Join us now at the IRC channel.
| *GNUmoon2 (~GNUmoon@gateway/tor-sasl/gnumoon) has joined #techbytes | Oct 05 00:00 | |
| schestowitz | " | Oct 05 01:24 |
|---|---|---|
| schestowitz | Harassed staff at the EPO | Oct 05 01:24 |
| schestowitz | Dear Roy, | Oct 05 01:24 |
| schestowitz | The harassment of EPO staff continues even during the Covid-19 pandemic and teleworking times. Here is attached an insulting email from an EPO manager to staff. | Oct 05 01:24 |
| schestowitz | "This is the kind of reactions we get," said our source, "when we ask questions and want to be listened: anger, insults and contempt. This is the kind of managers that Mr Campinos is promoting." | Oct 05 01:24 |
| schestowitz | Thanks for your help in advance. | Oct 05 01:24 |
| schestowitz | Help the EPO | Oct 05 01:24 |
| schestowitz | " | Oct 05 01:24 |
| schestowitz | Thanks, I shall process the image a bit to make the source hard to figure out. | Oct 05 01:26 |
| *rianne__ has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds) | Oct 05 05:12 | |
| *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds) | Oct 05 05:13 | |
| *rianne__ (~rianne@host81-154-174-45.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes | Oct 05 05:16 | |
| *liberty_box (~liberty@host81-154-174-45.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes | Oct 05 05:20 | |
| schestowitz | RMS: | Oct 05 06:02 |
| schestowitz | > I looked at http://techrights.org/wiki/index.php/Linux_Foundation. It | Oct 05 06:02 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-techrights.org | Linux Foundation - Techrights | Oct 05 06:02 | |
| schestowitz | > does not actually say much about the Linux Foundation. It just links | Oct 05 06:02 |
| schestowitz | > to brief incremental postings relating to the Linux Foundation. | Oct 05 06:02 |
| schestowitz | > | Oct 05 06:02 |
| schestowitz | > Putting those brief incremental postings together ito a coherent | Oct 05 06:02 |
| schestowitz | > whole is difficult. I didn't try to do it, and I would not refer | Oct 05 06:02 |
| schestowitz | > anyone to that page. | Oct 05 06:02 |
| schestowitz | > | Oct 05 06:02 |
| schestowitz | > With what you know, you could write a clear self-contained page of 50 | Oct 05 06:02 |
| schestowitz | > to 100 lines of text describing the current situation of the Linux | Oct 05 06:02 |
| schestowitz | > Foundation, a page that a person could read and understand without | Oct 05 06:02 |
| schestowitz | > following links. That would be tremendously useful, so I hope | Oct 05 06:02 |
| schestowitz | > you do it. | Oct 05 06:02 |
| schestowitz | >>>>> Yeah, things slowed down /further/ during the summer and have not | Oct 05 06:17 |
| schestowitz | >>>>> returned to even the previously low levels. In a few years there will | Oct 05 06:17 |
| schestowitz | >>>>> be nothing but a few stenographers, along with some transient bloggers. | Oct 05 06:17 |
| schestowitz | >>>> I spent much time every week chasing STILL-living blogs. | Oct 05 06:17 |
| schestowitz | >>> I only look at ones that have RSS feeds. Most do, but weirdly a few | Oct 05 06:17 |
| schestowitz | >>> don't. With RSS it is less time consuming to check them every few days. | Oct 05 06:17 |
| schestowitz | >>> | Oct 05 06:17 |
| schestowitz | >>> BTW there appears to be a second implementation of the LBRY protocol: | Oct 05 06:17 |
| schestowitz | >>> | Oct 05 06:17 |
| schestowitz | >>> https://lbry.tv/ | Oct 05 06:17 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-lbry.tv | lbry.tv | Oct 05 06:17 | |
| schestowitz | >>> https://odysee.com/ | Oct 05 06:17 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-odysee.com | odysee.com | Oct 05 06:17 | |
| schestowitz | >>> | Oct 05 06:17 |
| schestowitz | >>> https://lbry.com/faq/what-is-lbry | Oct 05 06:17 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-lbry.com | What is LBRY exactly? Is it a protocol, an app, a website, or a company? | Oct 05 06:17 | |
| schestowitz | >>> https://odysee.com/@OdyseeHelp:b | Oct 05 06:17 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-odysee.com | Odysee Help | Oct 05 06:17 | |
| schestowitz | >> Derek Taylor appears to have just mentioned both | Oct 05 06:17 |
| schestowitz | >> | Oct 05 06:17 |
| schestowitz | >> | Oct 05 06:17 |
| schestowitz | > Yes, his comments prompted me to remember to try to get back to LBRY | Oct 05 06:17 |
| schestowitz | > more when possible. | Oct 05 06:17 |
| schestowitz | > | Oct 05 06:17 |
| schestowitz | https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2020/09/uk-patent-exams-questions-and-answers.html?showComment=1601326389957 | Oct 05 07:40 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | UK patent exams: Questions and answers following the mock PEBX exams - The IPKat | Oct 05 07:40 | |
| schestowitz | " | Oct 05 07:40 |
| schestowitz | Sarah BoxallMonday, 28 September 2020 at 10:32:00 BST | Oct 05 07:40 |
| schestowitz | I think you will find I am still the Chief Examiner for all PEB exams, Ms Hughes. | Oct 05 07:40 |
| schestowitz | By the way, if people want to see changes in the exam system, they need to lobby IPREG, not the PEB. IPREG sets the rules which the PEB implements. The PEB's hands are more tied than people seem to appreciate. | Oct 05 07:40 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Oct 05 07:40 |
| schestowitz | Replies | Oct 05 07:40 |
| schestowitz | Rose HughesMonday, 28 September 2020 at 11:39:00 BST | Oct 05 07:40 |
| schestowitz | Dr Boxall: Apologies and duly corrected! I attempted to get in contact to confirm. (Dr Hughes btw) | Oct 05 07:40 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousMonday, 28 September 2020 at 12:00:00 BST | Oct 05 07:40 |
| schestowitz | You of all people should know that is not true. | Oct 05 07:40 |
| schestowitz | See document titled IPREG Accreditation handbook for further information about the framework (Set by IPREG) in which you provide a solution. There is very little hand tying as you suggest. | Oct 05 07:41 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousMonday, 28 September 2020 at 12:40:00 BST | Oct 05 07:41 |
| schestowitz | The constitution of the PEB says that it will operate the exam in line with a plan it submits to IPREG. It seems wrong to suggest, as Sarah Boxall appears to, that the PEB has no influence on IPREG when it comes to setting the exams. | Oct 05 07:41 |
| schestowitz | It is hard believe at least that the PEB doesn't have the power to make changes as to how the exams operate at a practical level. Does IPREG really set the rules as to format, line spacing, etc? | Oct 05 07:41 |
| schestowitz | Candidates register with PEB to take its exams and pay its fees (its not candidates fault the PEB holds the monopoly on the qualifying route). The PEB should welcome constructive feedback, and it is shame that the relationship between the PEB and candidates has felt a little adversarial at times in recent years. | Oct 05 07:41 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousMonday, 28 September 2020 at 18:48:00 BST | Oct 05 07:41 |
| schestowitz | Frankly I'm dissapointed to read that the chief examiner of the PEB is shifting responsibility away from PEB and onto IPREG. The PEB along with CIPA are involved in exams and therefore have some responsibility. We pay fees to CIPA/PEB too so the idea that it's entirely IPREG fault so nothing PEB can do is not good enough. | Oct 05 07:41 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousMonday, 28 September 2020 at 18:49:00 BST | Oct 05 07:41 |
| schestowitz | Classic PEB - nothing to do with us. | Oct 05 07:41 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousMonday, 28 September 2020 at 18:56:00 BST | Oct 05 07:41 |
| schestowitz | The CIPA president elected every year via a vote by its members but who appoints the chief examiner of PEB. Why is there no voting system in place for its members on this important position. | Oct 05 07:41 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousMonday, 28 September 2020 at 20:15:00 BST | Oct 05 07:41 |
| schestowitz | You are right, we do need to lobby IPREG... for them to take PEB's exam setting ability away. | Oct 05 07:41 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousTuesday, 29 September 2020 at 17:20:00 BST | Oct 05 07:41 |
| schestowitz | Sarah, in case it wasn't obvious, the reason everyone gets so incensed by the PEB is that the exam papers, the marking schedule and the examiners are a hit-and-miss in terms of quality. Address these issues and the criticisms will fall away. Now who is responsible for tackling this - PEB or IPREG? | Oct 05 07:41 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousWednesday, 30 September 2020 at 15:19:00 BST | Oct 05 07:41 |
| schestowitz | Fairly rude and unprofessional response there, but one hardly expects good communication from PEB these days. To whom exactly are you accountable for your actions? If IPREG is to blame for your shameful examination quality and consistency, what exactly are you responsible for and chief of? | Oct 05 07:41 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Oct 05 07:41 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousMonday, 28 September 2020 at 10:35:00 BST | Oct 05 07:41 |
| schestowitz | Lets up that the "group of 6" rule does not change further, otherwise firms could be breaking the law and puts candidates in a difficult position. | Oct 05 07:41 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Oct 05 07:41 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousMonday, 28 September 2020 at 10:47:00 BST | Oct 05 07:41 |
| schestowitz | Please think carefully about giving feedback to the PEB about PEBx. | Oct 05 07:41 |
| schestowitz | Giving feedback could be seen as an sign that you are implicitly endorsing/supporting the format of the exams as they currently exist. | Oct 05 07:41 |
| schestowitz | If you do give feedback and also want changes to the exams please make this explicit in any feedback you give. | Oct 05 07:41 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Oct 05 07:41 |
| schestowitz | Replies | Oct 05 07:41 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousMonday, 28 September 2020 at 12:02:00 BST | Oct 05 07:41 |
| schestowitz | I think the PEB (and IPREG for that matter) are perfectly capable of understanding that any positive feedback regarding PEBx is not an endorsement of the exams more generally. | Oct 05 07:41 |
| schestowitz | I think we should encourage as much constructive feedback of PEBx as possible and there is no need to caveat that feedback with information on an (almost) unrelated topic. | Oct 05 07:41 |
| schestowitz | In my opinion the PEB should be commended for even attempting to go ahead with the exams this year. In my experience during the trial run, downloading and uploading the paper was a little slow but additional time has been allocated to compensate. Everything else was fine. Fingers crossed it all works on the day as well. | Oct 05 07:41 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousMonday, 28 September 2020 at 19:00:00 BST | Oct 05 07:41 |
| schestowitz | I completely do not agree with the PEB exams. I think a large portion of the profession (trainees, associates, partners) do not support/agree with the current PEB examination. | Oct 05 07:41 |
| schestowitz | I do think PEBX is different and one would hope PEB knows this but you are right - we need to make sure PEB does not pull out some obscure statistics published in a CIPA journal based on feedback about PEBX as support for the current exam system. | Oct 05 07:41 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousMonday, 28 September 2020 at 20:05:00 BST | Oct 05 07:41 |
| schestowitz | To be fair, from my experience dealing with PEB, i have every reason to believe that this will be held up as a shining example of how the PEB are modernising the exam system... when in reality its sitting the same outdated test (and incidentally most people are doing it in an exam room, with an invigilator... like they used to do). | Oct 05 07:41 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Oct 05 07:41 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousMonday, 28 September 2020 at 15:40:00 BST | Oct 05 07:41 |
| schestowitz | Q4.5: Copy and paste from the PDF question papers is unreliable and introduces random formatting and syntax, could the PEB provide an editable word copy of the claims for amendment. | Oct 05 07:41 |
| schestowitz | It seems not. Apparently, the PEB requested editable claims, but for some reason the provider of the question papers were unable to provide these. | Oct 05 07:41 |
| schestowitz | This is baffling. Surely PEB can do this themselves? Copy and paste, check carefully, provide Word copy to candidates. This would take pressure off candidates having to do this on the day. | Oct 05 07:42 |
| schestowitz | Am I missing something? | Oct 05 07:42 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Oct 05 07:42 |
| schestowitz | Replies | Oct 05 07:42 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousMonday, 28 September 2020 at 18:03:00 BST | Oct 05 07:42 |
| schestowitz | It's all baffling. (Why can't we use staplers this year? Surely it makes no odds now?) Don't look for logic, you'll go mad. | Oct 05 07:42 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Oct 05 07:42 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousMonday, 28 September 2020 at 15:51:00 BST | Oct 05 07:42 |
| schestowitz | Are we allowed to use a plain sheet of paper to write/draw on (e.g. for timelines), or do we need to print out pages from the template provided on the day, with our candidate numbers on them, and use these? | Oct 05 07:42 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Oct 05 07:42 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousMonday, 28 September 2020 at 19:02:00 BST | Oct 05 07:42 |
| schestowitz | Does anyone have any suggestions to lobby IPREG after these exams are over. Its time to do something if the head of PEB/CIPA does not want to represent their members. | Oct 05 07:42 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Oct 05 07:42 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousMonday, 28 September 2020 at 21:50:00 BST | Oct 05 07:42 |
| schestowitz | We all want PEB to modernise and fit for modern day attorneys and modern day clients - I'm sure PEB board members want this. | Oct 05 07:42 |
| schestowitz | I was encouraged to see the positive dialogue between Sarah Boxall and candidates on the other blog about PEBX. There hasn't been enough of this in my opinion in previous years. Perhaps the answer is more open dialogue between the PEB and stakeholders. | Oct 05 07:42 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Oct 05 07:42 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousMonday, 28 September 2020 at 21:53:00 BST | Oct 05 07:42 |
| schestowitz | IPKAT (and Rose) - keep doing what you doing in updating everyone on patent exams. Thank you for the very useful summary. | Oct 05 07:42 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Oct 05 07:42 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousTuesday, 29 September 2020 at 11:03:00 BST | Oct 05 07:42 |
| schestowitz | Can the PEB please confirm, for those of us scheduled to take exams in our offices, what they will be able to do for us with regard to switching to taking exams from home if we are legally required to self-isolate? This should be classed as an emergency situation for any candidates finding themselves in this situation, and should be treated as such. This could be managed, e.g., by arranging additional invigilators to be on standby NOW, | Oct 05 07:42 |
| schestowitz | so that they are available during exam week. | Oct 05 07:42 |
| schestowitz | It also appears that nobody has addressed the quite frankly appalling "miscommunication" to designated contacts that candidates were permitted to change their preferred venue following the PM's announcement last Tuesday. Candidates are owed a very heartfelt public apology, or at the very least some clarification, after suffering 24h of even more intense stress. | Oct 05 07:42 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Oct 05 07:42 |
| schestowitz | Replies | Oct 05 07:42 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousTuesday, 29 September 2020 at 13:28:00 BST | Oct 05 07:42 |
| schestowitz | The police can NOW fine you if you do not self-isolate for 14 days. This is now the law. | Oct 05 07:42 |
| schestowitz | I think PEB needs to update their guidance urgently. | Oct 05 07:42 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Oct 05 07:42 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousWednesday, 30 September 2020 at 15:14:00 BST | Oct 05 07:42 |
| schestowitz | I imagine the firms are not providing screens as the original guidance from PEB was that one could not use more than one screen with your laptop screen counting as one screen. This was due to the proctoring service originally intended for use only being able to monitor one screen. Communication from PEB has not been clear at all (standard), but it seems like the originally-intended proctoring service is no longer being used and | Oct 05 07:42 |
| schestowitz | therefore the "no additional screen connected to laptop" requirement has gone away but not all firms are aware. | Oct 05 07:42 |
| schestowitz | ' | Oct 05 07:42 |
| schestowitz | http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2020/10/uk-patent-exams-new-essential.html?showComment=1601555969389#c1841140441394498023 | Oct 05 07:42 |
| schestowitz | " | Oct 05 07:42 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | UK patent exams: New essential information for candidates released - The IPKat | Oct 05 07:42 | |
| schestowitz | "You should submit any application for Special Consideration to peb@cipa.org.uk by 12 noon on the day following the examination." | Oct 05 07:42 |
| schestowitz | This is terrible and completely lacks common sense. Some people have exam on consecutive days. Why so short? Can they at least extend it till end of the week. | Oct 05 07:42 |
| schestowitz | " | Oct 05 07:42 |
| schestowitz | " | Oct 05 07:42 |
| schestowitz | The Malpractice PracticeThursday, 1 October 2020 at 15:41:00 BST | Oct 05 07:43 |
| schestowitz | From the PEB's own website; | Oct 05 07:43 |
| schestowitz | Deadline for applying for special consideration | Oct 05 07:43 |
| schestowitz | Special consideration must be applied for no later than two weeks after the examination for Qualifying Examinations, and no later one week after the examination for PAC and Litigation Skills. | Oct 05 07:43 |
| schestowitz | Two weeks down to less than 24 hours? Where did that requirement come from? | Oct 05 07:43 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousThursday, 1 October 2020 at 19:33:00 BST | Oct 05 07:43 |
| schestowitz | 24 hours is completely not fair. They have no idea. I think it should be appealed as it is very unfair on a candidate. The burden place on a candidate to provide evidence of Internet failure within 24 hours is unjust. if you have total power failure, engineers don't come round that quick and how can you get a report off them within 24 hours. | Oct 05 07:43 |
| schestowitz | Also - like the person above said - people have other exams the next day. | Oct 05 07:43 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousFriday, 2 October 2020 at 18:55:00 BST | Oct 05 07:43 |
| schestowitz | This 24 hours period to submit and provide evidence makes no sense whatsoever. | Oct 05 07:43 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Oct 05 07:43 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousThursday, 1 October 2020 at 14:32:00 BST | Oct 05 07:43 |
| schestowitz | The updated Essential Information for Candidates states that it should be read in conjunction with a "Report on the Trial of the PEBX System". I can't see this report on the PEB website - hopefully it will be published soon. | Oct 05 07:43 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Oct 05 07:43 |
| schestowitz | Replies | Oct 05 07:43 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousFriday, 2 October 2020 at 14:24:00 BST | Oct 05 07:43 |
| schestowitz | The report has now been published under the COVID information | Oct 05 07:43 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousFriday, 2 October 2020 at 17:34:00 BST | Oct 05 07:43 |
| schestowitz | Thank you for letting us know. | Oct 05 07:43 |
| schestowitz | It is explained that the deadline for Special Consideration has been shortened for the following reason: | Oct 05 07:43 |
| schestowitz | "If uploading is late because of technical issues, Special Consideration can be requested. Any such request on technical (IT) grounds must be made by noon the next day, to ensure that PEB has full information to hand when it reviews PEBX system logs to decide which Answer documents will be marked" | Oct 05 07:43 |
| schestowitz | Whilst reviewing the PEBx system will take time, I still think the deadline of noon the day after the exam is not justified. | Oct 05 07:43 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Oct 05 07:43 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousThursday, 1 October 2020 at 19:06:00 BST | Oct 05 07:43 |
| schestowitz | I'm getting very nervous with the local lockdown happening everywhere in the UK. | Oct 05 07:43 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Oct 05 07:43 |
| schestowitz | Replies | Oct 05 07:43 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousThursday, 1 October 2020 at 19:28:00 BST | Oct 05 07:43 |
| schestowitz | Difficult to concentrate and focus with the changing circumstances. It certainly adds alot more stress. | Oct 05 07:43 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousFriday, 2 October 2020 at 10:00:00 BST | Oct 05 07:43 |
| schestowitz | Slightly worried about candidates taking exams in the office who may be showing signs of covid-19 symptoms in the next week or so. Not sure if PEB would allow candidates to change from office to home if this is the case. | Oct 05 07:43 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousFriday, 2 October 2020 at 11:12:00 BST | Oct 05 07:43 |
| schestowitz | Agreed. Challenge 1 is just starting the exam. | Oct 05 07:43 |
| schestowitz | I don't understand why the PEB are being so secretive about what happens if you need to switch from the office to zoom due to track and trace etc.. It's clearly causing candidates a lot of worry. | Oct 05 07:43 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousFriday, 2 October 2020 at 11:13:00 BST | Oct 05 07:43 |
| schestowitz | Our designated contacts asked this in their meetings this week and were told that there is NOT any scope to change venue at this stage. So it's break the law or forfeit the exams. | Oct 05 07:43 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousFriday, 2 October 2020 at 18:53:00 BST | Oct 05 07:43 |
| schestowitz | But PEB would be responsible. Event organisers have been fined across the country for actively encouraging/allowing to host people which breaks the law. | Oct 05 07:43 |
| schestowitz | I think they should have some flexibility ezosxially to those who really need to self isolate in the next week or so. | Oct 05 07:43 |
| schestowitz | " | Oct 05 07:43 |
| *GNUmoon2 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds) | Oct 05 07:56 | |
| *rianne__ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer) | Oct 05 08:09 | |
| *rianne_ (~rianne@host81-154-174-45.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes | Oct 05 08:09 | |
| *libertybox has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds) | Oct 05 09:42 | |
| *libertybox (~schestowi@host81-154-174-45.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes | Oct 05 09:52 | |
| *GNUmoon2 (~GNUmoon@gateway/tor-sasl/gnumoon) has joined #techbytes | Oct 05 10:35 | |
| *rianne_ has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) | Oct 05 15:45 | |
| *rianne_ (~rianne@host81-154-174-45.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes | Oct 05 15:45 | |
| *GNUmoon2 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds) | Oct 05 21:54 | |
| *rianne__ (~rianne@host81-154-174-45.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes | Oct 05 22:16 | |
| *asusbox2 (~rianne@host81-154-174-45.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes | Oct 05 22:16 | |
| *asusbox has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds) | Oct 05 22:19 | |
| *rianne has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds) | Oct 05 22:19 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.6 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!