Techrights logo

IRC: #techbytes @ FreeNode: Monday, February 08, 2021

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

*GNUmoon has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)Feb 08 01:07
*rianne__ has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)Feb 08 01:38
*liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)Feb 08 01:38
*rianne__ (~rianne@host81-154-168-60.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytesFeb 08 01:41
*liberty_box (~liberty@host81-154-168-60.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytesFeb 08 01:42
*rianne__ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)Feb 08 03:57
*liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)Feb 08 03:57
*rianne__ (~rianne@host81-154-168-60.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytesFeb 08 04:05
*liberty_box (~liberty@host81-154-168-60.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytesFeb 08 04:07
*liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)Feb 08 05:15
*rianne__ has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)Feb 08 05:15
*rianne__ (~rianne@host81-154-168-60.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytesFeb 08 05:17
*liberty_box (~liberty@host81-154-168-60.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytesFeb 08 05:17
schestowitzhttp://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2021/02/02/top-5-changes-to-the-2021-epo-guidelines-for-examination/Feb 08 06:01
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-patentblog.kluweriplaw.com | Top 5 changes to the 2021 EPO Guidelines for Examination - Kluwer Patent BlogFeb 08 06:01
schestowitz"Feb 08 06:01
schestowitzSo it seems that the EPO has decided that it can now refuse to grant an application unless and until any subject matter retained in the description is clearly indicated as being either within or without the scope of the claims.Feb 08 06:01
schestowitzWhy is it not enough for the applicant to clearly indicate that the invention relates solely to the subject matter defined by the claims? Why effectively force the applicant to make a binding and irrevocable decision on the extent of protection of the claims? If certain subject matter is stated as not representing the invention, would that not tie the hands of the national courts when interpreting the claims (ie effectively prevent themFeb 08 06:01
schestowitzfrom affording the claims a broader interpretation that they might otherwise feel is justified)?Feb 08 06:01
schestowitzAnd what about the protection afforded to equivalents? Can application of the Protocol to Article 69 EPC afford protection for embodiments that have either been deleted or marked as not forming part of the invention? Is the EPO even competent to decide upon which embodiments can be retained on the grounds of being “equivalent” to subject matter falling within the literal scope of the claims?Feb 08 06:01
schestowitzQuestions such as those above are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to potentially serious, permanent and unjustified harm to patentees that could be caused by the EPO’s new approach to bringing the description into line with the claims. By way of contrast, the “harm” that could be caused by sticking to the previous, more liberal approach seems very tame indeed … namely the need for third parties to seek professionalFeb 08 06:01
schestowitzadvice before they can be certain that their proposed activities do not fall within the scope of the claims of a patent.Feb 08 06:01
schestowitzWhilst the new approach no doubt reflects the decision in T 1808/06, why act now when that decision was issued more than a decade ago (and has been cited in only four subsequent decisions)? All of this strongly suggests that the EPO has not thought through the potential implications of their change of approach … and has certainly not assessed whether that change is justified based upon a balance of relative benefits and harms.Feb 08 06:01
schestowitzMaxDreiFeb 08 06:01
schestowitzFebruary 2, 2021 at 7:29 pmFeb 08 06:01
schestowitzThese days, I have the feeling that, inside the EPO, management doesn’t give a toss about the law or the extent of protection given to the customers. All that interests them is “efficiency”, driving down cost and driving up profit. The writer of this useful blog post surmises that EPO management saw the high rate of rejection of Examiners’ scribbled amendments in the Druckexemplar as a drag on efficiency and profit, so resolvedFeb 08 06:01
schestowitzto do something about it.Feb 08 06:01
schestowitzWhat should be our response? Perhaps invite our corporate clients all round the world to complain direct to the EPO about the absurd lengths that EPO managers are driven to go to, to “conform” the description to the claims to the satisfaction of management. Just like with Article 123(2) the situation is getting out of hand, and all because Examiner careers depend on pleasing EPO management, which finds it easier to monitor ExaminerFeb 08 06:01
schestowitz“quality” under Art 123(2) and 84 than 54 or 56, EPC.Feb 08 06:01
schestowitzAnon Y. MouseFeb 08 06:01
schestowitzFebruary 2, 2021 at 9:02 pmFeb 08 06:01
schestowitzThe change to practice with regard to description amendments feels to me like a solution in search of a problem. What on earth could be the justification for this?Feb 08 06:02
schestowitzWhile it is well known that the EPO does not concern itself with matters of infringement, the management must surely be aware that claim interpretation is absolutely critical and that national courts may take different approaches. An embodiment falling outside the claims may not seem to the Examiner to be “useful for highlighting specific aspects of the amended subject-matter”, or for better understanding the invention, but it mayFeb 08 06:02
schestowitzturn out to be critical at some later stage in national litigation in the face of prior art which was unknown to the Patentee or the EPO at the time of grant. Indeed, this could potentially become problematic during EPO Opposition and Appeal proceedings too.Feb 08 06:02
schestowitzThis change has either not been thought through, or has been taken with a profound lack of care or interest in what happens outside the EPO, not to mention what might happen even within the EPO during Opposition and Appeal proceedings.Feb 08 06:02
schestowitzMax MasniFeb 08 06:02
schestowitzFebruary 2, 2021 at 10:24 pmFeb 08 06:02
schestowitz“All that interests them is “efficiency”, driving down cost and driving up profit. ”Feb 08 06:02
schestowitzEPO is driven by profit and self-financed, like the future UPC court.Feb 08 06:02
schestowitzThat’s why the EPO has a notation system, to push examiners to grant and get money out of renewal fees.Feb 08 06:02
schestowitzIt’s a fraudulent institution.Feb 08 06:02
schestowitz    One of those...Feb 08 06:02
schestowitz    February 4, 2021 at 1:45 pmFeb 08 06:02
schestowitz    Yet, the renewal fees the EPO gets has been reducing.Feb 08 06:02
schestowitz    Due to the earlier grants, the member states now get a large share of the renewal fees.Feb 08 06:02
schestowitz    Less internal (pre-grant) renewal fees, slightly offset by a small increase in the external (post-grant) renewal fees.Feb 08 06:02
schestowitz    One of the reasons why the EPO “management” is ignoring any arguments against their “reforms” regarding employee remuneration, work pressure, increase in “efficiency”,…Feb 08 06:02
schestowitz    (The EPO foresees a much larger drop in renewal fees income the next years.)Feb 08 06:02
schestowitz    On top, “management” has to increase member states incomes, or loose their own generous bonuses.Feb 08 06:02
schestowitz    And guess who decides on their bonuses? The member states.Feb 08 06:02
schestowitz    The renewal fees for pending applications going solely to the EPO was also seen as reducing any incentive to grant early, as it would reduce the EPO’s share of the renewal fees.Feb 08 06:02
schestowitz    The pendency had to be reduced though, as that caused different issues again.Feb 08 06:02
schestowitz    There is no fair system, apparently.Feb 08 06:02
schestowitzAttentive ObserverFeb 08 06:02
schestowitzFebruary 2, 2021 at 11:21 pmFeb 08 06:02
schestowitzThe writers of the blog have to be thanked for their work! However, the proposed amendments to the Guidelines discussed in the blog lead to some comments.Feb 08 06:02
schestowitzWhilst I fully understand the preceding comments, I would like to give a more differentiated view on the required amendments to the description. I am however not sure that the present management of the EPO, in its quest for efficiency and production figures, realised what those amendments of the Guidelines mean.Feb 08 06:02
schestowitzUpdated F-IV, 4.3(iii) will have the effect to make it more difficult for applicants/proprietors to refuse amending their description in order for later claiming much more than they have contributed to the art at the time of filing.Feb 08 06:02
schestowitzNothing against infringement by equivalents, but the original description needs to be in line with the requirements of the EPC. To take the example of “pemetrexed” there were no embodiments which had either to be deleted or marked as not forming part of the invention, as there was only a single one relating to pemetrexed disodium. It is the barely adapted description which allowed the proprietor of the pemetrexed patent to laterFeb 08 06:02
schestowitzclaim things he had not realised on the day of filing. It is good that the screws are tightened in this respect.Feb 08 06:02
schestowitzT 1806/06 might be an older decision, but it is in my eyes a good decision. It is also not an isolated decision as there are more recent ones requiring a correct amendment of the description:Feb 08 06:02
schestowitz– T 1883/11 See Point 5),Feb 08 06:02
schestowitz– T 1177/11 (see last § of Point 4.3, the claims were clear but the description needs to be adapted),Feb 08 06:02
schestowitz– T 305/14, although the ED committed a SPV, the BA acknowledged that where an objection concerning an inconsistency between the claims on the one hand, and the description or the drawings on the other hand, has been raised in a communication from the EPO, failure to overcome that objection is as much a valid ground for a subsequent refusal as failure to comply with any other requirement of the EPC.Feb 08 06:02
schestowitzT 1694/12 made clear that the claims have to be supported by the description; here the claims were broader than allowed by the description. The same applies in T 200/09.Feb 08 06:02
schestowitzIt is true that there is a “relatively small proportion of European patents that end up in infringement proceedings” but this is not a reason not to abide by the valid regulations at grant. One never knows in advance which patent will be opposed at the EPO or litigated later at national level.Feb 08 06:02
schestowitzFrom all the cars leaving a manufacturer how many will end up in an accident? Probably very few, but this is not a reason not to abide there as well by the valid regulations.Feb 08 06:02
schestowitzWhen the “pemetrexed” decision of the UKSC came out, the screams of horror from the profession about the near impossibility to make a FTO evaluation were hard to overhear. The “need for third parties to seek professional advice before they can be certain that their proposed activities do not fall within the scope of the claims of a patent” was always present, but was rendered much more complicated by this decision.Feb 08 06:02
schestowitzThe proportion of rejected texts intended for grant does not come as surprise. It has always been the lever used by ED to twist the arm of applicants so that a file could be closed by issuing the AGRA and the requested production marks achieved. I fear that summoning to OP, even in form of ViCos, will not really change the situation. Pressure will just be transferred to another place.Feb 08 06:02
schestowitzIn view of the RPBA 2020, not filing an AR, which on top has to be admitted in the procedure under R 137(3) and allowing a grant, might end up with a refusal in the absence of an agreed text and in appeal to the irrevocable death of the application.Feb 08 06:02
schestowitzIt is nothing new that every feature in an independent claim cannot be left as merely optional in the description. Such a claim would offend Art 84 and is not allowable. It is good that this point has been clarified. It is too easy to later claim that this feature might be in the claim but not essential and hence allow a much broader interpretation of the claim. See above.Feb 08 06:02
schestowitzIt should also not come as a surprise that “The technical field and the summary of invention must correspond to the amended set of claims”. Description and claims have to be coherent.Feb 08 06:03
schestowitzMethods of using a medical device are more than often a disguised way to claim a medical method. It is absolutely correct to ensure that none of those claims are left at grant or after opposition. But this is nothing new either!Feb 08 06:03
schestowitzClaim-like clauses have always been a nuisance and it is good that it now perfectly clear that ought to be deleted. It was again, an attempt to give some different interpretation to granted claims as very often the clauses were not amended, even if the claims were.Feb 08 06:03
schestowitzThe amendment in F-IV, 3.9.2 “Cases where method steps define additional devices and/or specific data processing means” deserves more than an honourable mention. The amendment specifies that “These method steps may not always be fully performed by the computer and the method claim may recite specific technical means for carrying out some of the steps”.Feb 08 06:03
schestowitz“In such a case, defining a computer program claim as in F-IV, 3.9.1(iii), will normally lead to an objection under Art. 84 if the step carried out by the specific technical means cannot be carried out by a generic data processing means. The examples given when a general purpose computer can be used or not are very clear (method of determining oxygen saturation in blood).Feb 08 06:03
schestowitzSuch claims are quite common, and have a problem. Such a program cannot be carried out on a general-purpose computer which is not connected with the controlling means necessary to carry out the method, for instance actuators and position detectors.Feb 08 06:03
schestowitzAnother example, based on EQE paper C 2004 could be as follows.Feb 08 06:03
schestowitz1. A method for the layerwise construction of an object (4), comprising:Feb 08 06:03
schestowitz(a) selecting and irradiating portions of a solidifiable liquid (2) to form a solidified layer (4a),Feb 08 06:03
schestowitz(b) moving the solidified layer (4a) to enable liquid (2) to fill the space left by the movement of the solidified layer (4a) andFeb 08 06:03
schestowitz(c) repeating steps a) and b) to form further solidified layers (4b, 4c, 4d …) until the object (4) is complete.Feb 08 06:03
schestowitz2. The method of claim 1…..Feb 08 06:03
schestowitz3. The method of claim 2 wherein….Feb 08 06:03
schestowitz4. A computer program directly loadable into the memory of a computer for controlling the steps of claim 1 when said program is run on a computer.Feb 08 06:03
schestowitzJust try to stick the program in your laptop and look whether you can carry out the method of claim1 and obtain an object constructed layerwise. Good luck! In that case I would even claim that the provisions of Art 83 are not fulfilled.Feb 08 06:03
schestowitzAs digitalisation makes inroads in lots of technical domains and contributory infringement is not something to be belittled, but we should be aware of the corresponding difficulties when merely claiming computer programs or carrier for a program.Feb 08 06:03
schestowitzIt is difficult to understand why it is necessary to complain that patents to be granted should abide by the valid regulations, even when it comes to the adaptation of the description. iFeb 08 06:03
schestowitz    Concerned observerFeb 08 06:03
schestowitz    February 3, 2021 at 12:09 pmFeb 08 06:03
schestowitz    Attentive,Feb 08 06:03
schestowitz    Well, it seems that you and I are just going to have to agree to differ on this point.Feb 08 06:03
schestowitz    I can understand the appeal of (potentially) increased certainty that may flow from the applicant explicitly identifying the embodiments of the description that are within the scope of the subject matter claimed (“the invention”), and those that are without that scope. However, it is important to remember that it will likely be impossible for any applicant to be 100% confident that all of their “in” and “out” allocationsFeb 08 06:03
schestowitzare correct. This is because it is almost always the case that the wording of the claims will be open to various different interpretations. It is also possible that the claim language deemed allowable by the EPO includes wording that is completely unclear, even (or especially) to subject matter experts.Feb 08 06:03
schestowitz    In my personal experience, there is also another issue that routinely crops up in connection with the exercise of adapting the description to the claims as allowed. That is: what to do with those passages that encompass both claimed and non-claimed embodiments? Especially where such passages use generic language that does not precisely map on to the wording used in the claims, it is not always easy (or even possible) to makeFeb 08 06:03
schestowitzamendments that identify those embodiments that fall within the claims and those that do not. Further, where amendments are possible, they often risk adding subject matter.Feb 08 06:03
schestowitz    So why force applicants to choose between deleting (partially) supportive subject matter and making amendments that could generate grounds for revocation (including, potentially, an inescapable 123(2) / 123(3) “trap”)? More to the point, why be so strict on “support” under Article 84 when it is almost certain that there will be doubts regarding the interpretation of the claims?Feb 08 06:03
schestowitz    Personally, I would be a lot happier if the EPO instead shifted its focus to the clarity aspect of Article 84 EPC … even if that would result in fewer oppositions.Feb 08 06:03
schestowitzPatent robotFeb 08 06:03
schestowitzFebruary 3, 2021 at 10:23 amFeb 08 06:03
schestowitzThe EPO and also some commenters of this blog suffer from the “excessive prohibition” virus (quite contagious nowadays). The EPO (executive power) cannot “interpret” the EPC to create new prohibitions which are not there.Feb 08 06:03
schestowitzDoes the EPC prohibit from leaving unclaimed matter in the description? Is this prohibition present also in other patent laws?Feb 08 06:03
schestowitzMaxDreiFeb 08 06:03
schestowitzFebruary 3, 2021 at 12:44 pmFeb 08 06:03
schestowitzThanks, Attentive. I am one of those representatives who takes care to satisfy Art 84 EPC by myself conforming the description to the claims. I really don’t like it when Examiners, thinking they are making further amendments necessary to meet the objective of “clarity”, make further and different amendments to the description, in the worst cases replacing my amendments with their own, which detract from clarity rather thanFeb 08 06:03
schestowitzenhancing it. When clients and Applicants see a Druckexemplar in which my carefully composed amendments are excised and replaced, they suppose I am incompetent, or ignorant of the law or the practice at the EPO, and that their payments to me for my time were a waste of money. I want to get to grant with a description and claims that I have written, in my own first language, not some EPO Examiner using English as a foreign language. DoFeb 08 06:03
schestowitzyou see why I find this behaviour by Examiners insulting, why it makes me so angry.Feb 08 06:03
schestowitzRightly or wrongly, i think they do this to signal to the in-house Quality Police how assiduous they are, how painstaking they are about compliance with Art 84, EPC.Feb 08 06:03
schestowitzI accept the general objective, under Art 84, EPC, of conformity between what the claims define as the invention and what the description announces as “the invention”. But, quite frankly, some EPO Examiners are taking this to absurd lengths. Why is this, if it is not to please management?Feb 08 06:03
schestowitzPatent robotFeb 08 06:03
schestowitzFebruary 3, 2021 at 1:46 pmFeb 08 06:03
schestowitzI wrongly thought that under Art. 84 EPC the claims had to be supported by the description.Feb 08 06:04
schestowitzSince when the description shall be supported by the claims?Feb 08 06:04
schestowitzfrancis hagelFeb 08 06:04
schestowitzFebruary 3, 2021 at 2:49 pmFeb 08 06:04
schestowitzInsightful comments have been provided esp. by Max Drei, Attentive Observer and Concerned Observer. I agree with Concerned Observer that the requirement to amend the description in line with the claims as accepte creates issues of its own making. Best can be the enemy of good when it involves additional complexity, time delays and legal expenses for no clear benefits .Feb 08 06:04
schestowitzWhen several embodiments are disclosed as optional in the original application and then some are deleted to satisfy the requirement, this involves some change in substance and a potential 123(2) issue since the preference for the embodiment covered by the claim was missing in the original application. In addition i do not see a clear basis in the EPC for compelling the applicant to delete embodiments which are not covered by theFeb 08 06:04
schestowitzaccepted claims.Feb 08 06:04
schestowitzI also see minor benefit in the addition in the application of a mention and discussion of the “closest prior art”, when the entire examination file is easily and freely accessible to the public and is way more informative than the addition in the description.Feb 08 06:04
schestowitzI am frequently critical of some aspects of US rules and practices, but regarding amendments of the description, i prefer the US approach because of its simplicity.Feb 08 06:04
schestowitzMaxDreiFeb 08 06:04
schestowitzFebruary 3, 2021 at 3:24 pmFeb 08 06:04
schestowitzThe Wolff reforms of civil litigation procedure (CPR) have something in common with the Grundgesetz in Germany. Both begin with an article that sets the tone. In the GG it is that the dignity of the human is inviolable. In the CGR it is that the over-riding priority is to do justice between the parties. My request to the EPO management is to administer Art 84, Art 123(2) and Art 54 EPC (the notorious “Bermuda Triangle “ofFeb 08 06:04
schestowitzpatentability provisions) thoughtfully and realistically, in order to comply with what I always see as an “over-riding priority”, namely the balance of interests set out in the Protocol to Art 69, EPC.Feb 08 06:04
schestowitzIn other words, in the real world, other than in an Ivory Tower, Applicants should be allowed to achieve protection for their contribution to the art, in proportion to the magnitude of that contribution, even while the public enjoys a reasonable level of legal certainty. A balance is required, like everything in life that is sophisticated, and therefore complicated and a matter of judgement.Feb 08 06:04
schestowitzWhenever Examiners (and management) get over- protective, even obsessive, about legal certainty, Applicants get deprived of fair protection because more and more of their otherwise deserving applications fall into that fearsome Bermuda Triangle. Unlike the hypothetical skilled person, real Applicants cannot know all the prior art and so amendment during prosecution is the real world reality. EPO finger-wagging lectures to ApplicantsFeb 08 06:04
schestowitzthat they have only themselves to blame because they don’t draft carefully enough are insulting to real world Applicants.Feb 08 06:04
schestowitzObsessive focus on perceived failure to achieve 100% clarity can’t be right. Fact: no specification or claim can ever be so clear that a clever lawyer can find nothing wrong with it. With this fact in mind, the writers of the EPC knew full well what they were doing, excluding Art 84 from the grounds of opposition. Judges, it turns out, are well able to construe patents that exhibit less than 100% clarity. Ask them. In practice theyFeb 08 06:04
schestowitznever have any alternative despite the best efforts of over-zealous EPO Examiners.Feb 08 06:04
schestowitzBut that post-issue exclusion is no excuse, no reason, to insist, prior to grant, on impossibly high levels of clarity. To do so will result in international outrage, and condemnation of the level of “service” delivered by the EPO.Feb 08 06:04
schestowitz    мистер хлебFeb 08 06:04
schestowitz    February 3, 2021 at 4:29 pmFeb 08 06:04
schestowitz    Even tough I fully agree with your criticism of the new Guidelines, your explicit attack on over-zealous examiners is misplaced. The examiners at the EPO have lost all autonomy and execute the very strict orders they are provided with in a myriad of instructions, notices, guidelines, etc. Some examiners may push back, at their own expense. Others just follow the instructions. And certainly, none of them act on their own initiative.Feb 08 06:04
schestowitzIn the current conditions, that would be suicidal.Feb 08 06:04
schestowitz        MaxDreiFeb 08 06:04
schestowitz        February 3, 2021 at 5:01 pmFeb 08 06:04
schestowitz        The irony lies in management’s idea that “quality” means “consistency” means “mindless adherence to management directives”. Just to be clear, in the field of “patent quality” dumbing down the Examiners till they are little more than automatons is NOT the way to raise levels of “quality”.Feb 08 06:04
schestowitz            Disillusioned ExaminerFeb 08 06:04
schestowitz            February 4, 2021 at 4:25 pmFeb 08 06:04
schestowitz            What!!??!Feb 08 06:04
schestowitz            Quality is easily measured!Feb 08 06:04
schestowitz            Has the application been granted or refused within the time limit set by the Paris Criteria?Feb 08 06:04
schestowitz            And treating our stocks within arbitrarily set internal time limits.Feb 08 06:04
schestowitz            That is what we get measured for, it currently seems to be the major influence to our quality assessment (besides the numbers, high production numbers=high quality – confirmed by ATILO).Feb 08 06:04
schestowitz            The internal Quality Checks only hamper the file going out, but will not be used for reporting.Feb 08 06:04
schestowitz            Continuous problems identified by the Quality Department only means you have to discuss with them, instead of getting your point for the file done, and losing time for the next file.Feb 08 06:04
schestowitz            Hence there are directors who defend their high-producing examiners, up to the point that feedback will not reach the examiner concerned.Feb 08 06:04
schestowitz            (Since this year this will be done differently, Luckily)Feb 08 06:04
schestowitzFranco-belgeFeb 08 06:04
schestowitzFebruary 4, 2021 at 12:08 amFeb 08 06:04
schestowitzEnglish is relatively easy: in a nutshell, only men and women have a gender, everything else (except boats) is neutral. And a new trend is to use ‘they’ even for single persons.Feb 08 06:04
schestowitzWaiting for the gender-neutral French version.Feb 08 06:05
schestowitzIn French, the plural has the same gender as the singular, and a Division or a Board is female. Some ‘neutralisation’ is possible, but a zealous approach will just render the text more difficult to read.Feb 08 06:05
schestowitzPeter ParkerFeb 08 06:05
schestowitzFebruary 4, 2021 at 4:20 pmFeb 08 06:05
schestowitzAlso, according to my understanding, it is also not crystal clear in all EPC member states whether a post-grant amendment may be based on subject matter that was in the original application documents but not also in the granted patent.Feb 08 06:05
schestowitzSo deleting or “prominently disclaiming” subject matter might also backfire in post-grant validity matters.Feb 08 06:05
schestowitzAttentive ObserverFeb 08 06:05
schestowitzFebruary 5, 2021 at 7:56 amFeb 08 06:05
schestowitzI knew very well that I would stir some controversy when I published my comment.Feb 08 06:05
schestowitzIt is nothing new that in lots of cases the adaptation of the description was more or less neglected when it came to either grant or maintain a patent in amended form. Rumours has it that in some directorates it was a non-written rule not to spend time on the adaptation of the description. After all in some national systems adaptation of the description is not required.Feb 08 06:05
schestowitzAt the EPO it is not infrequent to see after some errors the pendulum swaying in the opposite direction. Middle or reasonable way was never something really of importance. The ED apply the instructions, and by insisting on some secondary aspects, it is a good possibility to show that the rules are respected and the production figures are reached. Should the independent claim be new and inventive, and for this it is better not to findFeb 08 06:05
schestowitztoo relevant prior art, then the dependent claims are not only new and inventive, but also clear and not comprising any added-matter….. What is at stake is more to give the impression of a thorough examination than carrying out a proper examination.Feb 08 06:05
schestowitzI do not put the blame on the examiners but on the management. On the other side, the average number of validations does indeed not allow to see a lot of revenues from annual fees. That is one of the reasons for the management to push UP as for those, the level of annual fees is higher. I rather see all the perks given to AC members, think also of the cooperation budget, allowing the tail to wag the dog. Much less the annual fees asFeb 08 06:05
schestowitzsuch.Feb 08 06:05
schestowitzOn the other hand I have witnessed OP following remittal from a Board in which the opponents and the proprietor were arguing and bickering about the amendments to be carried out starting with deletion of some embodiments and continuing with the way the prior art disclosed during the opposition had to be presented. It is clear that what the parties had in mind was litigation at national level since the opponents were not successful inFeb 08 06:05
schestowitzkilling the patent.Feb 08 06:05
schestowitzIn T 1093/17, the opponent appealed the decision of maintaining the patent in amended form as the adaptation of the description was, in his eyes, inducing a problem of sufficiency. The BA held that the “amendments to the description according to the main request merely bring the description into line with the allowed claims”. The BA considered that “the issues at stake raised by the appellant with respect to Article 83 EPC are resFeb 08 06:05
schestowitzjudicata”, and this conclusion applied mutatis mutandis to the requirements of Art 84.Feb 08 06:05
schestowitzIn T 2466/ 13 the BA was fully aware that adaptation of the description can have an influence on a possible infringement action. In particular, the opponent/appellant criticised the deletion of expressions indicating the optional nature of characteristics which had been incorporated in the independent claim. The opponent/appellant based its objection under Article 123(2) EPC on the finding that this adaptation of the description wouldFeb 08 06:05
schestowitzbe liable to give the proprietor an undue advantage in an infringement action, in particular in relation to infringement by equivalence.Feb 08 06:05
schestowitzThe Board accepted that for some jurisdictions changes to the subject matter of the patent application during grant proceedings, or to the patent in opposition or limitation proceedings, may have an effect on the way in which infringement by equivalence will be assessed (similar to file-wrapper estoppel in US law). Nevertheless, this is not likely to render changes to the description such as those proposed by the proprietor contrary toFeb 08 06:05
schestowitzArt 123(2), by providing an unjustified advantage to the proprietor.Feb 08 06:05
schestowitzThe BA considered that since the original application has been published and a defendant in an infringement action would still have the possibility of asserting amendments made during the course of the proceedings, by submitting both the patent as granted and/or amended and the original application. The amendment to the description proposed by the proprietor therefore does not have the effect of depriving a defendant in an infringementFeb 08 06:05
schestowitzaction of the possibility of establishing, on the basis of the facts of the case, the scope of the amendments made during the grant and/or opposition proceedings.Feb 08 06:05
schestowitzMay be this decision could help to see the whole topic in a less conflictual manner.Feb 08 06:05
schestowitz    Patent robotFeb 08 06:05
schestowitz    February 5, 2021 at 10:01 amFeb 08 06:05
schestowitz    Thank you for the explanation, but still I do not see anything in the EPC prohibiting from leaving unclaimed matter in the description. By the way, this prohibition is not present in any other patent law, AFAIK.Feb 08 06:05
schestowitz    Furthermore, under Art. 84 EPC the claims shall be supported by the description, not the opposite.Feb 08 06:05
schestowitz    Therefore, if I want to leave my grandma’s cake receipt at the end of the description of the claimed apparatus, the ED, OD and the BoAs have no right to force me to remove the receipt, do they?Feb 08 06:05
schestowitz        Patent robotFeb 08 06:05
schestowitz        February 5, 2021 at 11:25 amFeb 08 06:05
schestowitz        Actually I found some decisions referring to Rule 48(1)c EPC, however this would prohibit the cake receipt but not subject-matter relating to the claimed invention.Feb 08 06:05
schestowitzAttentive ObserverFeb 08 06:05
schestowitzFebruary 5, 2021 at 3:12 pmFeb 08 06:05
schestowitzDear Patent robot,Feb 08 06:05
schestowitzYou pre-empted my reply! It follows that an ED can require the adaptation of the description as any statement allowing a different interpretation the claims is a statement or other matter obviously irrelevant under the circumstances.Feb 08 06:05
schestowitz    Concerned observerFeb 08 06:05
schestowitz    February 5, 2021 at 7:10 pmFeb 08 06:05
schestowitz    Attentive,Feb 08 06:05
schestowitz    Whilst Rule 48(1)(c) EPC provides basis for deleting certain subject matter, it only relates to “any statement or other matter OBVIOUSLY irrelevant or unnecessary under the circumstances”.Feb 08 06:06
schestowitz    In my view, it would not be correct to suggest that subject matter in the description will be rendered OBVIOUSLY irrelevant or unnecessary by virtue of amendments during prosecution having the effect of moving that subject matter partially or wholly outside of the scope of the claims. Subject matter that partially overlaps with the claims is clearly relevant. The same is true for subject matter that potentially aids understanding ofFeb 08 06:06
schestowitz(aspects of) the invention.Feb 08 06:06
schestowitz    Whilst it might be possible in some circumstances to identify subject matter that is rendered OBVIOUSLY irrelevant or unnecessary by claim amendments, my experience is that such circumstances do not occur very often. The problem with the EPO’s proposed approach to adaptation of the description is that it incorrectly assumes that it will be straightforward to identify subject matter that is relevant (or claimed) and subject matterFeb 08 06:06
schestowitzthat is not.Feb 08 06:06
schestowitz    Given the difficulties involved, it is pretty much inevitable that applicants (and/or the EPO) will get the in / out allocation wrong. The potential consequences of this for patentees are unjustified and extreme, as are the costs associated with trying hard to avoid any incorrect allocations. Applying a “balance of convenience” approach makes it abundantly clear that permitting applicants to proceed with the previously acceptedFeb 08 06:06
schestowitzapproach to adaptation of the description is by far the lesser of two evils.Feb 08 06:06
schestowitz        Patent robotFeb 08 06:06
schestowitz        February 6, 2021 at 12:45 pmFeb 08 06:06
schestowitz        The strange thing is that for around 40 years the EDs did not care about unclaimed subject-matter in the description and usually requested only Rule 42(1)b amendments to grant a patent, while the ODs requested and still requests heavy amendments to the description at the end of OPs, which is weird since a granted European patent should be more “untouchable” (see e.g. G 1/10) than an application. The representatives shouldFeb 08 06:06
schestowitzrefuse these requests from the ODs, but at the end of OPs, maybe late in the evening, they tend to obey and take their limited patent home.Feb 08 06:06
schestowitz        And Rule 48 EPC does not even apply to granted patents, so that if my patent contained my grandma’s receipt, the ODs should not say anything.Feb 08 06:06
schestowitz        This “description amendment” virus, which in my opinion is unjust and unjustified since it has no legal support in the EPC at all, now has been trasmitted from the ODs to the EDs, with the consequences we are discussing. Unfortunately, the Guidelines are now more binding than the EPC (see e.g. Art. 4a EPC).Feb 08 06:06
schestowitz        Why do people make life so uselessly complicated?Feb 08 06:06
schestowitzAttentive ObserverFeb 08 06:06
schestowitzFebruary 6, 2021 at 6:02 pmFeb 08 06:06
schestowitz@ Patent RobotFeb 08 06:06
schestowitzIt is not correct to claim “that for around 40 years the EDs did not care about unclaimed subject-matter in the description”. It has always been part of the duties of an ED or an OD. That there is case law on this topic confirms that it has always been an issue.Feb 08 06:06
schestowitzIt is worth remembering that R 86 states: “Part III of the Implementing Regulations shall apply mutatis mutandis to documents filed in opposition proceedings”. Under Part III you find R 42-44, R 46 and R 48-50. So I fear that your grandma’s receipt will have nothing to do in your description be it in the application or in the patent as maintained if it was not the subject-matter of your application/patent. If you add it duringFeb 08 06:06
schestowitzexamination/opposition you will get a nice objection under Art 123(2), and in the latter case even one under R 80.Feb 08 06:06
schestowitz@ Concerned ObserverFeb 08 06:06
schestowitzI fully agree with you that R 48(1) is against prohibited matter, but with my tongue in my cheek I could have a “dynamic interpretation” of this rule and consider it applicable to the adaptation of the description.Feb 08 06:06
schestowitzYou might have a different experience, but according to mine it is in a vast majority of cases “straightforward to identify subject matter that is relevant (or claimed) and subject matter that is not”. In some, rather infrequent cases, it is indeed not “straightforward to identify subject matter that is relevant (or claimed) and subject matter that is not”. But those are an exception and should not be considered that due toFeb 08 06:06
schestowitzthose cases nothing should happen in respect of adaptation of the description.Feb 08 06:06
schestowitzAfter all the European legislator has decided, contrary to some other, that a one-to-one relationship should exist between claims and description. And this is due to Art 69 and its Protocol. I understand that when it comes to the interpretation of claims it might be better to keep some blurred areas. And what is owed up in one system can be deleterious in another. That applicants prefer to proceed with the previously “accepted”Feb 08 06:06
schestowitzapproach to adaptation of the description is understandable but not in the interest of third parties.Feb 08 06:06
schestowitzA sort of conclusionFeb 08 06:06
schestowitzThe new move appears somehow to be the result of some internal audit, and examiners are more than happy to abide by such a formal rule which had conveniently been forgotten by many. When one looks at such matters, other issues like patentability can be, again conveniently, left aside.Feb 08 06:06
schestowitzLet’s dust settle and the situation will calm down until the next upheaval on a different topic. In any case it is nothing revolutionary, but simply abiding by the rules, provided they are applied sensibly should not be too difficult.Feb 08 06:06
schestowitz"Feb 08 06:06
schestowitzhttps://twitter.com/jamoral/status/1358561000010747906Feb 08 06:06
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@jamoral: "The Web is rapidly becoming an aggressive censorship platform. The censors always allege that they’re protecting u… https://t.co/aW0AqZNLFsFeb 08 06:06
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@jamoral: "The Web is rapidly becoming an aggressive censorship platform. The censors always allege that they’re protecting u… https://t.co/aW0AqZNLFsFeb 08 06:06
schestowitz""The Web is rapidly becoming an aggressive censorship platform. The censors always allege that they’re protecting us and the censors are very rich people or corporations controlled by those very rich people""Feb 08 06:06
schestowitzhttps://twitter.com/wget42/status/1358522055935819776Feb 08 06:06
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@wget42: @schestowitz Wow. Thanks for that discovery 🥰Feb 08 06:06
schestowitzhttps://twitter.com/iridesce57/status/1358504386083893251Feb 08 06:06
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@iridesce57: @schestowitz https://t.co/4Q7JBJYj9OFeb 08 06:06
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes--> www.eff.org | On 6/5, 65 Things We Know About NSA Surveillance That We Didn’t Know a Year Ago | Electronic Frontier FoundationFeb 08 06:06
schestowitzhttps://twitter.com/MacreEric/status/1358484157286871040Feb 08 06:06
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@MacreEric: @PrincessBibiRF_ @DrEricDing @CDCgov @WHO @DrTedros @DrJudyAMikovits @drsanjaygupta @DrSamirSinha @JoeBiden… https://t.co/YVJQwzYQQMFeb 08 06:06
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@MacreEric: @PrincessBibiRF_ @DrEricDing @CDCgov @WHO @DrTedros @DrJudyAMikovits @drsanjaygupta @DrSamirSinha @JoeBiden… https://t.co/YVJQwzYQQMFeb 08 06:06
schestowitz"Feb 08 06:06
schestowitzThat's like saying a  lion won't kill you because a mouse is also an animal.Feb 08 06:06
schestowitzPlease STFU until you finish a basic level of education or at least put some basic effort into finding a clue.Feb 08 06:06
schestowitz"Feb 08 06:06
schestowitzhttps://twitter.com/Vanessa60926573/status/1358479793671569409Feb 08 06:06
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@Vanessa60926573: #smdfh The Swedish want a piece of Mali's ressources 🇲🇱🇲🇱🇲🇱 too 🤦🏾‍♀️🤦🏾‍♀️🤦🏾‍♀️🙄🙄🙄 Africa feeding the West and the… https://t.co/0OZUVH2EkpFeb 08 06:06
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@Vanessa60926573: #smdfh The Swedish want a piece of Mali's ressources 🇲🇱🇲🇱🇲🇱 too 🤦🏾‍♀️🤦🏾‍♀️🤦🏾‍♀️🙄🙄🙄 Africa feeding the West and the… https://t.co/0OZUVH2EkpFeb 08 06:06
schestowitz"Feb 08 06:07
schestowitz#smdfh The Swedish want a piece of Mali's ressourcesFeb 08 06:07
schestowitzFlag of MaliFeb 08 06:07
schestowitzFlag of MaliFeb 08 06:07
schestowitzFlag of MaliFeb 08 06:07
schestowitz tooFeb 08 06:07
schestowitzWoman facepalmingFeb 08 06:07
schestowitzWoman facepalmingFeb 08 06:07
schestowitzWoman facepalmingFeb 08 06:07
schestowitzFace with rolling eyesFeb 08 06:07
schestowitzFace with rolling eyesFeb 08 06:07
schestowitzFace with rolling eyesFeb 08 06:07
schestowitzAfrica feeding the West and the entire fucking World.Feb 08 06:07
schestowitz"Feb 08 06:07
schestowitzhttps://twitter.com/ParadymeUSA/status/1358476758304100358Feb 08 06:07
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@ParadymeUSA: @schestowitz Which is why our patent system has now become 'class based' & therefore UNCONSTITUTIONAL. It didn't st… https://t.co/famZUj8FmxFeb 08 06:07
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@ParadymeUSA: @schestowitz Which is why our patent system has now become 'class based' & therefore UNCONSTITUTIONAL. It didn't st… https://t.co/famZUj8FmxFeb 08 06:07
schestowitz"Which is why our patent system has now become 'class based' & therefore UNCONSTITUTIONAL. It didn't start out that way. It was MADE that way by special interests like pharmaceuticals & other large monopolistic entities who wanted to eliminate competition as much as possible."Feb 08 06:07
schestowitzhttps://twitter.com/PrincessBibiRF_/status/1358475967606509570Feb 08 06:07
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@PrincessBibiRF_: @DrEricDing ‘CORONAVIRUS IS A COLD’ As Defined in AMA Encyclopedia what has changed 4 @CDCgov Dr Fauci @WHO… https://t.co/8tlhi5yDILFeb 08 06:07
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@PrincessBibiRF_: @DrEricDing ‘CORONAVIRUS IS A COLD’ As Defined in AMA Encyclopedia what has changed 4 @CDCgov Dr Fauci @WHO… https://t.co/8tlhi5yDILFeb 08 06:07
schestowitz"Feb 08 06:07
schestowitz‘CORONAVIRUS IS A COLD’Feb 08 06:07
schestowitzAsFeb 08 06:07
schestowitzDefined in AMA Encyclopedia what has changed 4 @CDCgovFeb 08 06:07
schestowitz Dr Fauci @WHOFeb 08 06:07
schestowitz @DrTedrosFeb 08 06:07
schestowitz @DrJudyAMikovitsFeb 08 06:07
schestowitz @DrEricDingFeb 08 06:07
schestowitz @drsanjayguptaFeb 08 06:07
schestowitz @DrSamirSinhaFeb 08 06:07
schestowitz @JoeBidenFeb 08 06:07
schestowitz @JustinTrudeauFeb 08 06:07
schestowitz @fordnationFeb 08 06:07
schestowitz @JohnToryFeb 08 06:07
schestowitz @YNHallakFeb 08 06:07
schestowitz @drdavidsamadiFeb 08 06:07
schestowitz @schestowitzFeb 08 06:07
schestowitz Treating COLD or COVID-19 WTH?Feb 08 06:07
schestowitz"Feb 08 06:07
schestowitzhttps://twitter.com/ParadymeUSA/status/1358464738875867137Feb 08 06:07
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@ParadymeUSA: @schestowitz Yup, just window dressing! The real problem is the astronomical cost & difficulty in obtaining & defen… https://t.co/NLxsHt30tAFeb 08 06:07
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@ParadymeUSA: @schestowitz Yup, just window dressing! The real problem is the astronomical cost & difficulty in obtaining & defen… https://t.co/NLxsHt30tAFeb 08 06:07
schestowitz"Yup, just window dressing! The real problem is the astronomical cost & difficulty in obtaining & defending patents in America today. This is particularly true for women & minorities. In the past even a poor Black, former slave, could get a patent (if merited) & become affluent!"Feb 08 06:07
schestowitzhttps://twitter.com/ParadymeUSA/status/1358465743457832963Feb 08 06:07
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@ParadymeUSA: @schestowitz The #USPTO now deliberately hinders independent inventors from obtaining good, strong, 'enforceable' p… https://t.co/xRdoGHWcgqFeb 08 06:07
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@ParadymeUSA: @schestowitz The #USPTO now deliberately hinders independent inventors from obtaining good, strong, 'enforceable' p… https://t.co/xRdoGHWcgqFeb 08 06:07
schestowitz"The #USPTO now deliberately hinders independent inventors from obtaining good, strong, 'enforceable' patents. The secret SAWS program was just an example of this. There are also other unwritten & unacknowledged ways that it's being done - including by 'sabotaging' claims."Feb 08 06:07
schestowitzhttps://twitter.com/glynmoody/status/1358407503399317505Feb 08 06:08
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@glynmoody: google's "new" approach is just a pointless figleaf for the flaws of ad surveillance. it must be binned completely… https://t.co/BrQqpiG2HNFeb 08 06:08
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@glynmoody: google's "new" approach is just a pointless figleaf for the flaws of ad surveillance. it must be binned completely… https://t.co/BrQqpiG2HNFeb 08 06:08
schestowitzhttps://twitter.com/adymitruk/status/1358303878437949441Feb 08 06:09
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@adymitruk: In short, don't run windows on a raspberry pi. https://t.co/F5BpTbo30LFeb 08 06:09
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@schestowitz: Raspberry Pied in the Face - Part I: What is Known About the Relationship Between #Microsoft and the #RaspberryPi F… https://t.co/V8A35BaGwpFeb 08 06:09
schestowitzhttps://twitter.com/zoobab/status/1358292770826424321Feb 08 06:09
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@zoobab: @schestowitz NNTP? I tought about mirroring Twitter to NNTP.Feb 08 06:09
*liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)Feb 08 07:04
*rianne__ has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)Feb 08 07:04
*rianne__ (~rianne@host81-154-168-60.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytesFeb 08 07:09
*rianne__ has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)Feb 08 07:14
*rianne__ (~rianne@host81-154-168-60.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytesFeb 08 07:49
*liberty_box (~liberty@host81-154-168-60.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytesFeb 08 07:50
*rianne__ has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)Feb 08 07:56
*liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)Feb 08 07:57
*rianne__ (~rianne@host81-154-168-60.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytesFeb 08 08:02
*liberty_box (~liberty@host81-154-168-60.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytesFeb 08 08:02
*rianne__ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)Feb 08 08:07
*liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)Feb 08 08:07
*liberty_box (~liberty@host81-154-168-60.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytesFeb 08 08:51
Techrights-secwhich client is recommended for geminii?Feb 08 08:52
Techrights-secI'm not seeing any in any of the repositories.Feb 08 08:52
Techrights-sechttps://gemini.circumlunar.space/clients.htmlFeb 08 08:52
Techrights-sechttps://git.sr.ht/~sircmpwn/gmniFeb 08 08:52
Techrights-secpossiblyFeb 08 08:52
Techrights-secnahFeb 08 08:52
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-gemini.circumlunar.space | Gemini clientsFeb 08 08:52
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-git.sr.ht | ~sircmpwn/gmni - sourcehut gitFeb 08 08:52
Techrights-secamfora is a bit betterFeb 08 08:52
Techrights-secvery different key bindings from gopher thoughFeb 08 08:52
Techrights-secI do not like their use of space, it should page rather than freeze toFeb 08 08:52
Techrights-secwait for intputFeb 08 08:52
Techrights-secThe TR gemini page has no hyperlins.Feb 08 08:52
Techrights-sechyperlinksFeb 08 08:52
Techrights-secav98 not so good eitherFeb 08 08:52
Techrights-secokFeb 08 08:52
Techrights-secit looks like it might be gopher + hyperlinksFeb 08 08:52
*rianne__ (~rianne@host81-154-168-60.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytesFeb 08 08:55
*Condor has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)Feb 08 08:55
schestowitzwould you be interested in writing the program (perl/bash) that updates the index in /home/gopher/gopher/ and adds/links to objects (which we already have in another homedir)?Feb 08 09:08
schestowitzI spent an hour last night setting up the whole thing (faster than I thought, including client sidex2, local raspi and main laptop). From what I can tell, dirs go under that above directory and the index file in its root is set to them link to pertinent items; we can rewrite the index files each dayFeb 08 09:10
Techrights-secI suppose, but which files are the source?Feb 08 09:10
Techrights-secIt should be somewhat straight forward to split pages up into separate directoriesFeb 08 09:10
Techrights-secso that text and images are available as gopher.Feb 08 09:10
Techrights-secGopher is easy to set up.  But what is the data source?  The ipfs dir isFeb 08 09:11
Techrights-secnot an appropirate sourceFeb 08 09:11
Techrights-secIt might be better if the conversion were done straight from the HTML.Feb 08 09:11
schestowitzthe directory that contains all the objects can be chmodded accordingly and copied across to /home/gopherFeb 08 09:12
schestowitzshould I grant you access and all?Feb 08 09:12
Techrights-secOk.   I can take a look then.Feb 08 09:13
Techrights-secmake a /home/gopher for the gopher spaceFeb 08 09:13
schestowitzoops, I mean to say gemini and say gopher insteadFeb 08 09:14
Techrights-secdisconnected?Feb 08 09:26
schestowitzI must have lost some linesFeb 08 09:26
schestowitzafter "make a /home/gopher for the gopher space"Feb 08 09:27
Techrights-sechttps://gemini.circumlunar.space/docs/specification.htmlFeb 08 09:27
Techrights-secLooks plain enough.  What kind of styles of text do you want decoratingFeb 08 09:27
Techrights-secH1, H2, H3, H4, etc?Feb 08 09:27
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-gemini.circumlunar.space | Gemini protocol specificationFeb 08 09:27
schestowitzup to you really, I think the structure can be made simple with substitutions for markup-like styleFeb 08 09:28
schestowitzindex.gmi is where the index goes, I have not explored (yet) anything to do with linking syntaxFeb 08 09:29
Techrights-secwhat about the source?  Should I use the RSS feed to check for newFeb 08 09:30
Techrights-secarticles and then fetch them over HTTP?Feb 08 09:30
schestowitzThat is possible too, but you might need to do some processing on the results, maybe some tools already exist for thatFeb 08 09:30
Techrights-secwhat about the source?  Should I use the RSS feed to check for newFeb 08 09:46
Techrights-secarticles and then fetch them over HTTP?Feb 08 09:46
Techrights-secIt looks easy enough.  (famous last words)Feb 08 09:46
schestowitzIt is def. doable, but the good and simpler 'warm-up', I think, is finding algorithmic approach to making an index of the files in ~/gemini/tr_text_version (maybe grouped in subpages for months/years)Feb 08 09:47
schestowitzso maybe there will be 1) intro section (welcome...) 2) latest section (from rss, updated by cron job) 3) archives section (static text, for irc logs also, the txt files in the ~/gemini/tr_text_version dir)Feb 08 09:48
schestowitzlater on we can worry about domain/noip and logisticsFeb 08 09:48
*mick_b64 (b95c1a47@185.92.26.71) has joined #techbytesFeb 08 11:31
*mick_b64 (b95c1a47@185.92.26.71) has left #techbytesFeb 08 11:31
*mick_b64 (b95c1a47@185.92.26.71) has joined #techbytesFeb 08 11:31
*mick_b64 (b95c1a47@185.92.26.71) has left #techbytesFeb 08 11:31
*kermit has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)Feb 08 13:27
*hook54321 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)Feb 08 13:27
*kermit (sid393220@pdpc/supporter/bronze/kermit) has joined #techbytesFeb 08 13:30
*hook54321 (sid149355@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-bhtnavctkqyzsvpi) has joined #techbytesFeb 08 13:30
schestowitz=Feb 08 13:45
schestowitzx https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/02/06/julian-assanges-accuser-fire-tell-all-book-relationship-wikileaks/Feb 08 13:45
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.telegraph.co.uk | Julian Assange's accuser under fire for tell-all book on relationship with Wikileaks founderFeb 08 13:45
Techrights-sec$ ls ~gemini/gemini/bin/gemini*.plFeb 08 14:08
Techrights-sec/home/gemini/gemini/bin/gemini-fetch-urls-from-rss.plFeb 08 14:08
Techrights-sec/home/gemini/gemini/bin/gemini-parse-html-to-gemini.plFeb 08 14:08
Techrights-secRough proof-of-concept prototypes.Feb 08 14:08
Techrights-secThe links don't get converted to Gemini yet.  That would requireFeb 08 14:08
Techrights-secfirst a routine to name the files and paths so theyFeb 08 14:08
Techrights-secare saved in predictable places.Feb 08 14:08
Techrights-seclibhtml-treebuilder-xpath-perl is neededFeb 08 14:08
schestowitzoh! very nice! perl is hard for me to read, I'm not skilled at it. but whatever works ^_^Feb 08 14:09
schestowitzright now I try to think how to slice the raspi story to present it clearly, later I want to do Daniel's Part II. turned out to be a super-busy day...Feb 08 14:09
Techrights-secI've tried to write clearly and without idoimsFeb 08 14:10
Techrights-secThe RPF incident(s) topic is one of the bigger stories to break in recent months, if not recent years.Feb 08 14:11
schestowitzI recorded a quick video on Eben's take, but need to think what to present when (among my notes)Feb 08 14:11
schestowitzi need a nap, worked 1-9am, did some cert stuff at workFeb 08 14:12
Techrights-secI gather he has not made a statement for more than a few days.  So his positionFeb 08 14:12
Techrights-secin that statement might (hopefully) be outdated.Feb 08 14:12
Techrights-secBe sure that the m$ resellers on staff at RPT and RPF are working overtimeFeb 08 14:13
Techrights-secto spin his head around.Feb 08 14:13
Techrights-secOk   naps work.Feb 08 14:13
Techrights-seccoffee naps are good tooFeb 08 14:13
Techrights-sec(nap while the coffee takes effect and then wake up as it kicks in(Feb 08 14:13
schestowitzI will try not to rush with gemini if that slows down writing. Thankfully the basics are in place now, bar domain and static ip (or noip) and the code you work onFeb 08 14:14
*Condor (~freenode@e1.nixmagic.com) has joined #techbytesFeb 08 16:20
Techrights-secthe nested headings and unorderd list items in the daily links willFeb 08 18:27
Techrights-secbe hard to parse into gemini.Feb 08 18:27
schestowitzdue to simplicity of the protocol and syntax, close approximations, I think, are all we can hope forFeb 08 18:28
Techrights-secI'll make a separate subroutine for the Daily LinksFeb 08 18:33
schestowitzThanks, that would be excellent. We might ever become the only such new aggregation source in geminiland or among the capsules (not sure how many in total there are, but it's growing for sure)Feb 08 18:34
Techrights-secIt'll take a bit since it needs to be arecursive pattern...Feb 08 19:29
schestowitzars (pizza 'doctor' colleague) the latest to underplay the raspi blunderFeb 08 19:29
*GNUmoon (~GNUmoon@gateway/tor-sasl/gnumoon) has joined #techbytesFeb 08 20:24
Techrights-secThe M$ shops are doing that.Feb 08 20:56
schestowitzMicrosoft propagandist Simon Bisson (longtime Microsoft mole in the media) now egging on Raspberry Pi to foist Microsoft's proprietary software on users, even against their will "https://www.techrepublic.com/article/raspberry-pi-and-visual-studio-code-a-great-combination/Feb 08 20:57
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.techrepublic.com | Raspberry Pi and Visual Studio Code: A great combination - TechRepublicFeb 08 20:57
Techrights-secWe'll also needFeb 08 21:21
Techrights-seclibtime-parsedate-perl - collection of Perl modules for time/date manipulationFeb 08 21:21
Techrights-secmade some progress but need to stop and let the thoughts clear for a whileFeb 08 21:21
*acer-box has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)Feb 08 23:31
-NickServ-acer-box!~acer-box@2a00:23c4:c3aa:7d01:3481:fe8f:6d26:a807 has just authenticated as you (schestowitz)Feb 08 23:32
*acer-box (~acer-box@unaffiliated/schestowitz) has joined #techbytesFeb 08 23:32
*libertybox_ (~schestowi@2a00:23c4:c3aa:7d01:3481:fe8f:6d26:a807) has joined #techbytesFeb 08 23:32
*libertybox has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)Feb 08 23:32
*Techrights-sec has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)Feb 08 23:35
*Techrights-sec2 (~quassel@2a00:23c4:c3aa:7d01:3481:fe8f:6d26:a807) has joined #techbytesFeb 08 23:35

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