●● IRC: #boycottnovell @ FreeNode: Tuesday, April 20, 2021 ●● ● Apr 20 [03:26] *rianne (~rianne@host81-154-169-167.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell [03:27] *asusbox2 (~rianne@host81-154-169-167.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell ● Apr 20 [04:35] Techrights-sec https://nitter.cc/EngelsSimp/status/1384336720771047425#m [04:35] -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-nitter.cc | Daniel (@EngelsSimp): "techrights.org/2020/07/16/mi" | nitter [04:35] Techrights-sec https://nitter.cc/thomas_lord/status/1384337065161101323#m [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." | nitter ● Apr 20 [05:48] schestowitz re x https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Microsoft-MANA-Linux [05:48] -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-www.phoronix.com | Microsoft Adding Azure "MANA" Driver To Linux - Phoronix [05:48] schestowitz https://joindiaspora.com/posts/20561082 [05:48] -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@schestowitz@joindiaspora.com: NEWS #TheVerge #Politics #Facebook ramps up moderation around Derek Chauvin trial, will delete posts mocking George Floyds death https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/19/22391664/facebook-minneapolis-george-floyd-derek-chauvin-trial-moderation-enforcement [05:48] -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell--> www.theverge.com | Facebook ramps up moderation around Derek Chauvin trial, will delete posts mocking George Floyds death - The Verge [05:48] schestowitz http://www.tuxmachines.org/node/150187 [05:48] -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-www.tuxmachines.org | Phoronix on KFence and Phoronix Taking 'Free' Stuff From Microsoft to Promote Proprietary Software and Surveillance | Tux Machines ● Apr 20 [06:10] Techrights-sec https://nitter.cc/thomas_lord/status/1384337065161101323#m [06:25] schestowitz I 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? [06:37] Techrights-sec rms-swpatents-eu.transcript.txt [06:37] schestowitz thanks, adding... ● Apr 20 [07:19] Techrights-sec https://nitter.cc/secalertsasia/status/1384381183497318400#m [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" | nitter ● Apr 20 [10:22] schestowitz https://cio.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/data-center/microsoft-to-invest-1-billion-in-malaysia-to-set-up-data-centres-pm-says/82143478 [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 CIO ● Apr 20 [17:16] Techrights-sec https://nitter.cc/mikko__2011/status/1384428746741014531#m [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" | nitter ● Apr 20 [19:11] schestowitz http://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2021/04/15/will-the-epo-still-be-normal-under-the-new-normal/ [19:11] -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-patentblog.kluweriplaw.com | Will the EPO still be normal under the New Normal? - Kluwer Patent Blog [19:11] schestowitz " [19:11] schestowitz Concerned observer [19:11] schestowitz APRIL 15, 2021 AT 1:39 PM [19:11] schestowitz The move to the EPOs preferred New Normal would have profound budgetary implications. In particular, the EPO would make significant savings on at least building costs. [19:11] schestowitz But will such savings lead to a cessation of the EPOs attempts to plead (future) poverty based upon questionable budgetary forecasts, or even to passing on of at least some of the savings to the EPOs 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 [19:11] schestowitz yet more efficiency savings)? [19:11] schestowitz If history is any guide, then I think that we can all guess which option will be selected by EPO management and the AC. [19:11] schestowitz Patent robot [19:11] schestowitz APRIL 15, 2021 AT 4:10 PM [19:11] schestowitz Since Haar is not Munich and Rijswijk is not The Hague, Art. 6(2) EPC seems to be rather free of interpretation [19:11] schestowitz NordicObserver [19:11] schestowitz APRIL 15, 2021 AT 9:11 PM [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? [19:11] schestowitz Rethorical questions aside, some interesting points here, Thorsten. [19:11] schestowitz Being 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, Im sceptical that this happens in a fully digital setting. So I think that the fear for the [19:11] schestowitz fuctioning of the Examining Divisions can easily be extended to the fear for the type of training that is offered to new examiners. [19:11] schestowitz MaxDrei [19:12] schestowitz APRIL 15, 2021 AT 10:30 PM [19:12] schestowitz There 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 jurys deliberations? [19:12] schestowitz Then theres 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 ones 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. [19:12] schestowitz Then there is the academic theory of Kahnemans Thinking Fast, Thinking Slow and Haidts 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. [19:12] schestowitz The 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. [19:12] schestowitz One of those... [19:12] schestowitz APRIL 18, 2021 AT 11:29 AM [19:12] schestowitz The EPO [], with the determination of its management to do whatever it takes to drive down overhead costs, [19:12] schestowitz Weird, I always thought production costs are not overhead, but management and other company costs are. [19:12] schestowitz In that regard, costs are pushed up and up with the hiring of more and more managers and external consultants. [19:12] schestowitz Anon Y. Mouse [19:12] schestowitz APRIL 15, 2021 AT 10:28 PM [19:12] schestowitz Outside views are simply collected and then moved into a more or less inaccessible folder somewhere in the EPOs 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. [19:12] schestowitz This reminds me of something [19:12] schestowitz But Mr Dent, the plans have been available in the local planning office for the last nine months. [19:12] schestowitz Oh yes, well as soon as I heard I went straight round to see them, yesterday afternoon. You hadnt exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them, had you? I mean, like actually telling anybody or anything. [19:12] schestowitz But the plans were on display [19:12] schestowitz On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them. [19:12] schestowitz Thats the display department. [19:12] schestowitz With a flashlight. [19:12] schestowitz Ah, well the lights had probably gone. [19:12] schestowitz So had the stairs. [19:12] schestowitz But look, you found the notice didnt you? [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. [19:12] schestowitz Attentive Observer [19:12] schestowitz APRIL 16, 2021 AT 10:25 AM [19:12] schestowitz There is one thing which has to be acknowledged with the present EPO management: a dep sense of opportunity. [19:12] schestowitz One 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! [19:12] schestowitz What 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 presidents move. [19:12] schestowitz I 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 boards management and leading members. If they would not give their blessing to the ideas of the EPOs management, the New Normal [19:12] schestowitz would not have the slightest chance to come to light. [19:12] schestowitz I 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 [19:12] schestowitz the acquired decisions less painful. [19:12] schestowitz That 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 [19:12] schestowitz would become purely fictional. [19:12] schestowitz By 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. Lets hope they react in time. [19:12] schestowitz Neither 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 [19:12] schestowitz a conference of the ministers in charge of IP as foreseen in Art 4a. [19:12] schestowitz It 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. [19:12] schestowitz The 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 it [19:13] 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. [19:13] schestowitz There 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 boards management want staff to be scattered around the member states and even outside. [19:13] schestowitz The 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 all [19:13] schestowitz the measures concocted by the president and its minions. [19:13] schestowitz It 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. [19:13] schestowitz Experienced Examiner [19:13] schestowitz APRIL 16, 2021 AT 11:39 AM [19:13] schestowitz Many thanks Thorsten, for sharing again your thoughts. [19:13] schestowitz Paperless 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). [19:13] schestowitz Video 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, [19:13] schestowitz many clicks, compared to pushing a piece of paper over the table. [19:13] schestowitz Concerning 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. [19:13] schestowitz Paperless 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. [19:13] schestowitz The 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 [19:13] schestowitz and workflows adequate for paperless working any time soon. Not to mention new approaches to bring physically distant colleagues virtually together, new working methods, . . [19:13] schestowitz EPO sinks [19:13] schestowitz APRIL 16, 2021 AT 3:29 PM [19:13] schestowitz Governance. [19:13] schestowitz Europe 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. [19:13] schestowitz But 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? [19:13] schestowitz IP, 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. [19:13] schestowitz When was the last diplomatic conference that should normally take place at regular intervals? If not mistaking, under President Kober. [19:13] schestowitz Pompidou 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. [19:13] schestowitz Campinos 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. [19:13] schestowitz The EPO is adrift. [19:13] schestowitz MaxDrei [19:13] schestowitz APRIL 17, 2021 AT 12:12 PM [19:13] schestowitz Arent 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 will [19:13] schestowitz be conducted online or traditionally, as they always have been up to now, with everybody involved closeted together in the same room. [19:13] schestowitz People here demand an Intergovernmental Conference to debate the issue. As if there are no more important intergovernmental issues at the moment. [19:13] schestowitz Patents 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. [19:13] schestowitz It 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. Im 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? [19:13] schestowitz Are their worries that important? Seriously? [19:13] schestowitz Or, to put it another way, what can you say to the government representatives sitting on the EPOs 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? [19:13] schestowitz Ipfrog [19:13] schestowitz APRIL 18, 2021 AT 8:44 AM [19:13] schestowitz I guess you could find something convincing if it involves a lot of money [19:13] schestowitz Attentive Observer [19:13] schestowitz APRIL 18, 2021 AT 12:33 PM [19:13] schestowitz Dear Max Drei, [19:14] schestowitz Whilst 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. [19:14] schestowitz What 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. [19:14] schestowitz Every 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 [19:14] schestowitz of the EPO what is good for them. Do you really wish this? I do not! [19:14] schestowitz " ● Apr 20 [21:53] schestowitz " [21:53] schestowitz Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns: [21:53] schestowitz https://www.fsf.org/campaigns [21:53] schestowitz Sign an open letter in support of Richard M. Stallman [21:53] -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-www.fsf.org | Current campaigns Free Software Foundation Working together for free software [21:53] schestowitz https://stallmansupport.org/ [21:53] -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-stallmansupport.org | In Support of Richard Stallman - Introduction [21:53] schestowitz https://rms-support-letter.github.io/ [21:53] schestowitz " [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. [21:56] schestowitz catching up with email now, will fact-check and publish something... ● Apr 20 [22:35] *rianne__ (~rianne@2a00:23c4:c3aa:7d01:400b:2041:e035:6298) has joined #boycottnovell [22:35] *asusbox (~rianne@2a00:23c4:c3aa:7d01:400b:2041:e035:6298) has joined #boycottnovell [22:36] *asusbox2 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds) [22:37] *rianne has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds) ● Apr 20 [23:20] schestowitz https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2021/04/board-of-appeal-relies-on-its-own-cgk.html?showComment=1618830932201 [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 IPKat [23:20] schestowitz " [23:20] schestowitz Monday, 19 April 2021 at 10:53:00 BST [23:20] schestowitz According 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 [23:20] schestowitz allow a proper determination of the facts. [23:20] schestowitz Reply [23:20] schestowitz AnonymousMonday, 19 April 2021 at 12:15:00 BST [23:20] schestowitz This decision is outrageous. If I were the patentee, I do not think I would file european patent applications again... [23:20] schestowitz Reply [23:20] schestowitz AnonymousMonday, 19 April 2021 at 13:50:00 BST [23:20] schestowitz For 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: [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 [23:20] schestowitz field 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. " [23:20] schestowitz I 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 to [23:20] schestowitz decide if that disagreement is sufficiently plausible to warrant a remittal and a subsequent second appeal. [23:20] schestowitz Reply [23:20] schestowitz AnonymousMonday, 19 April 2021 at 14:24:00 BST [23:20] schestowitz Administrative 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. [23:20] schestowitz Reply [23:20] schestowitz AnonymousMonday, 19 April 2021 at 16:57:00 BST [23:20] schestowitz The Patentee should demand its chance to put its case in person in Munich. Oh... [23:20] schestowitz Reply [23:20] schestowitz MaxDreiMonday, 19 April 2021 at 19:07:00 BST [23:20] schestowitz Is 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 [23:20] schestowitz deemed 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. [23:20] schestowitz How am I seeing it wrong here, gentle readers? [23:20] schestowitz " [23:21] schestowitz http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2021/04/boeings-comma-drama-commas-and-taking.html?showComment=1618919107842#c3826833593391929818 [23:21] schestowitz " [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 IPKat [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." [23:21] schestowitz I 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 [23:21] schestowitz to prevent this but the burden of proof for the EPO is high. It appears that you can have your cake and eat it. [23:21] schestowitz I 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? [23:21] schestowitz If 123(2) stops this style of drafting prevailing - so be it. It would be most welcome by (some) practitioners and third parties alike. [23:21] schestowitz Although 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? [23:21] schestowitz " [23:23] Techrights-sec https://nitter.cc/secalertsasia/status/1384592544357552130#m [23:24] -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" | nitter