●● IRC: #techbytes @ FreeNode: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 ●● ● Mar 16 [01:08] *Condor_ (~freenode@e1.nixmagic.com) has joined #techbytes [01:12] *liberty_box has quit (*.net *.split) [01:12] *TechBytesBot has quit (*.net *.split) [01:12] *Condor has quit (*.net *.split) [01:19] *liberty_box (~liberty@host81-154-169-167.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes ● Mar 16 [03:47] schestowitz__ https://www.2daygeek.com/configure-static-ip-address-in-ubuntu/ [03:48] *TechBytesBot (~b0t@techrights.org) has joined #techbytes [03:48] TechBytesBot Hello World! I'm TechBytesBot running phIRCe v0.75 ● Mar 16 [05:37] *GNUmoon2 has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds) ● Mar 16 [06:48] *GNUmoon2 (~GNUmoon@gateway/tor-sasl/gnumoon) has joined #techbytes ● Mar 16 [08:20] *genr8_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection) [08:23] *genr8_ (~genr8_@unaffiliated/genbtc) has joined #techbytes [08:58] schestowitz__ https://twitter.com/jamesabernard/status/1371551154056749058 [08:58] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@jamesabernard: @RuaisLampSilog @nixcraft Look at who in control of the Linux foundation, the governing body of the Linux kernel & https://t.co/xzs17qIFoX [08:58] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@jamesabernard: @RuaisLampSilog @nixcraft Look at who in control of the Linux foundation, the governing body of the Linux kernel & https://t.co/xzs17qIFoX [08:58] schestowitz__ "Look at who in control of the Linux foundation, the governing body of the Linux kernel & who pays Linus? The board is stacked with ex-microsft employees etc see http://techrights.org for more info" [08:58] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-techrights.org | Welcome to Techrights [08:58] schestowitz__ https://twitter.com/zoobab/status/1371550304865509385 [08:58] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@zoobab: "In December 2020 it was reported that the Swedish data protection authority had imposed the first GDPR-based fine https://t.co/3XnQzHDli6 [08:58] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@zoobab: "In December 2020 it was reported that the Swedish data protection authority had imposed the first GDPR-based fine https://t.co/3XnQzHDli6 [08:58] schestowitz__ " [08:59] schestowitz__ "In December 2020 it was reported that the Swedish data protection authority had imposed the first GDPR-based fine for lack of adequate protection of sensitive data stored in a USbased cloud platform after the Schrems II decision." http://techrights.org/2021/03/15/epoleaks-report-march-2021-part-7/ @maxschrems [08:59] schestowitz__ @smetsjp [08:59] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-techrights.org | EPO and Microsoft Collude to Break the Law Part VII: Lipstick on a Pig | Techrights [08:59] schestowitz__ " [08:59] schestowitz__ https://twitter.com/zoobab/status/1371549306377895941 [08:59] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@zoobab: SafeHarbour https://t.co/eWmFdseC5i Lipstick on a Pig @maxschrems https://t.co/6AaiyBqDJo [08:59] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes--> techrights.org | EPO and Microsoft Collude to Break the Law Part VII: Lipstick on a Pig | Techrights [08:59] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@zoobab: SafeHarbour https://t.co/eWmFdseC5i Lipstick on a Pig @maxschrems https://t.co/6AaiyBqDJo [08:59] schestowitz__ https://twitter.com/zoobab/status/1371549013972029444 [08:59] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@zoobab: SafeHarbour https://t.co/yFBoulruYb @maxschrems ● Mar 16 [09:56] *GNUmoon (~GNUmoon@gateway/tor-sasl/gnumoon) has joined #techbytes [09:57] *GNUmoon2 has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds) ● Mar 16 [11:15] *GNUmoon2 (~GNUmoon@gateway/tor-sasl/gnumoon) has joined #techbytes [11:17] *GNUmoon has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds) ● Mar 16 [12:39] *rianne__ has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) [12:39] *rianne__ (~rianne@host81-154-169-167.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes ● Mar 16 [18:11] *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds) [18:12] *rianne__ has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds) [18:32] *rianne__ (~rianne@host81-154-169-167.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes [18:32] *liberty_box (~liberty@host81-154-169-167.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes [18:46] schestowitz__ https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2021/03/epo-declares-eeqe-format-went-very.html [18:46] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | EPO declares eEQE format went "very smoothly", but do candidates agree? - The IPKat [18:47] schestowitz__ " [18:47] schestowitz__ JRSunday, 14 March 2021 at 12:09:00 GMT [18:47] schestowitz__ It is the opposite of "smooth". Chaotic and confusion comes to mind. For paper D - candidates had no access to EN or FR version for 30 minutes. They started to randomly add times 10 minutes towards to the end of D1, shorten breaks for other parts. The language issued appeared again in the 2nd part. [18:47] schestowitz__ For paper A, it was full of contradictory and confusing statements. [18:47] schestowitz__ Paper B was in my view not doable in 3.5 hours. The formatting of claims were horrendous. It took me 30 minutes to copy claims over to the text editor and correct formatting. We then had 3 independent claims, 3rd party observations and a list of errors from missing figure labels to NOT indicating amendments in the client's amended letter. [18:47] schestowitz__ Paper C was also a horrendous exam online. The split created a host of issues and the paper became very unbalanced. Further, the claim formatting was also a major issue. It seems that the committee did not sufficiently consider the split and adapted the paper appropriately. [18:47] schestowitz__ Reply [18:47] schestowitz__ AnonymousSunday, 14 March 2021 at 12:10:00 GMT [18:47] schestowitz__ NO where near smooth. They are on another planet. Every candidate I spoken to had issues with the eEQE. Candidates are NOT against online exams but not with this current system. It was far too complex for no reason. [18:47] schestowitz__ Reply [18:47] schestowitz__ BeckySunday, 14 March 2021 at 12:12:00 GMT [18:47] schestowitz__ Its actually quite insulting to suggest that the system was running smoothly. They didn't even wait for candidates to provide feedback via the EPO feedback system before declaring major success. Candidates feedback and opinions are ignored or brushed aside as always. [18:47] schestowitz__ Reply [18:47] schestowitz__ AnonymousSunday, 14 March 2021 at 12:13:00 GMT [18:47] schestowitz__ Its clear the papers this year were not adapted at all for the e-EQE online format, particularly papers B and C. Paper A was not well written either. It does led me to believe that checks were not sufficiently carried out with the papers this year. [18:47] schestowitz__ Reply [18:47] schestowitz__ JonSunday, 14 March 2021 at 12:16:00 GMT [18:47] schestowitz__ The EPO has shot themselves in the foot. I'm glad IPKAT have provided an article on this because the EPO is trying to make it sound like everything was fine to everyone else in the profession. [18:47] schestowitz__ The truth is that the wiseflow software is not suitable for e-EQEs. You can't highlight, compare documents on the same page, can't copy without losing formatting, not allowed to open more than 9 tabs or the software will crash, can't use common functionality on keyboards such as ALT+TAB. Allowing parts to be printed but not others? [18:47] schestowitz__ We had 3 mocks (all very late) and as far as I can tell, not many of these were fixed. [18:47] schestowitz__ I want like to know what the EPO think is "smooth" about this year's format. [18:47] schestowitz__ Reply [18:47] schestowitz__ AnonymousSunday, 14 March 2021 at 12:18:00 GMT [18:47] schestowitz__ I was hugely affected by the language-gate in D1. It carried through to the next day in paper A as I was so anxious and worried that night. The EPO didn't release a statement until the day after to acknowledge their blunder. [18:47] schestowitz__ Reply [18:47] schestowitz__ AnonymousSunday, 14 March 2021 at 12:20:00 GMT [18:47] schestowitz__ A very embarrassing statement by the EPO. [18:47] schestowitz__ There are some positives doing it online but I'm afraid to say that my experience has been largely negative with the current eEQE system. They need to keep the system simple but the EPO has managed to make difficult year for candidates into a horrendous week. [18:47] schestowitz__ Reply [18:47] schestowitz__ AnonymousSunday, 14 March 2021 at 12:22:00 GMT [18:47] schestowitz__ PR gone wrong. [18:47] schestowitz__ Thanks to the EPO PR department as this will be a classic textbook study for future candidates taking PR lessons. [18:47] schestowitz__ Reply [18:47] schestowitz__ AnonymousSunday, 14 March 2021 at 12:26:00 GMT [18:48] schestowitz__ It was not just Paper D. I did not have access to Paper B in English for several minutes. [18:48] schestowitz__ Reply [18:48] schestowitz__ AnonymousSunday, 14 March 2021 at 12:27:00 GMT [18:48] schestowitz__ When you have experienced tutors struggling with the papers this year i.e. papers B and C, it appears to me that these papers were not adapted properly for online. [18:48] schestowitz__ There are also numerous IT issues like wiseflow crashing and printing issues as well as the the language problem in D1. Its far from "smooth" and I would say the majority of candidates would consider it a "rough" experience. [18:48] schestowitz__ Reply [18:48] schestowitz__ NOT ONSunday, 14 March 2021 at 12:30:00 GMT [18:48] schestowitz__ A disappointing statement by the EPO which clearly does not resonate with candidates and even tutors' experience of the system during the EQE week. They should take down that ridiculous statement. [18:48] schestowitz__ Reply [18:48] schestowitz__ AnonymousSunday, 14 March 2021 at 12:32:00 GMT [18:48] schestowitz__ Can't help but laugh that they think the language issue was only a few minutes. It took 30 minutes for many candidates to resolve - that's 30% of time available in D1. [18:48] schestowitz__ They didn't even mention about those candidates who got booted off the system randomly despite being promised the extra 30 minutes. Where was that in the statement? [18:48] schestowitz__ Reply [18:48] schestowitz__ JoJoSunday, 14 March 2021 at 12:56:00 GMT [18:48] schestowitz__ With this press release, I fear the EPO will disregard many of the concerns candidates have legitimately raised about the software [18:48] schestowitz__ Reply [18:48] schestowitz__ AnonymousSunday, 14 March 2021 at 12:58:00 GMT [18:48] schestowitz__ Absolutely disagree that the e-EQE format ran smoothly. What were they thinking releasing a statement like this when it is not the truth at all. [18:48] schestowitz__ Reply [18:48] schestowitz__ MichaelSunday, 14 March 2021 at 13:02:00 GMT [18:48] schestowitz__ It is a wholly inappropriate statement to make. My firm and myself will shortly be submitting a formal complaint to the Exam Sect about the lack of adaption of the exam papers as well as the wiseflow system in general. [18:48] schestowitz__ Reply [18:48] schestowitz__ AnonymousSunday, 14 March 2021 at 15:33:00 GMT [18:48] schestowitz__ I think the examination process was well organized and the EQE board did their best as usually. Every year all involved witness a comparable amount of anger and bold statements. [18:48] schestowitz__ Reply [18:48] schestowitz__ Replies [18:48] schestowitz__ AnonymousSunday, 14 March 2021 at 17:08:00 GMT [18:48] schestowitz__ There is no doubt that they did the best they could. It was not an easy task. However, stating that the eEQE was a success is simply not true and quite frankly an insensitive and disrespectful statement towards this year's candidates. The software was not suitable for online patent exams. Simple functions like strikethrough, which I am pretty sure a patent attorney uses daily, were not available, not to mention that highlighting [18:48] schestowitz__ in the pdfs was also not possible and neither was annotating. The side-by-side view was far from perfect and it was very time consuming to navigate from page 1 to page 12 as one could not just scroll down as in a "normal" pdf, but had to scroll down to the bottom of the page and then click to get to the next page (and repeat for every single page). The formatting in the editor was completely lost if one wanted to copy a passage from [18:48] schestowitz__ one section in the editor to another. All the issues reported during Mock 1, 2, and 3 clearly showed that the system was not ready, but nothing was done to fix it. One can only hope that a different software will be chosen for next year's EQE and also that the exam papers will be properly tested under exam conditions using the software before deciding to use them as exam papers. [18:48] schestowitz__ AnonymousSunday, 14 March 2021 at 17:47:00 GMT [18:48] schestowitz__ I'm not sure saying the e-EQE running smoothly this year is accurate at all. The DI situation has never happened before and papers A, B and C seemed like they have been through proper checks. There were lots of errors and mistakes in the papers. [18:48] schestowitz__ I don't think it is an easy task but equally, they had a whole year to sort this. The PEB exams were held in less time and more successfully. It is simply down to the online format being much simpler. Why create an over-complicated system where both parties (EPO and candidates) will only suffer. [18:48] schestowitz__ AnonymousSunday, 14 March 2021 at 17:51:00 GMT [18:48] schestowitz__ papers A, B and C seemed like they haven't been through proper checks. There were lots of errors and mistakes in the papers [18:48] schestowitz__ Reply [18:48] schestowitz__ AbsurdSunday, 14 March 2021 at 17:48:00 GMT [18:48] schestowitz__ It is absurd to suggest that things were smooth this year. Perhaps they need to talk to candidates and invigilators before issuing such ridiculous statement. [18:48] schestowitz__ Reply [18:48] schestowitz__ AnonymousSunday, 14 March 2021 at 17:50:00 GMT [18:49] schestowitz__ I agree with others. The system was clearly not ready to go online. Papers were not sufficiently adapted to the new eEQE format - that is clear this year. What is disappointing is that the EPO had 1 year to sort it out. The week was far from ideal for many many candidates so it cannot be labelled as a success at all. I didn't expect the EPO to release such a false statement. [18:49] schestowitz__ Reply [18:49] schestowitz__ AnonymousSunday, 14 March 2021 at 17:53:00 GMT [18:49] schestowitz__ I'm grateful we can do the exams online. I'm not grateful that the EPO has decided brushed aside candidates painful experience, concerns and feedback with this press release. I don't think they will take anything into account this year judging by this press release. [18:49] schestowitz__ Reply [18:49] schestowitz__ AnonymousSunday, 14 March 2021 at 17:53:00 GMT [18:49] schestowitz__ I sat all four papers for the first time, having been unable to last year due to the late cancellation. [18:49] schestowitz__ I am thankful (I think- stress has been unnecessarily high) for being able to sit the exams without another year's delay. [18:49] schestowitz__ However, the system and adaptations were wholly unsuitable. Limiting myself to technical problems outside my control, I had four technical problems related to the software in spread over the four exams. I, along with other candidates, took the considerable time to attend the three mocks and try to digest the huge amounts of material and contradictory statements in the lead up to the exams. Thus, the technical problems I experienced [18:49] schestowitz__ cannot be considered my fault. [18:49] schestowitz__ My experience of, on average, one technical problem per exam is not at all unusual, based on slacking with several fellow candidates. [18:49] schestowitz__ This is all before one comments upon the inadequacies of the system when actually working and the dodgy adaptation of the papers. [18:49] schestowitz__ The self-congratulatory statement from the EPO is a final kick in the teeth and yet another example of the poor communications from the EPO throughout the set up and conducting of EQE 2021. [18:49] schestowitz__ Reply [18:49] schestowitz__ AnonymousSunday, 14 March 2021 at 17:55:00 GMT [18:49] schestowitz__ Nobody is saying that they do not want e-EQE online. Indeed, I too didn't expect everything to go well but the start of the week really was a bad start. Papers B and C were then clearly not fit for the current e-EQE online format. I would throw in paper A into that mix too. I didn't expect any press release to happen by the EPO but to release a statement to suggests things went well does NOT reflect what actually happened during the [18:49] schestowitz__ week. [18:49] schestowitz__ Reply [18:49] schestowitz__ AnonymousSunday, 14 March 2021 at 17:57:00 GMT [18:49] schestowitz__ Because they seem to have started from the quoting that all candidates will cheat (i say this based on the tinge and content of communications and the first webinar) [18:49] schestowitz__ Reply [18:49] schestowitz__ AnonymousSunday, 14 March 2021 at 18:06:00 GMT [18:49] schestowitz__ I'm thankful that we have been told to email the exam sect, who will then forward onto the exam committee, but will anonymity be respected? [18:49] schestowitz__ The last thing I want is to write something which will be used against me. [18:49] schestowitz__ Reply [18:49] schestowitz__ CamSunday, 14 March 2021 at 18:34:00 GMT [18:49] schestowitz__ At least set up a review. I don't believe many people in the EPO thought nothing was wrong with the new eEQE format. There were positives but there are also clearly more things that can be done to improve. [18:49] schestowitz__ Reply [18:49] schestowitz__ Ned LuddSunday, 14 March 2021 at 18:39:00 GMT [18:49] schestowitz__ Of course candidates are very grateful that the EQE went ahead, but "doing your best" should still guarantee a certain minimum quality. It is a professional qualification, critical for future careers. [18:49] schestowitz__ I am sure the D1-part 1 issues will be taken into account. [18:49] schestowitz__ But no-one who can state with a straight face that Wiseflow, LD Browser and Zendesk was a good solution. It was cobbled together in the last weeks (Zendesk invigilators were not allowed to speak because it would be registered as "second voice" in the room by the AI, and candidates had to check every 20 mins whether they were still logged in to Zendesk due to the automatic timeout). The info on the website was updated just days before [18:49] schestowitz__ the exam. [18:49] schestowitz__ If the individual struggles of candidates are also taken into account in the marking (also "doing their best"), then it does not matter what the official press releases say. But flexibility should work both ways. [18:49] schestowitz__ Reply [18:49] schestowitz__ Replies [18:49] schestowitz__ AnonymousMonday, 15 March 2021 at 09:00:00 GMT [18:49] schestowitz__ I think its clear the committee will need to be flexible and apply much consideration this year. Whether they do this or not remains to be seen. As you've mentioned already Ned, there are far too many factors that could influence the exams this year. Further, the papers do not really seem to fit well with the current online format. [18:49] schestowitz__ Reply [18:49] schestowitz__ S.Sunday, 14 March 2021 at 19:37:00 GMT [18:50] schestowitz__ Actually, the D1-1 was "just one" and the most apparent of the drawbacks. I believe that the structure of this year's be and even more the split paper C, have been the worst issue ever. I completely failed paper C after so much studying due to lack of time, which did not allow me going properly through the documents. Further, I must admit that the online exam is extremely stressful (you feel drawbacks just around the corner) and [18:50] schestowitz__ fatiguing. [18:50] schestowitz__ Reply [18:50] schestowitz__ Replies [18:50] schestowitz__ AnonymousMonday, 15 March 2021 at 08:58:00 GMT [18:50] schestowitz__ Agreed about paper C and also paper B and to a certain extent, Paper A as well. [18:50] schestowitz__ For B and C, the claim formatting was so difficult to work with - it introduces errors and mistakes as the formatting was absolutely unbearable at times. [18:50] schestowitz__ Reply [18:50] schestowitz__ J-DoMonday, 15 March 2021 at 09:02:00 GMT [18:50] schestowitz__ My opinion - they need to scrap wiseflow system for future years. Its unworkable for these exams. [18:50] schestowitz__ Reply [18:50] schestowitz__ The anonymous EQE candidate helperMonday, 15 March 2021 at 10:54:00 GMT [18:50] schestowitz__ Would we have been April 1st, I would have taken EPOs publication on the success of the e-EQE as a nice Aprils fool joke, but this publication is adding insult to injury. [18:50] schestowitz__ By no ways the e-EQE in the form it was proposed this year can be a true equivalent of a paper EQE. Unless the EPO proposes a system in which offers the same possibilities as any standard text processing program, any kind of e-EQE will not be equivalent to a paper EQE. [18:50] schestowitz__ The decision to cancel the EQE was taken in March 20, the decision to go over to an e-EQE in July 20. This was part of the strategic orientation of the present head of the EPO. Everything has to be digitised to the maximum. An e-EQE is as such a good thing, but not the e-EQE which was offered at the beginning of March. [18:50] schestowitz__ Why did it take till shortly before Christmas to offer a first opportunity to the candidates to test the system? There were then two further test possibilities before the exam, the last one just a week before the actual exam. This is not acceptable. [18:50] schestowitz__ What did the people in charge of the e-EQE think when they sent out at the beginning of February a users notice of 90 pages? This should have been done in September 20 at the latest. It simply shows the amateurism of those involved. Using a text processor in which the most basic key combinations ends the candidate to lock the system or even to exclude himself is not acceptable. [18:50] schestowitz__ That not all possible candidates participated in the mock is not necessarily to blame them. Lots of candidates hoped to use company computers, but this was not possible as very few IT managers were prepared to give EQE candidates administrators rights. Some needed to get equipment like larger displays or even cameras. [18:50] schestowitz__ The papers used were the papers foreseen for 2020. The suggestion was made to use the 2020 papers as mocks. In view of the considerable amount of costs needed to draft a paper this was a no go. Paper C had to be split, but the split seemed quite arbitrary and not thought through. [18:50] schestowitz__ Normally each paper is benchmarked before it is let on the candidates. In view of turn of events, one can have strong doubts that this was done with the present e-EQE. [18:50] schestowitz__ Everything was rushed in the two months before the exam. And trying to sell this as a great success shows how far some people at the EPO have lost touch with reality. [18:50] schestowitz__ The previous comments were clear enough to show what reality was. The gap between reality and the fiction described by the EPO is awesome. [18:50] schestowitz__ I would add that according the EPO, the quality of the products it delivers has steadily increased since 2010. Why should it be different with the e-EQE? [18:50] schestowitz__ Reply [18:50] schestowitz__ Proof of the puddingMonday, 15 March 2021 at 11:33:00 GMT [18:50] schestowitz__ For those who are seasoned observers of the EPO, it is no surprise that their management would decide to issue a self-congratulatory statement that others might find difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile with their understanding of events. [18:50] schestowitz__ The difference on this occasion is that there are many first-hand witnesses that can testify to the fact that, all things considered, the EPO's statement is complete BS. With this in mind, it is an illuminating exercise to consider how much weight to afford to statements from the EPO in circumstances where it is much more difficult to obtain independent evidence to either prove or disprove the veracity of the EPO's reporting. [18:50] schestowitz__ Reply [18:50] schestowitz__ AnonymousMonday, 15 March 2021 at 13:37:00 GMT [18:50] schestowitz__ It was clear that the papers were not adapted or adequately checked. There were alot of mistakes in the papers and plenty of confusing/contradictory statements across papers A, B and C. That's not usually the case at all. [18:50] schestowitz__ " ● Mar 16 [20:34] *GNUmoon2 has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds) [20:52] *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds) [20:52] *rianne__ has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds) ● Mar 16 [21:13] *rianne__ (~rianne@host81-154-169-167.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes [21:14] *liberty_box (~liberty@host81-154-169-167.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes ● Mar 16 [22:03] *GNUmoon2 (~GNUmoon@gateway/tor-sasl/gnumoon) has joined #techbytes [22:27] *GNUmoon2 has quit (Remote host closed the connection) [22:28] *GNUmoon2 (~GNUmoon@gateway/tor-sasl/gnumoon) has joined #techbytes [22:29] *rianne_ (~rianne@host81-154-169-167.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes [22:35] *rianne__ has quit (*.net *.split) ● Mar 16 [23:29] *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds) [23:29] *rianne_ has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds) [23:32] *GNUmoon2 has quit (Remote host closed the connection) [23:36] *GNUmoon (~GNUmoon@gateway/tor-sasl/gnumoon) has joined #techbytes [23:38] *GNUmoon has quit (Remote host closed the connection) [23:41] *GNUmoon (~GNUmoon@gateway/tor-sasl/gnumoon) has joined #techbytes [23:57] *rianne_ (~rianne@host81-154-169-167.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes [23:57] *liberty_box (~liberty@host81-154-169-167.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes