 19:11
schestowitzConcerned observerApr 20 19:11
schestowitzAPRIL 15, 2021 AT 1:39 PMApr 20 19:11
schestowitzThe move to the EPO’s preferred “New Normal” would have profound budgetary implications. In particular, the EPO would make significant savings on at least building costs.Apr 20 19:11
schestowitzBut will such savings lead to a cessation of the EPO’s attempts to plead (future) poverty based upon questionable budgetary forecasts, or even to passing on of at least some of the savings to the EPO’s staff and/or users? Or will those savings instead be distributed to senior management and the member states (at the same time as imagined, future shortfalls are used as an excuse to further drive down staff benefits and to pursue Apr 20 19:11
schestowitzyet more “efficiency” savings)?Apr 20 19:11
schestowitzIf history is any guide, then I think that we can all guess which option will be selected by EPO management and the AC.Apr 20 19:11
schestowitzPatent robotApr 20 19:11
schestowitzAPRIL 15, 2021 AT 4:10 PMApr 20 19:11
schestowitzSince Haar is not Munich and Rijswijk is not The Hague, Art. 6(2) EPC seems to be rather free of interpretationApr 20 19:11
schestowitzNordicObserverApr 20 19:11
schestowitzAPRIL 15, 2021 AT 9:11 PMApr 20 19:11
schestowitz“I welcome change if fair and well implemented” makes me wonder: when was ever change fair and well implemented by EPO management?Apr 20 19:11
schestowitzRethorical questions aside, some interesting points here, Thorsten.Apr 20 19:11
schestowitzBeing an ex-examiner, I was trained years ago by old-school examiners. Most of whom I still hold in rather high regards. The strength of the training both then and later-on was the possibility to discuss. Endlessly. Being sent from one experienced colleague to the next, with your latest case to collect different opinions. Somehow, I’m sceptical that this happens in a fully digital setting. So I think that the fear for the Apr 20 19:11
schestowitzfuctioning of the Examining Divisions can easily be extended to the fear for the type of training that is offered to new examiners.Apr 20 19:11
schestowitzMaxDreiApr 20 19:11
schestowitzAPRIL 15, 2021 AT 10:30 PMApr 20 19:12
schestowitzThere are many reasons to be worried about a shift from face to face case discussions to Zoom meetings between the 3 members of an ED or an OD or a TBA. Suppose one is facing a jail sentence in a trial by jury. If the jury members were each a hundred miles from each other, out of sight of each other, and communicating with each other only by ViCo, as and when they please, would you have confidence in the jury’s deliberations?Apr 20 19:12
schestowitzThen there’s the training aspect. One can read books in preparation to pass a written examination but it is my experience that one is more likely to pass if one’s training includes face to face discussions with trainers, and the “tutorials” that are the foundation stone of Oxford and Cambridge undergraduate teaching, and of the UK Chartered Patent Attorney training system.Apr 20 19:12
schestowitzThen there is the academic theory of Kahneman’s “Thinking Fast, Thinking Slow” and Haidt’s “Righteous Mind” which informs us that the dangers of a rogue decision are best avoided by flanking the case manager mind with two other minds equally engaged with the case, who can nudge the decision maker back on to a rational and reasonable path of analysis of the facts and the law.Apr 20 19:12
schestowitzThe EPO seems to be squandering its high reputation for professional competence, with the determination of its management to do “whatever it takes” to drive down overhead costs, year on year, regardless. I regret it and so would the public if it could understand what is going on.Apr 20 19:12
schestowitzOne of those...Apr 20 19:12
schestowitzAPRIL 18, 2021 AT 11:29 AMApr 20 19:12
schestowitzThe EPO […], with the determination of its management to do “whatever it takes” to drive down overhead costs,Apr 20 19:12
schestowitzWeird, I always thought production costs are not “overhead”, but management and other company costs are.Apr 20 19:12
schestowitzIn that regard, costs are pushed up and up with the hiring of more and more “managers” and external consultants.Apr 20 19:12
schestowitzAnon Y. MouseApr 20 19:12
schestowitzAPRIL 15, 2021 AT 10:28 PMApr 20 19:12
schestowitz“Outside views are simply collected and then moved into a more or less inaccessible folder somewhere in the EPO’s infamous „complex IT systems with its ‚spaghetti structure‘“ consisting inter alia of an „outdated and unreliable data centre in The Hague“ and a PHOENIX Image Archive mainframe that apparently recently „died“.”Apr 20 19:12
schestowitzThis reminds me of something…Apr 20 19:12
schestowitz“But Mr Dent, the plans have been available in the local planning office for the last nine months.”Apr 20 19:12
schestowitz“Oh yes, well as soon as I heard I went straight round to see them, yesterday afternoon. You hadn’t exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them, had you? I mean, like actually telling anybody or anything.”Apr 20 19:12
schestowitz“But the plans were on display …”Apr 20 19:12
schestowitz“On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.”Apr 20 19:12
schestowitz“That’s the display department.”Apr 20 19:12
schestowitz“With a flashlight.”Apr 20 19:12
schestowitz“Ah, well the lights had probably gone.”Apr 20 19:12
schestowitz“So had the stairs.”Apr 20 19:12
schestowitz“But look, you found the notice didn’t you?”Apr 20 19:12
schestowitz“Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard’.”Apr 20 19:12
schestowitzAttentive ObserverApr 20 19:12
schestowitzAPRIL 16, 2021 AT 10:25 AMApr 20 19:12
schestowitzThere is one thing which has to be acknowledged with the present EPO management: a dep sense of opportunity.Apr 20 19:12
schestowitzOne wonders what would have been possible at the EPO in matters of “New Normal” without the pandemic. Probably open space offices for examiners and some stupidities of the same kind. The pandemic allows even to get read of open space offices!Apr 20 19:12
schestowitzWhat is actually proposed is a totally new EPO/EPC. What is also apparent is that the management and leading members of the boards of appeal are fully supporting the president’s move.Apr 20 19:12
schestowitzI wonder what is more scandalous, the cheek of the president and its minions or the total lack of scruples of those meant to be the guardians of the EPC and interpreting it according its letter and spirit. In view of the recent “dynamic interpretation”, I rather see the culprits with the board’s management and leading members. If they would not give their blessing to the ideas of the EPO’s management, the “New Normal” Apr 20 19:12
schestowitzwould not have the slightest chance to come to light.Apr 20 19:12
schestowitzI find it therefore more important to send amicus curiae briefs in G 1/21 than to comment on the “New Normal”. The whole “consultation” on the “New Normal” is simply farcical. By experience we know too well that any “consultation” of the users has merely an alibi function. Like for every preceding pilot, e.g. BEST, the decision is already taken and the “consultation” just a kind of Vaseline to make swallowing of Apr 20 19:12
schestowitzthe acquired decisions less painful.Apr 20 19:12
schestowitzThat modern communication and work techniques should make their entry in the EPO is not at stake, but the massive changes which are envisaged at the EPO and at the boards lacks even the perception of a legal basis. The changes envisaged are all based on very specious interpretations of the EPC and even in clear contradiction with it, for example the total dematerialisation of the office, as staff presence in Munich or in The Hague Apr 20 19:12
schestowitzwould become purely fictional.Apr 20 19:12
schestowitzBy completely disregarding the EPC and its protocol on staff complement the management of the EPO takes the risk of a brisk reaction from the member states hosting the EPO and its branches. Let’s hope they react in time.Apr 20 19:12
schestowitzNeither the president, the management of the boards nor the administrative council have even an ounce of legitimacy to decide upon the changes they want to introduce. If such deep changes have to be introduced they have to be the result of a Diplomatic Conference and not left to pseudo-managers which seem to consider the EPO and its boards a mere playground for their desire for power. The Diplomatic conference should be preceded by Apr 20 19:12
schestowitza conference of the ministers in charge of IP as foreseen in Art 4a.Apr 20 19:12
schestowitzIt is good that now that the epi reacts and give its opinion. It should have been the case earlier, but it is better now than never.Apr 20 19:12
schestowitzThe paper on the “New Normal” also shows the divide between the old and the new president in IT matters. The old president claimed to have left an office with, inter alia, a good working IT system and the new one considers that it has to be completely relooked. This was also the opportunity to push IT people out and let lots of new people in. The odd thing is that they all come from the Iberian Peninsula or had relations with itApr 20 19:12
schestowitz Whether the IT system should be on a cloud or in a mainframe is a managerial decision and a consultation is pointless. What the users inside and outside the EPO want, is a working system. This does not seem really guaranteed.Apr 20 19:13
schestowitzThere is one thing which both the old and new president have in common is the total disdain for staff. They know what it is good for staff and they have at best to shut up. “Divide et imperare” is at its height when the president and the board’s management want staff to be scattered around the member states and even outside.Apr 20 19:13
schestowitzThe whole considerations about staff well-being in the paper on the “New Normal” has to be taken for what it is. Management gobbledygook with no real content! The mere facts created by the president and its minions provide a scathing denial to all the woolly statements in the paper. Staff representatives are “consulted” after the decisions have been taken and are invited to shut up if they dare not give their blessing to allApr 20 19:13
schestowitzthe measures concocted by the president and its minions.Apr 20 19:13
schestowitzIt is tragic to see what some people at the height of their incompetence want to do with a formerly well-functioning organisation. It is high time to resist to such destructive endeavours at the EPO and at its boards of appeal.Apr 20 19:13
schestowitzExperienced ExaminerApr 20 19:13
schestowitzAPRIL 16, 2021 AT 11:39 AMApr 20 19:13
schestowitzMany thanks Thorsten, for sharing again your thoughts.Apr 20 19:13
schestowitzPaperless work without physically meeting colleagues is demanding. The tools provided by the EPO are not adequate, the electronic workflows are bad, we need roughly 15% to 20% more time for the same work. Kind of surprising considering that the IT Roadmap expected an electronic end-to-end workflow already in 2018 (CA/56/18, paragraph 61).Apr 20 19:13
schestowitzVideo discussions are possible, or course. But you need to organize them. Fine for experienced colleagues who built up an informal network over the years, a hard time for younger colleagues. The chance encounter at the printer, the coffee machine, on the corridor or during lunch is completely gone. The flow of information has been reduced to “official channels”, not a good situation. And all this takes much more time and many, Apr 20 19:13
schestowitzmany clicks, compared to pushing a piece of paper over the table.Apr 20 19:13
schestowitzConcerning salary, it is rumored that the expatriation allowance is under discussion. But the expatriation allowance should have been revisisted years ago anyway. Check the staff regulations of the Council of Europe, Appendix IV, and you will see comparatively strict provisions for staff hired after 2012. It is difficult to justify the EPO level of this allowance today, in the European Union.Apr 20 19:13
schestowitzPaperless work and extended teleworking will remain, the allowance will be modified, regardless of pandemic or New Normal. I believe this not a bad thing as such, it allows new ways of working. The USPTO has a long history of teleworking (and they are still in business), and being able to offer work not only at fixed locations, but spread across Europe is a plus for the EPO.Apr 20 19:13
schestowitzThe downside is that I have very little faith in the EPO management and the Administratrive Council. Forcing parties into videoconferences ist not a good idea. Neither are fast and rapid rule changes which will remain after the pandemic. Open offices are of course a brain dead idea for an intellectual task. Considering the total surprise about “complex IT systems with its spaghetti structure”, I doubt we will see software tools Apr 20 19:13
schestowitzand workflows adequate for paperless working any time soon. Not to mention new approaches to bring physically distant colleagues virtually together, new working methods, …. .Apr 20 19:13
schestowitzEPO sinksApr 20 19:13
schestowitzAPRIL 16, 2021 AT 3:29 PMApr 20 19:13
schestowitzGovernance.Apr 20 19:13
schestowitzEurope goes from one crisis to another. In the past decade first 2008, then Greece, then migrants, then Covid19 and in the meantime national elections in each country that bring other priorities than the stable oversight of the EPO by relevant national authorities.Apr 20 19:13
schestowitzBut what are the guardians of the temple that should be the among others EPI, Business Europe doing to ascertain that legal gathering foreseen be held?Apr 20 19:13
schestowitzIP, that is said to be so strategic, is simply not monitored properly at EU and national level and it is not the EPO administrative council among which the vast majority of delegates has absolutely no idea of what is going on at EPO which will watch the appalling policies developed over.Apr 20 19:13
schestowitzWhen was the last diplomatic conference that should normally take place at regular intervals? If not mistaking, under President Kober.Apr 20 19:13
schestowitzPompidou and Brimelow had only half a mandate each and did not call for it and Battistelli and his minions have been very careful not to convene it.Apr 20 19:13
schestowitzCampinos does not even know about it exists and it is not the infernal duo who pull the strings in his back and spends its time granting themselves fancy titles and the emoluments that go with them, that will tell him what needs to be done. They may not be so interested that outsiders come and lift the thick carpets under which corpses are hidden for the past decade.Apr 20 19:13
schestowitzThe EPO is adrift.Apr 20 19:13
schestowitzMaxDreiApr 20 19:13
schestowitzAPRIL 17, 2021 AT 12:12 PMApr 20 19:13
schestowitzAren’t we patent attorneys getting a little above ourselves. Is this debate getting “out of proportion”? I mean, in times when hundreds, thousands of journalists are getting thrown in prison for doing nothing more than reporting the facts, when judges are instructed how to decide criminal cases, not just in China but also in increasing numbers of European sovereign States, we worry instead about whether Hearings in future willApr 20 19:13
schestowitzbe conducted online or traditionally, as they always have been up to now, with everybody involved closeted together in the same room.Apr 20 19:13
schestowitzPeople here demand an Intergovernmental Conference to debate the issue. As if there are no more important intergovernmental issues at the moment.Apr 20 19:13
schestowitzPatents have become a commodity. Big corporations generate huge stockpiles of them, to trade with each other. If one individual patent goes down, at the EPO, so what? What other harm can an EPO Board of Appeal do? It is not as if they have any power to punish people, such as by depriving them of their liberty.Apr 20 19:13
schestowitzIt is not as if the EPO is the “cutting edge” of the Rule of Law, is it, whereby lapses at the EPO must be resisted at all costs because they are “the thin end of the wedge”. I’m more troubled by lapses in the administration of the criminal law because if that is neglected, insurrection follows. Are argumentative patent attorneys, busy here practising their lawyerly skills, going to take their grievances to the streets? Apr 20 19:13
schestowitzAre their worries that important? Seriously?Apr 20 19:13
schestowitzOr, to put it another way, what can you say to the government representatives sitting on the EPO’s AC, what arguments can you deploy, powerful enough to seize their attention, take home, and precipitate actions by sovereign governments to resist the depradations of current EPO management.? There are no such arguments, are there?Apr 20 19:13
schestowitzIpfrogApr 20 19:13
schestowitzAPRIL 18, 2021 AT 8:44 AMApr 20 19:13
schestowitzI guess you could find something convincing if it involves a lot of money…Apr 20 19:13
schestowitzAttentive ObserverApr 20 19:13
schestowitzAPRIL 18, 2021 AT 12:33 PMApr 20 19:13
schestowitzDear Max Drei,Apr 20 19:13
schestowitzWhilst I understand your stance and I agree with you that there might be more important things to deal with than what is going on at the EPO, you nevertheless failed to convince me.Apr 20 19:14
schestowitzWhat is going on at the EPO is, in small, what happens, on a big scale, outside the EPO. Just think of all ways governments have managed to limit civil freedom after terrorist attacks or when it comes to help police forces to become even more intrusive. Simply saying if you have not committed any offence you have nothing to fear is not convincing either.Apr 20 19:14
schestowitzEvery legal regulation taken under the influence of very specific events has never been a good legal regulation. What is happening at the EPO is simply to use the pretext of the pandemic to introduce deep changes without an ounce legitimacy and proper control. And if nothing is done, we will end up to be at the whim of would be managers using the EPO as their private playground to exercise their will to dominate and tell the users Apr 20 19:14
schestowitzof the EPO what is good for them. Do you really wish this? I do not!Apr 20 19:14
schestowitz"Apr 20 19:14
schestowitz"Apr 20 21:53
schestowitzTake action in Free Software Foundation campaigns:Apr 20 21:53
schestowitzhttps://www.fsf.org/campaignsApr 20 21:53
schestowitzSign an open letter in support of Richard M. StallmanApr 20 21:53
-TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-www.fsf.org | Current campaigns — Free Software Foundation — Working together for free softwareApr 20 21:53
schestowitzhttps://stallmansupport.org/Apr 20 21:53
-TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-stallmansupport.org | In Support of Richard Stallman - IntroductionApr 20 21:53
schestowitzhttps://rms-support-letter.github.io/Apr 20 21:53
schestowitz"Apr 20 21:53
-TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-rms-support-letter.github.io | An open letter in support of Richard M. Stallman | An open letter in support of RMS.Apr 20 21:53
schestowitzcatching up with email now, will fact-check and publish something...Apr 20 21:56
*rianne__ (~rianne@2a00:23c4:c3aa:7d01:400b:2041:e035:6298) has joined #boycottnovellApr 20 22:35
*asusbox (~rianne@2a00:23c4:c3aa:7d01:400b:2041:e035:6298) has joined #boycottnovellApr 20 22:35
*asusbox2 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)Apr 20 22:36
*rianne has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)Apr 20 22:37
schestowitzhttps://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2021/04/board-of-appeal-relies-on-its-own-cgk.html?showComment=1618830932201Apr 20 23:20
-TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-ipkitten.blogspot.com | Board of Appeal relies on its own CGK to support an inventive step objection without remittal to first instance (T 1370/15) - The IPKatApr 20 23:20
schestowitz"Apr 20 23:20
schestowitzMonday, 19 April 2021 at 10:53:00 BSTApr 20 23:20
schestowitzAccording to the Board, "As the board is in possession of this knowledge, no proof in the form of documentary evidence is needed." (5.3.9) This raises the question as to whether this knowledge was available to all members of the Board, or just the rapporteur. If the latter, it would be necessary for this knowledge to be exchanged between all the members of the Board and thus could and should have been provided to the parties to Apr 20 23:20
schestowitzallow a proper determination of the facts.Apr 20 23:20
schestowitzReplyApr 20 23:20
schestowitzAnonymousMonday, 19 April 2021 at 12:15:00 BSTApr 20 23:20
schestowitzThis decision is outrageous. If I were the patentee, I do not think I would file european patent applications again...Apr 20 23:20
schestowitzReplyApr 20 23:20
schestowitzAnonymousMonday, 19 April 2021 at 13:50:00 BSTApr 20 23:20
schestowitzFor those outraged by this decision, it may be useful to read it and consider the feature they were talking about instead of cherry picking a few legal arguments from a 46 page well-argued decision. In reason 6.7.3, the Board explains what feature they considered to be part of the common general knowledge: Apr 20 23:20
schestowitz"According to the board, before the priority date of the patent in suit, it belonged to the common general knowledge of the skilled person designing user interfaces for broadcast application that electronic program guide (EPG) tables (grids) allowed a user to select a program at the intersection of a column corresponding to a time slot and a row corresponding to a channel (see also point XIX(q) above). To someone working in the Apr 20 23:20
schestowitzfield of user interfaces, selecting items at the intersections of columns and rows of a table would have been a principle as basic as using a drill to drill a round hole in a wall. "Apr 20 23:20
schestowitzI think it is to be expected that when a board decides that an opposition division was wrong to decide that a claim was not novel, but that the difference is too small to be inventive, the claim will be rejected on inventive step. It is in the nature of common general knowledge that people can agree on it without further evidence. Of course, a patent attorney is allowed to disagree if that helps the client, but it's for the Board toApr 20 23:20
schestowitzdecide if that disagreement is sufficiently plausible to warrant a remittal and a subsequent second appeal.Apr 20 23:20
schestowitzReplyApr 20 23:20
schestowitzAnonymousMonday, 19 April 2021 at 14:24:00 BSTApr 20 23:20
schestowitzAdministrative decisions (no, the BoA are not judidicial bodies but administrative ones lacking inter alia judicial independence) are not to be judged by the result but by their reasoning and this reasoning is very outrageous.Apr 20 23:20
schestowitzReplyApr 20 23:20
schestowitzAnonymousMonday, 19 April 2021 at 16:57:00 BSTApr 20 23:20
schestowitzThe Patentee should demand its chance to put its case in person in Munich. Oh...Apr 20 23:20
schestowitzReplyApr 20 23:20
schestowitzMaxDreiMonday, 19 April 2021 at 19:07:00 BSTApr 20 23:20
schestowitzIs this not a revealing example of a fundamental difference between civil law jurisdictions and those that run under English common law? I mean, in England, the court knows nothing of the case apart from the evidence adduced and must reach its decision based on that. Utterly different at the EPO, where the Convention requires of the Examining (or Opposition) Division that it not only "dons the mantle" but, even before that, it is Apr 20 23:20
schestowitzdeemed inherently to possess the knowledge and attributes of the person skilled in the art. Thus, it is routine for an EPO Tribunal to put it to a Party, as a rebuttable presumption, that such and such is cgk. Any notion of "fairness" evaporates, of course, if the Tribunal gives the Party no opportunity to rebut the presumption.Apr 20 23:20
schestowitzHow am I seeing it wrong here, gentle readers?Apr 20 23:20
schestowitz"Apr 20 23:20
schestowitzhttp://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2021/04/boeings-comma-drama-commas-and-taking.html?showComment=1618919107842#c3826833593391929818Apr 20 23:21
schestowitz"Apr 20 23:21
-TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-ipkitten.blogspot.com | Boeing's comma drama: Commas and taking the description into account when construing a claim (T 1127/16) - The IPKatApr 20 23:21
schestowitz"Be it for added matter or clarity never forget that what you loose on one side, you gain on the other side and vice-versa. In other words you cannot have your cake and eat it."Apr 20 23:21
schestowitzI work mainly on US derived applications. I often find the claims are so broad and vague that I have no option but to look to the description to try and make any sense from them. The description only makes it worse - a myriad of optional vague features. This problem has gotten worse over the years to the extent some patents are no longer paying the "fee" of disclosing an invention in return for a monopoly. Article 83 is one option Apr 20 23:21
schestowitzto prevent this but the burden of proof for the EPO is high. It appears that you can have your cake and eat it.Apr 20 23:21
schestowitzI find older patents tend to disclose a concrete embodiment and "supported" claims. They are also much shorter whilst providing information that third parties can improve upon. When did we get so greedy with patents - wanting more scope and providing less information?Apr 20 23:21
schestowitzIf 123(2) stops this style of drafting prevailing - so be it. It would be most welcome by (some) practitioners and third parties alike.Apr 20 23:21
schestowitzAlthough the current case may be unfair given the underlying facts, why is it fair that a third party has to consider whether a claimed combination might not be so and have to go to the description to decide whether they can proceed now or in 20 years' time? Apr 20 23:21
schestowitz"Apr 20 23:21
Techrights-sechttps://nitter.cc/secalertsasia/status/1384592544357552130#mApr 20 23:23
-TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-nitter.cc | Cybersecurity Alerts (@secalertsasia): "Vaughan-Nichols no longer works for GNU/Linux but for monopolies trying hard to undermine it and then hijack the whole thing. https://cstu.io/a5cbd7 #InformationTechnology" | nitterApr 20 23:24

Generated by irclog2html.py 2.6 | ䷉ find the plain text version at this address.