Join us now at the IRC channel.
| -->liberty_box (~liberty@host81-154-169-2.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes | Jan 18 04:38 | |
| -->libertybox_ (~schestowi@host81-154-169-2.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes | Jan 18 04:42 | |
| -->acer-box (~acer-box@host81-154-169-2.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes | Jan 18 04:42 | |
| <--acer-box has quit (Changing host) | Jan 18 04:42 | |
| -->acer-box (~acer-box@unaffiliated/schestowitz) has joined #techbytes | Jan 18 04:42 | |
| <--acer-box__ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds) | Jan 18 04:44 | |
| <--libertybox has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds) | Jan 18 04:45 | |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/stautistic/status/1218393973087014913 | Jan 18 05:20 |
|---|---|---|
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@stautistic: I’d be fine with them moving to USB-C 🤷🏻♂️ https://t.co/NHKxs9TniS | Jan 18 05:20 | |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@schestowitz: ● NEWS ● #bbc #apple #plannedObsolescence ☞ Apple may have to abandon Lightning connector cable… https://t.co/Njn3giTkxm | Jan 18 05:20 | |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/Deepti108/status/1218363993179312128 | Jan 18 05:21 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@Deepti108: The work economy is still awful for many and what was described is terrible. To blame the Republicans for this is… https://t.co/5Qw9Wzzikk | Jan 18 05:21 | |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@Deepti108: The work economy is still awful for many and what was described is terrible. To blame the Republicans for this is… https://t.co/5Qw9Wzzikk | Jan 18 05:21 | |
| schestowitz | "The work economy is still awful for many and what was described is terrible. To blame the Republicans for this is absolutely wrong! I blame the democrats for NOT working with the Republicans and our real President, @realDonaldTrump" | Jan 18 05:21 |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/nanotek911/status/1218316548353511424 | Jan 18 05:22 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@nanotek911: @schestowitz Or they could just abandon Europe as well. | Jan 18 05:22 | |
| <--X-Scale has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds) | Jan 18 15:09 | |
| schestowitz | https://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/all/2020/01/16/single_european_patent/ | Jan 18 18:05 |
| schestowitz | " | Jan 18 18:05 |
| schestowitz | ECJ juridisction | Jan 18 18:05 |
| schestowitz | The German Constitutional Court has already agreed in several instances that sovereignty may be ceded to the relevant supranational institutions: UN, ECJ and the ECB being notable examples. Brexit is a problem, but for the EU fortunately only for a couple of weeks. After that the rules can be redrafted so that the UK isn't a compulsory signatory but can join as an observer (similar agreements with non-EU states exist). | Jan 18 18:05 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-forums.theregister.co.uk | The dream of a single European patent may die next month – and everyone is in denial about it • The Register Forums | Jan 18 18:05 | |
| schestowitz | 0 2 Reply | Jan 18 18:05 |
| schestowitz | Thursday 16th January 2020 12:00 GMTDavCravSilver badge | Jan 18 18:05 |
| schestowitz | Reply Icon | Jan 18 18:05 |
| schestowitz | Re: ECJ juridisction | Jan 18 18:06 |
| schestowitz | "After that the rules can be redrafted so that the UK isn't a compulsory signatory but can join as an observer (similar agreements with non-EU states exist)." | Jan 18 18:06 |
| schestowitz | If the reules are redrafted, it has to go through the whole approval process again. | Jan 18 18:06 |
| schestowitz | And without the UK, the EPO is still important, but much less so. I expect there to be less than zero chance of the current government of handing control of patents to the EU, especially if it's not part of the trade deal. | Jan 18 18:06 |
| schestowitz | 8 0 Reply | Jan 18 18:06 |
| schestowitz | Thursday 16th January 2020 12:22 GMTDavCravSilver badge | Jan 18 18:06 |
| schestowitz | Reply Icon | Jan 18 18:06 |
| schestowitz | Re: ECJ juridisction | Jan 18 18:06 |
| schestowitz | "And without the UK, the EPO is still important, but much less so." | Jan 18 18:06 |
| schestowitz | Sorry, I meant that without the UK, the UPC is still important. As far as I know, the UK has no plans to leave the EPO. | Jan 18 18:06 |
| schestowitz | 1 0 Reply | Jan 18 18:06 |
| schestowitz | Thursday 16th January 2020 14:26 GMTCharlie ClarkSilver badge | Jan 18 18:06 |
| schestowitz | Reply Icon | Jan 18 18:06 |
| schestowitz | Re: ECJ juridisction | Jan 18 18:06 |
| schestowitz | Getting the rules amended sans UK and approved is likely to be pretty easy. The UK won't have much say in the matter and is likely to like it if it wants any kind of trade deal. Welcome to asymmetric trade negotiations. | Jan 18 18:06 |
| schestowitz | 1 5 Reply | Jan 18 18:06 |
| schestowitz | Thursday 16th January 2020 23:11 GMTDavCravSilver badge | Jan 18 18:06 |
| schestowitz | Reply Icon | Jan 18 18:06 |
| schestowitz | Re: ECJ juridisction | Jan 18 18:06 |
| schestowitz | "Getting the rules amended sans UK and approved is likely to be pretty easy." | Jan 18 18:06 |
| schestowitz | Won't it have to go through every national parliament again? | Jan 18 18:06 |
| schestowitz | 3 0 Reply | Jan 18 18:06 |
| schestowitz | Friday 17th January 2020 10:35 GMTCharlie ClarkSilver badge | Jan 18 18:06 |
| schestowitz | Reply Icon | Jan 18 18:06 |
| schestowitz | Re: ECJ juridisction | Jan 18 18:06 |
| schestowitz | Possibly, but all anti-UK changes will be pretty easy to push through, thanks to Johnson's fecking appalling attempts at diplomacy. There will be the usual haggling over where the court should be, that's all. | Jan 18 18:06 |
| schestowitz | 0 1 Reply | Jan 18 18:06 |
| schestowitz | Friday 17th January 2020 11:29 GMTDavCravSilver badge | Jan 18 18:06 |
| schestowitz | Reply Icon | Jan 18 18:06 |
| schestowitz | Re: ECJ juridisction | Jan 18 18:06 |
| schestowitz | Hmm. You (not just you) seem to think that the EU27 are a very united bunch. In fact, without the UK in the mix, they will be slightly more united, but only because they will be pulling in 27 different directions, rather than 28. | Jan 18 18:06 |
| schestowitz | The UK could be relied upon by a bunch of countries to throw a spanner in the works of most of the stupid Euro-nonsense, and so what came out was the better stuff. Now the Dutch, Danes and Swedes will have to do their own objecting. | Jan 18 18:06 |
| schestowitz | 2 0 Reply | Jan 18 18:06 |
| schestowitz | Thursday 16th January 2020 15:44 GMTI ain't SpartacusGold badge | Jan 18 18:06 |
| schestowitz | Reply Icon | Jan 18 18:06 |
| schestowitz | Re: ECJ juridisction | Jan 18 18:06 |
| schestowitz | The German Constitutional Court has already agreed in several instances that sovereignty may be ceded to the relevant supranational institutions: UN, ECJ and the ECB being notable examples. | Jan 18 18:06 |
| schestowitz | This is true. But within limits. It was the ECJ itself that said it had supremacy over national courts in judgements, it wasn't written into the treaties. I don't think it went into the Lisbon Treaty either, though I might be remembering that wrong - I'm sure someone will correct me if so. | Jan 18 18:06 |
| schestowitz | However, even then, the German constitutional court has said that it is the only guardian of the German constitution (though isn't it a basic law and not a constitution?), and it has the final say. Changes were made to the Eurozone bail-out system for example, even though the ECJ had ruled it legal, in order to comply with objections from the German court. | Jan 18 18:06 |
| schestowitz | So you never know. Although one of its stipulations was that the German government don't have the right to give unlimited commitments of money to the EU, they have to be limited to known amounts and voted on, without changing the constitution/basic law. But I'm sure one of the things the German economists who took the case argued was that the ECB Target 2 system was just such an unlimited committment - and the court didn't rule in favour of | Jan 18 18:06 |
| schestowitz | that. Even though it clearly is such. German Target 2 exposure is now heading for the € trillion mark - the Italian Central bank alone owes the Bundesbank €400 billion. | Jan 18 18:07 |
| schestowitz | It's one of the hidden flaws of the Eurozone, where the balances were supposed to equal out over time. And haven't. Though I'm still not convinced it isn't so complicated as to not matter - in that even if Germany has lost a vast amount of wealth via the system, the number isn't really actually that vast when you compare it to wealth generated in the 20 years of the Euro project. Plus the "debt" would be impossible to collect anyway - so it's | Jan 18 18:07 |
| schestowitz | better to just call it a central bank accounting system and forget all about it. | Jan 18 18:07 |
| schestowitz | 4 0 Reply | Jan 18 18:07 |
| schestowitz | Thursday 16th January 2020 17:22 GMTCharlie ClarkSilver badge | Jan 18 18:07 |
| schestowitz | Reply Icon | Jan 18 18:07 |
| schestowitz | Re: ECJ juridisction | Jan 18 18:07 |
| schestowitz | though isn't it a basic law and not a constitution | Jan 18 18:07 |
| schestowitz | It's both: Grundgesetz == basic law and Verfassung == constitution. The two are used interchangeably. | Jan 18 18:07 |
| schestowitz | There are several issues where the GCC has unequivocally ceded sovereignty to the ECJ. The ECB judgement made reference to it – the ECJ sits above the GCC – but the ECB was trying to do things that weren't covered by its mandate (buying national debt directly is explicitly prohibited) so that the Bundesbank could, and is, restricted in its asset purchases. The rulings from "Karlsruhe" as the court is also referred, though another court | Jan 18 18:07 |
| schestowitz | also sits there, are usually very well worth reading. | Jan 18 18:07 |
| schestowitz | 3 0 Reply | Jan 18 18:07 |
| schestowitz | Friday 17th January 2020 13:57 GMTI ain't SpartacusGold badge | Jan 18 18:07 |
| schestowitz | Reply Icon | Jan 18 18:07 |
| schestowitz | Re: ECJ juridisction | Jan 18 18:07 |
| schestowitz | Charlie Clark, | Jan 18 18:07 |
| schestowitz | Thanks. I seem to remember reading somewhere that there was a difference between basic law and constitution - but German politics isn't exactly my area. | Jan 18 18:07 |
| schestowitz | 0 0 Reply | Jan 18 18:07 |
| schestowitz | Thursday 16th January 2020 11:32 GMTPhil O'SophicalSilver badge | Jan 18 18:07 |
| schestowitz | There's no particular reason that "Europe" has to mean "EU". There are other European organizations, the European Space Agency comes to mind, whose membership extends far beyond the EU. | Jan 18 18:07 |
| schestowitz | A patent court should be able to determine it's jurisdiction with the agreement of the desired members. If it wants to be EU, fine. If it wants to be pan-European, fine. Obviously (as noted in the article) the legal constraints will be different. It may be easier to restrict it to the EU, but would that be useful? In something as complex as the area of patent law, picking a solution that's easy is likely to result in one that's inadequate. | Jan 18 18:07 |
| schestowitz | The main issue here must surely be what it is intended to achieve. It seems that the idea is that inventors will be able to file a single patent and have it cover multiple countries, rather than face the cost and difficulty of filing separate patents in every country. A sound idea, but that does require all the countries involved to protect IP in the same way, and the bigger the EU gets the harder it is to have 100% agreement on any complex | Jan 18 18:07 |
| schestowitz | issue. Many of the existing EU directives are intentionally ambiguous, to allow countries to fudge things enough to claim compliance, but they only work because the countries want them to. Big corporate lawyers earn their living by finding loopholes in such agreements. | Jan 18 18:07 |
| schestowitz | I can't help but feel that (even without the sordid precedent of Battistelli and the EPO) any patent organization that tries to create a unified set of rules across the EU will do nothing but make lawyers rich, while the small inventors who might hope to gain from a unified international patent will be sidelined. | Jan 18 18:07 |
| schestowitz | 11 0 Reply | Jan 18 18:07 |
| schestowitz | Thursday 16th January 2020 12:19 GMTrg287Silver badge | Jan 18 18:07 |
| schestowitz | Reply Icon | Jan 18 18:07 |
| schestowitz | There's no particular reason that "Europe" has to mean "EU". There are other European organizations, the European Space Agency comes to mind, whose membership extends far beyond the EU. | Jan 18 18:07 |
| schestowitz | The European Patent Organisation is exactly the same. It is HQ'd in Munich and is not legally bound by - nor a part of - the EU. As with ESA, EPO members include nations such as Switzerland. | Jan 18 18:07 |
| schestowitz | Battistelli aside, a cynic might suggest that the UPC is an attempt to insert a shim into the EPO's neutrality and bring them into the EU bit-by-bit by means of layering in legislation that only applies to EU members and transitioning the EPO's work to EU work, much like the EU doing a MitM on ESA funding and turning ESA projects into "EU Projects delivered by ESA". Galileo springs to mind. | Jan 18 18:07 |
| schestowitz | There is no legitimate reason why a European Patent administered by the EPO should not be valid in all EPO member states (provided they all ratify it, etc). The EU doesn't need to come into it other than compelling all EU Members to ratify the EPO standard (not theirs!) so that IP can't be subject to a form of arbitrage where copyright infringement can take place within the single market, which would cause all sorts of issues - i.e. Free | Jan 18 18:07 |
| schestowitz | Trade and Single Market rules could conflict with EPO signatories blocking imports of an infringing product from another EU but non-EPO nation). | Jan 18 18:07 |
| schestowitz | 11 0 Reply | Jan 18 18:07 |
| schestowitz | Thursday 16th January 2020 13:37 GMTCuddlesSilver badge | Jan 18 18:07 |
| schestowitz | Reply Icon | Jan 18 18:07 |
| schestowitz | "There's no particular reason that "Europe" has to mean "EU". There are other European organizations, the European Space Agency comes to mind, whose membership extends far beyond the EU. | Jan 18 18:07 |
| schestowitz | A patent court should be able to determine it's jurisdiction with the agreement of the desired members. If it wants to be EU, fine. If it wants to be pan-European, fine." | Jan 18 18:07 |
| schestowitz | The problem seems to be when the general becomes the specific. Yes, there's no reason Europe has to mean EU, and a patent organisation can certainly extent over more than just the EU, as the EPO demonstrates. The trouble is that the specific proposal for the UPC is defined as being only for the EU. And it also requires the UK to be a signatory. That's a bit of a problem. The whole thing could go back to the drawing board and either accept non- | Jan 18 18:07 |
| schestowitz | EU members or get rid of the bit about the UK, but that would involve starting over again rather than just getting the existing agreement up and running. | Jan 18 18:07 |
| schestowitz | So sure, there are all kinds of ways to think about how such an idea could be implemented. The problems are with the actual proposal currently on the table. And whatever the decision turns out to be regarding Germany's constitution, any deal that requires a specific country to participate while simultaneously banning them from doing so has a bit of an issue. | Jan 18 18:07 |
| schestowitz | 8 0 Reply | Jan 18 18:08 |
| schestowitz | Thursday 16th January 2020 11:45 GMTAnonymous Coward | Jan 18 18:08 |
| schestowitz | Anonymous Coward | Jan 18 18:08 |
| schestowitz | A perfect example of what is wrong with the patent system..... | Jan 18 18:08 |
| schestowitz | The sloping toilet which a company is trying to patent but was already on the market 108 years ago. | Jan 18 18:08 |
| schestowitz | https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-50835604 | Jan 18 18:08 |
| schestowitz | 6 0 Reply | Jan 18 18:08 |
| schestowitz | Thursday 16th January 2020 12:23 GMTgerdesjSilver badge | Jan 18 18:08 |
| schestowitz | Reply Icon | Jan 18 18:08 |
| schestowitz | Windows | Jan 18 18:08 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.bbc.co.uk | Social media awash with scorn for 'sloping toilet' - BBC News | Jan 18 18:08 | |
| schestowitz | All sorted | Jan 18 18:08 |
| schestowitz | "A toilet designed to slope downwards slightly, making it uncomfortable to sit on for more than a few minutes, has been pooh-poohed on social media." | Jan 18 18:08 |
| schestowitz | I pooh pooh your pooh pooh ... | Jan 18 18:08 |
| schestowitz | 9 0 Reply | Jan 18 18:08 |
| schestowitz | Thursday 16th January 2020 12:34 GMTOssianScotlandSilver badge | Jan 18 18:08 |
| schestowitz | Reply Icon | Jan 18 18:08 |
| schestowitz | Re: All sorted | Jan 18 18:08 |
| schestowitz | And I raise you a Tigger! | Jan 18 18:08 |
| schestowitz | 6 0 Reply | Jan 18 18:08 |
| schestowitz | Thursday 16th January 2020 13:32 GMTstiineSilver badge | Jan 18 18:08 |
| schestowitz | Reply Icon | Jan 18 18:08 |
| schestowitz | Re: All sorted | Jan 18 18:08 |
| schestowitz | Why only a single Tigger? | Jan 18 18:08 |
| schestowitz | 2 0 Reply | Jan 18 18:08 |
| schestowitz | Thursday 16th January 2020 14:07 GMTAnonymous Coward | Jan 18 18:08 |
| schestowitz | Reply Icon | Jan 18 18:08 |
| schestowitz | Anonymous Coward | Jan 18 18:08 |
| schestowitz | Re: All sorted | Jan 18 18:08 |
| schestowitz | Why only a single Tigger? | Jan 18 18:08 |
| schestowitz | There can be only one... | Jan 18 18:08 |
| schestowitz | The wonderful thing about Tiggers, is Tiggers are wonderful things. Their tops are made out of rubber, their bottoms are made out of springs. They’re bouncy, trouncy, flouncy, pouncy, fun, fun, fun, fun, fun. But the most wonderful thing about Tiggers, is I’m the only one. IIIII’m the only one! | Jan 18 18:08 |
| schestowitz | 12 0 Reply | Jan 18 18:08 |
| schestowitz | Thursday 16th January 2020 14:08 GMTAnonymous Coward | Jan 18 18:08 |
| schestowitz | Reply Icon | Jan 18 18:08 |
| schestowitz | Anonymous Coward | Jan 18 18:08 |
| schestowitz | Re: All sorted | Jan 18 18:08 |
| schestowitz | Possibly because he is the only one? | Jan 18 18:08 |
| schestowitz | 5 0 Reply | Jan 18 18:08 |
| schestowitz | Thursday 16th January 2020 15:49 GMTI ain't SpartacusGold badge | Jan 18 18:08 |
| schestowitz | Reply Icon | Jan 18 18:08 |
| schestowitz | Re: All sorted | Jan 18 18:09 |
| schestowitz | But, if Tigger is the only one - does that mean he decapitated Connor MacLeod? | Jan 18 18:09 |
| schestowitz | 7 0 Reply | Jan 18 18:09 |
| schestowitz | Thursday 16th January 2020 16:35 GMTPhil O'SophicalSilver badge | Jan 18 18:09 |
| schestowitz | Reply Icon | Jan 18 18:09 |
| schestowitz | Re: All sorted | Jan 18 18:09 |
| schestowitz | Or he is Connor MacLeod... | Jan 18 18:09 |
| schestowitz | 2 0 Reply | Jan 18 18:09 |
| schestowitz | Thursday 16th January 2020 22:18 GMTgerdesjSilver badge | Jan 18 18:09 |
| schestowitz | Reply Icon | Jan 18 18:09 |
| schestowitz | Paris Hilton | Jan 18 18:09 |
| schestowitz | Re: All sorted | Jan 18 18:09 |
| schestowitz | You lot had one job. One job. | Jan 18 18:09 |
| schestowitz | Where the hell are the Black Adder quotes! | Jan 18 18:09 |
| schestowitz | 1 1 Reply | Jan 18 18:09 |
| schestowitz | Friday 17th January 2020 23:55 GMTMichael WojcikSilver badge | Jan 18 18:09 |
| schestowitz | Reply Icon | Jan 18 18:09 |
| schestowitz | Re: All sorted | Jan 18 18:09 |
| schestowitz | Hmm. That might be the rare film remake that I actually would watch. | Jan 18 18:09 |
| schestowitz | 0 0 Reply | Jan 18 18:09 |
| schestowitz | Thursday 16th January 2020 23:18 GMTDavCravSilver badge | Jan 18 18:09 |
| schestowitz | Reply Icon | Jan 18 18:09 |
| schestowitz | Re: All sorted | Jan 18 18:09 |
| schestowitz | "I pooh pooh your pooh pooh ..." | Jan 18 18:09 |
| schestowitz | In the end did they have to disband the regiment? | Jan 18 18:09 |
| schestowitz | 3 0 Reply | Jan 18 18:09 |
| schestowitz | Thursday 16th January 2020 11:50 GMTDavCravSilver badge | Jan 18 18:09 |
| schestowitz | "That court is likely to be moved to mainland Europe but that still leaves the main issue: can a non-EU country be a part of a European unitary patent system?" | Jan 18 18:09 |
| schestowitz | Here's another issue then: will the UK, particularly in its current tizz about foreign courts, still want to be part of the EPO if there is not London-based branch of it? And if they withdraw, it collapses again. | Jan 18 18:09 |
| schestowitz | 2 0 Reply | Jan 18 18:09 |
| schestowitz | Thursday 16th January 2020 12:23 GMTDavCravSilver badge | Jan 18 18:09 |
| schestowitz | Reply Icon | Jan 18 18:09 |
| schestowitz | As above, I once again write EPO when I mean UPC. Sometimes it takes longer than 10 minutes to find an error, Register! | Jan 18 18:09 |
| schestowitz | 3 0 Reply | Jan 18 18:09 |
| schestowitz | Thursday 16th January 2020 12:31 GMTPascal MonettSilver badge | Jan 18 18:09 |
| schestowitz | Reply Icon | Jan 18 18:09 |
| schestowitz | 10 minutes is enough for spelling errors, and obvious mistakes. Anything else and you have, as you have used, the additional comment. | Jan 18 18:09 |
| schestowitz | There is no way to change that without endangering the coherency of the entire forum thread. | Jan 18 18:09 |
| schestowitz | We all need to think twice and proofread before submitting, myself included. | Jan 18 18:09 |
| schestowitz | 5 0 Reply | Jan 18 18:09 |
| schestowitz | Thursday 16th January 2020 12:56 GMTCommswonkSilver badge | Jan 18 18:10 |
| schestowitz | Reply Icon | Jan 18 18:10 |
| schestowitz | We all need to think twice and proofread before submitting, myself included. | Jan 18 18:10 |
| schestowitz | It worries me that there might be / are people who don't. | Jan 18 18:10 |
| schestowitz | 2 0 Reply | Jan 18 18:10 |
| schestowitz | Thursday 16th January 2020 15:27 GMTmoiety | Jan 18 18:10 |
| schestowitz | Reply Icon | Jan 18 18:10 |
| schestowitz | You can't get a proper raging froth on if you're stopping to proofread. | Jan 18 18:10 |
| schestowitz | 16 0 Reply | Jan 18 18:10 |
| schestowitz | Thursday 16th January 2020 23:10 GMTedris90 | Jan 18 18:10 |
| schestowitz | Reply Icon | Jan 18 18:10 |
| schestowitz | Sure they can. Emotionaly inebriated humans quite are capable of self-sustaining their inebriation across years. | Jan 18 18:10 |
| schestowitz | What's a few minutes. | Jan 18 18:10 |
| schestowitz | 0 0 Reply | Jan 18 18:10 |
| schestowitz | Thursday 16th January 2020 23:32 GMT[VtS]Alf | Jan 18 18:10 |
| schestowitz | Reply Icon | Jan 18 18:10 |
| schestowitz | As a non-native English tongue, I have my moments where I see a mistake in my spelling or grammar, but often after the 10 minute limit. | Jan 18 18:10 |
| schestowitz | To prevent too much clutter in the comments with posts like “*colour instead of color”, I would like to be able to correct my err indefinitely. | Jan 18 18:10 |
| schestowitz | Just my point of view | Jan 18 18:10 |
| schestowitz | 1 0 Reply | Jan 18 18:10 |
| schestowitz | Thursday 16th January 2020 13:32 GMTDoctor SyntaxSilver badge | Jan 18 18:10 |
| schestowitz | Anything to do with patents seems to result in a tangled mess. And the first law of tangled messes is that once a critical complexity is achieved all attempts to untangle them make them worse. Where's Alexander the Great when you need him? | Jan 18 18:10 |
| schestowitz | 3 0 Reply | Jan 18 18:10 |
| schestowitz | Thursday 16th January 2020 15:28 GMTmoiety | Jan 18 18:10 |
| schestowitz | Reply Icon | Jan 18 18:10 |
| schestowitz | Anything that attracts patent lawyers seems to result in a tangled mess | Jan 18 18:10 |
| schestowitz | FTFY | Jan 18 18:10 |
| schestowitz | 0 0 Reply | Jan 18 18:10 |
| schestowitz | Thursday 16th January 2020 15:41 GMTWill GodfreySilver badge | Jan 18 18:10 |
| schestowitz | Reply Icon | Jan 18 18:10 |
| schestowitz | Happy | Jan 18 18:10 |
| schestowitz | Anything that attracts lawyers seems to result in a tangled mess | Jan 18 18:10 |
| schestowitz | FTFY | Jan 18 18:10 |
| schestowitz | 4 1 Reply | Jan 18 18:10 |
| schestowitz | Thursday 16th January 2020 21:30 GMTBenson's Cycle | Jan 18 18:10 |
| schestowitz | Reply Icon | Jan 18 18:10 |
| schestowitz | The more the tangle, the bigger the fee. | Jan 18 18:10 |
| schestowitz | 4 1 Reply | Jan 18 18:10 |
| schestowitz | Thursday 16th January 2020 13:32 GMTratfoxSilver badge | Jan 18 18:10 |
| schestowitz | Mushroom | Jan 18 18:10 |
| schestowitz | Good, good! | Jan 18 18:11 |
| schestowitz | My opinion is anyway that we should kill the patent system; it stifles innovation and only rewards the rich. Viva la revolución! | Jan 18 18:11 |
| schestowitz | 8 3 Reply | Jan 18 18:11 |
| schestowitz | Thursday 16th January 2020 14:07 GMToverunderSilver badge | Jan 18 18:11 |
| schestowitz | Reply Icon | Jan 18 18:11 |
| schestowitz | Re: Good, good! | Jan 18 18:11 |
| schestowitz | In 2020 I can't help to agree. If the entity filing the patent isn't rich already, it turns out that they are only filing in hope of becoming rich via extortion. It really has come to that, it really has. | Jan 18 18:11 |
| schestowitz | 5 2 Reply | Jan 18 18:11 |
| schestowitz | Thursday 16th January 2020 14:46 GMTvtcodgerSilver badge | Jan 18 18:11 |
| schestowitz | Reply Icon | Jan 18 18:11 |
| schestowitz | Re: Good, good! | Jan 18 18:11 |
| schestowitz | "If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented, and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today.” | Jan 18 18:11 |
| schestowitz | Bill Gates - internal Microsoft memo 1991. | Jan 18 18:11 |
| schestowitz | 8 0 Reply | Jan 18 18:11 |
| schestowitz | Thursday 16th January 2020 13:33 GMTzoobab | Jan 18 18:11 |
| schestowitz | Software patents v3.0 | Jan 18 18:11 |
| schestowitz | This UPC court will have the last word to validate software patents EU wide, the CJEU will have nothing to say about patent law in Europe. | Jan 18 18:11 |
| schestowitz | This is like giving the keys of the patent kingdom to the same people who have been trying to validate software patents for the last 30 years. | Jan 18 18:11 |
| schestowitz | The probably is high that this specialized patent court will drift and become very pro-patent, like it happened with the CAFC in the US. | Jan 18 18:11 |
| schestowitz | For the last 15 years, the Supreme Court of the US (SCOTUS) has corrected the deviant practice of those courts, notably on software patents, business method patents, automatic injunctions, and others, and we are now in a match between SCOTUS and CAFC with a score of 8-0 ! | Jan 18 18:11 |
| schestowitz | If the CJEU does not have the last word on patent law, why do we build Europe in the first place? And why do we make an exception for patent law? | Jan 18 18:11 |
| schestowitz | 7 0 Reply | Jan 18 18:11 |
| schestowitz | Thursday 16th January 2020 14:20 GMTBlackjack | Jan 18 18:11 |
| schestowitz | Brexit voters will be happy | Jan 18 18:11 |
| schestowitz | This means UK patents will still exist. And yes a single patent for the whole Euro zone would have been great but they hate the Euro zone so is party time for them. | Jan 18 18:11 |
| schestowitz | 1 4 Reply | Jan 18 18:11 |
| schestowitz | Thursday 16th January 2020 16:32 GMTOld Tom | Jan 18 18:11 |
| schestowitz | Reply Icon | Jan 18 18:11 |
| schestowitz | Re: Brexit voters will be happy | Jan 18 18:11 |
| schestowitz | As far as I can tell from minimal research, neither the European Patent Office nor its parent the European Patent Organisation is in any way connected to either the EU or the Euro Zone. | Jan 18 18:11 |
| schestowitz | 5 0 Reply | Jan 18 18:11 |
| schestowitz | Thursday 16th January 2020 18:44 GMTKen HaganGold badge | Jan 18 18:11 |
| schestowitz | Reply Icon | Jan 18 18:11 |
| schestowitz | Re: Brexit voters will be happy | Jan 18 18:11 |
| schestowitz | My equally extensive research into Brexiteers suggests that they are unable or unwilling to distinguish "European" from "EU", so I'm not sure your observation actually matters. | Jan 18 18:11 |
| schestowitz | 8 5 Reply | Jan 18 18:11 |
| schestowitz | Thursday 16th January 2020 23:04 GMTStern Fenster | Jan 18 18:11 |
| schestowitz | Reply Icon | Jan 18 18:11 |
| schestowitz | Re: Brexit voters will be happy | Jan 18 18:11 |
| schestowitz | I rather thought the principal Remain strategy was to confuse Europe with the EU; thus anyone disliking the EU must dislike Europe, which means they dislike foreigners, which mean they're racist. Neat. Personally, I haven't grasped why it should be racist to dislike a fundamentally Thatcherite, neoliberal managerial empire like the EU; but then, I never mistook the infinitely fascinating collection of countries for the political organisation | Jan 18 18:11 |
| schestowitz | superimposed on them. See http://www.surmise.org/choler_brexit.html | Jan 18 18:12 |
| schestowitz | (All horribly off topic, but I get bored with being called a racist...) | Jan 18 18:12 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.surmise.org | Surmise/Choler: Latest | Jan 18 18:12 | |
| schestowitz | 2 2 Reply | Jan 18 18:12 |
| schestowitz | Friday 17th January 2020 13:30 GMTSpacedinvader | Jan 18 18:12 |
| schestowitz | Reply Icon | Jan 18 18:12 |
| schestowitz | Re: Brexit voters will be happy | Jan 18 18:12 |
| schestowitz | "they dislike foreigners, which mean they're racist." Nope. Xenophobic. | Jan 18 18:12 |
| schestowitz | 2 1 Reply | Jan 18 18:12 |
| schestowitz | Friday 17th January 2020 05:08 GMTBlackjack | Jan 18 18:12 |
| schestowitz | Reply Icon | Jan 18 18:12 |
| schestowitz | Re: Brexit voters will be happy | Jan 18 18:12 |
| schestowitz | The main force behind Brexit was not just leaving the EU, but leaving behind regulations that make Britain less "independent. The Euro patent being approved means the UK loses money because that would make patents that just cover the U.K useless. | Jan 18 18:12 |
| schestowitz | And that's basically what a Brexiter would say. Nevermind the billions in earnings the U.K will lose thanks to leaving the EU. | Jan 18 18:12 |
| schestowitz | 4 2 Reply | Jan 18 18:12 |
| schestowitz | Friday 17th January 2020 13:17 GMTTigra 07Silver badge | Jan 18 18:12 |
| schestowitz | Facepalm | Jan 18 18:12 |
| schestowitz | "can a non-EU country be a part of a European unitary patent system? If the answer is no, the entire thing needs to be redesigned because the UK was a compulsory signatory. If the answer is yes, then where and how do you draw the line? Can Japan join the UPC? Can the United States?" | Jan 18 18:12 |
| schestowitz | We're still on the same continent, which is a better argument than the US or Japan would have. | Jan 18 18:12 |
| schestowitz | 0 0 Reply | Jan 18 18:12 |
| schestowitz | Saturday 18th January 2020 00:06 GMTMichael WojcikSilver badge | Jan 18 18:12 |
| schestowitz | Reply Icon | Jan 18 18:12 |
| schestowitz | Under a number of models, the European countries and Japan are both part of the continent of Eurasia. Regarding Europe is a continent unto itself has a long history but is by no means uncontroversial. Certainly, those who consider the Americas to be a single continent - a convention widely observed in a number of countries - don't have much justification for calling Europe a separate continent. | Jan 18 18:12 |
| schestowitz | 0 0 Reply | Jan 18 18:12 |
| schestowitz | Friday 17th January 2020 18:24 GMTAnonymous Coward | Jan 18 18:12 |
| schestowitz | Anonymous Coward | Jan 18 18:12 |
| schestowitz | Logical impossibilities | Jan 18 18:12 |
| schestowitz | The main problems faced by the UPC are logical impossibilities relating to EU law. | Jan 18 18:12 |
| schestowitz | For example, CJEU opinion 1/09 (http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=80233&doclang=EN) indicates that any pan-European court, such as the UPC, that supplants the jurisdiction of national courts must be "situated ... within the judicial system of the European Union", for example by being a court common to (only) EU Member States. | Jan 18 18:12 |
| schestowitz | On the other hand, the only thesis that has been advanced in support of the UK's post-Brexit participation in the UPC relies upon the assumption that the UPC is an "international court". | Jan 18 18:12 |
| schestowitz | It is a logical impossibility for the UPC to be both an international court AND a court situated within the judicial system of the EU. Thus, the UK's participation is clearly precluded. | Jan 18 18:12 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-curia.europa.eu | CURIA - Documents | Jan 18 18:12 | |
| schestowitz | Another example is the (strong) desire of the UK to ensure that CJEU rulings no longer apply to the UK post-Brexit. Once this ambition is achieved, then it is impossible to see how the UK could participate in a court that is required to make references to, and to follow the rulings of, the CJEU. This is because members of the UPC will be obliged to enforce the judgements of that court ... and to therefore ensure that their national laws can | Jan 18 18:12 |
| schestowitz | only ever be interpreted in accordance with all (future) CJEU rulings that could possibly have a bearing upon matters for which the UPC will have jurisdiction. | Jan 18 18:12 |
| schestowitz | Such barriers to the UK's post-Brexit participation in the UPC have been very evident for a number of years now. Despite this, there have been no sightings of any remotely plausible solutions to those conundrums. Whilst an optimist might (in view of the political will behind the UPC project) still believe in the possibility that "miracle" solutions to these problems will be found, the evidence strongly suggests that such solutions do not | Jan 18 18:12 |
| schestowitz | exist. | Jan 18 18:12 |
| schestowitz | In the light of the above, it seems that pressing ahead with the UPC in its current form is likely to result in one form of disaster or another, such as a "robust" CJEU ruling striking down the UPC (by finding the UPC Agreement to be inconsistent with EU law) ... or a "fudged" CJEU ruling that upholds the UPC Agreement but that undermines the unity and integrity of EU law. It is therefore reasonable to ask why, in view of such impending | Jan 18 18:12 |
| schestowitz | disasters, there is any political will remaining to implement the current UPC Agreement. I cannot think of any reasonable answer to this question ... and so can only hope that the judges in Karlsruhe will help to dig us all out of this hole by upholding at least one of the three substantive grounds of Mr Stjerna's constitutional complaint. | Jan 18 18:12 |
| schestowitz | 0 0 Reply | Jan 18 18:12 |
| schestowitz | Friday 17th January 2020 23:54 GMTAPersonA | Jan 18 18:12 |
| schestowitz | Reply Icon | Jan 18 18:12 |
| schestowitz | Re: Logical impossibilities | Jan 18 18:12 |
| schestowitz | I had thought that the UPC came about as a result of the CJEU striking down the EPLA (European Patent Litigation Agreement), a previous attempt at creating a single judicial system and appeals court that would have been open for participation by any EPC-contracting state that wanted to opt in. The CJEU found this was illegal under EU law; the UPC was therefore a new attempt to arrive at a similar system from within the auspices of EU law, and | Jan 18 18:13 |
| schestowitz | was hence restricted only to participation by EU member states. | Jan 18 18:13 |
| schestowitz | Participation in the UPC therefore requires recognition of the primacy of the CJEU - which means continued UK participation, despite their ratification, would be incompatible with both the UK Government's repeated utterances of a desire to "escape" from the jurisdiction of the CJEU | Jan 18 18:13 |
| schestowitz | " | Jan 18 18:13 |
| schestowitz | http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2020/01/crispr-hearing-days-2-3-board-of-appeal.html?showComment=1579281897444#c2461811154264381536 | Jan 18 18:18 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | CRISPR hearing days 2-3: Board of Appeal poised to refer to the EBA? - The IPKat | Jan 18 18:18 | |
| schestowitz | " | Jan 18 18:18 |
| schestowitz | Yes, Attentive, strictness on 123(2) I see as another aspect of the Gold Standard. Where I have a problem is the burden of proof. It is not fair to the inventor, and a denial of the award of a scope of protection commensurate with the contribution, to deny any prosecution amendment simply because Applicant has failed to prove, beyond any doubt at all, that the amendment adds no matter. | Jan 18 18:19 |
| schestowitz | But that is an area to which the Boards (if they are so minded) can give their attention, no? | Jan 18 18:19 |
| schestowitz | " | Jan 18 18:19 |
| schestowitz | http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2020/01/crispr-hearing-day-4-still-clear-cut.html?showComment=1579252586753#c5085514011664494425 | Jan 18 18:19 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | CRISPR hearing Day 4: Still a clear cut case of invalid priority, Broad Institute's appeal dismissed - The IPKat | Jan 18 18:19 | |
| schestowitz | "A pity that the question of the meaning of ´any person´ in Art. 87(1) EPC has not been referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal." | Jan 18 18:19 |
| schestowitz | " | Jan 18 18:19 |
| schestowitz | Dear Max Drei, | Jan 18 18:19 |
| schestowitz | With your last entry I find back the Max Drei I am knowing for many years. | Jan 18 18:19 |
| schestowitz | Talking about strictness, there is another point in which US applicants have not yet grasped the strictness of the EPO, and yet they should have realised for a while that what goes in the US does not work at the EPO. | Jan 18 18:19 |
| schestowitz | I am talking about Art 123(2). This provision is applied in a very strict manner at the EPO. No continuation or continuation in part. I have seen lots of US originating applications, in which the priority filing and even the subsequent contain barely more than a few general statements, but then they try to squeeze out things which were never even dreamt when filing in the US. Some even try to play with the structure of US claims, see T 1362/ | Jan 18 18:19 |
| schestowitz | 15. | Jan 18 18:19 |
| schestowitz | Dear Anonymous of Thursday, 16 January 2020 at 15:11:00 GMT | Jan 18 18:19 |
| schestowitz | It is correct that, “where there are joint applicants on the priority application, a single applicant can block the other applicants' right to a European patent simply by publishing during the priority year and refusing to join on the subsequent European patent application”. But is this really a problem for the EPO to solve? It is a problem of contractual relation between the two co-applicants. | Jan 18 18:19 |
| schestowitz | The EPO has the duty to check if an application claiming priority has been filed by the original co-applicants or by the successor in title, no more no less. Whether the two co-applicants cannot agree on the successor in title is irrelevant for the EPO. The role of the EPO is certainly not to act in case of problems between co-applicants. | Jan 18 18:19 |
| schestowitz | Even if there are no problems between co-applicants, but only one wants to continue, it is not the duty of the EPO to allow one to take precedence of the other. Kant’s or Gros Poisson’s comments are interesting, but they both want the EPO to play a role it is not even competent to play. | Jan 18 18:19 |
| schestowitz | " | Jan 18 18:19 |
| schestowitz | "Regarding "Any person", the EBA does of course have history of interpreting that as "NOT any person"!" | Jan 18 18:19 |
| schestowitz | " | Jan 18 18:20 |
| schestowitz | I concur with a referral. As the board itself comments in its preliminary opinion “the term ‘any person’ is ambiguous, rending a clarification necessary, even if there is no divergence in case law from the current interpretation of "any" as "same". | Jan 18 18:20 |
| schestowitz | We need clarification on this question as the current situation is, that where there are joint applicants on the priority application, a single applicant can block the other applicants' right to a European patent simply by publishing during the priority year and refusing to join on the subsequent European patent application. | Jan 18 18:20 |
| schestowitz | The present position of the EPO is understandable though. It is simple to deal with "same" rather than "any" but simple should not be sufficient legal reason. | Jan 18 18:20 |
| schestowitz | " | Jan 18 18:20 |
| schestowitz | http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2020/01/crispr-hearing-days-2-3-board-of-appeal.html?showComment=1579187612030#c140752682440749577 | Jan 18 18:29 |
| schestowitz | " | Jan 18 18:29 |
| schestowitz | The concerns of Kant regarding joint applications claiming distinct embodiments are indeed relevant. | Jan 18 18:29 |
| schestowitz | However, good legal practices should rely on written statements made prior to the priority claim, and preferably as early as possible. | Jan 18 18:29 |
| schestowitz | Although the loss of potential patent right based on an incorrect priority claim can be a harsh statement, I don't think it is up to the EPO to repair such problems afterwards. | Jan 18 18:29 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | CRISPR hearing days 2-3: Board of Appeal poised to refer to the EBA? - The IPKat | Jan 18 18:29 | |
| schestowitz | " | Jan 18 18:29 |
| schestowitz | http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2020/01/crispr-hearing-days-2-3-board-of-appeal.html?showComment=1579194461730#c8052545234095450161 | Jan 18 18:29 |
| schestowitz | " | Jan 18 18:29 |
| schestowitz | It will not come as a surprise that I cannot agree with any of the subsequent comments made. | Jan 18 18:29 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | CRISPR hearing days 2-3: Board of Appeal poised to refer to the EBA? - The IPKat | Jan 18 18:29 | |
| schestowitz | Priority can only be acknowledged for the original applicant or its successor in title. This provision in Art 87(1) corresponds word for word to Art 4A of the Paris Convention. If there is a plurality of co-applicants only the successor in title of all the applicants can benefit from the priority. | Jan 18 18:29 |
| schestowitz | The interpretation given to the term “any person” is ignoring the fact that if there is a plurality of persons the successor in title has to be the one of all the persons having filed the original application. Saying that it indifferent if one or all applicants are applicants of the subsequent application is not respecting the meaning and purpose of the Paris Convention. | Jan 18 18:29 |
| schestowitz | The summary of the Paris convention given on the home page of WIPO states “This right means that, on the basis of a regular first application filed in one of the Contracting States, the applicant may, within a certain period of time, apply for protection in any of the other Contracting States.” It seems then logic to me that in case of a plurality of applicants all those applicants may, within a certain period of time….. Anything else | Jan 18 18:29 |
| schestowitz | is legal gobbledygook. | Jan 18 18:29 |
| schestowitz | I have not seen one comment refuting this line of reasoning, what I call the correct way of looking at it, about the difference to be made between a single and a plurality of co-applicants for the first application. Self-collision, which is the prime consideration having led to the Paris Convention can only be avoided if all the co-applicants of the first application are also those of the subsequent application. | Jan 18 18:29 |
| schestowitz | The EPO is thus perfectly entitled to check whether the subsequent applicant is indeed the successor in title of the original co-applicants. This is different from the application of Art 60. | Jan 18 18:29 |
| schestowitz | " | Jan 18 18:29 |
| schestowitz | " | Jan 18 18:30 |
| schestowitz | It will not come as a surprise that I cannot agree with any of the subsequent comments made. | Jan 18 18:30 |
| schestowitz | If, in the case of the battery and the battery charger, one of the original co-applicants wants to file a subsequent application on its own, this is perfectly possible, provided the other co-applicant has transferred its rights to the co-applicant wanting to continue. This is an easily verifiable fact. | Jan 18 18:30 |
| schestowitz | Allowing one of the co-applicants to file a subsequent application without the knowledge of the other co-applicant is simply not abiding by the condition of the successor in title. How on Earth can the EPO know if the other co-applicant has agreed to the filing of the subsequent application by only one of the original applicants? A contract showing the transfer of rights from one of the co-applicants to the other one should be easy to provide. | Jan 18 18:30 |
| schestowitz | Anything else is fraudulent. | Jan 18 18:30 |
| schestowitz | The problem of US applicants having difficulty when it comes to claiming priority of a provisional application is not new. There have been a number of cases well before the problem now facing the Broad Institute. I can therefore not accept that all this happened by pure oversight. When there is a clear statement in the law, which however needs to differentiate between single applicants and a plurality of co-applicants, the notion of oversight | Jan 18 18:30 |
| schestowitz | appears misplaced. | Jan 18 18:30 |
| schestowitz | As far as the Friend of Art 122 is concerned I find his comments also highly misplaced, if not derogatory for the non-external members of the EBA. Claiming that external members of the EBA have to be involved for answering points of law of fundamental importance, because only they are truly independent means a contrario that the non-external members are not truly independent for the mere fact that they are paid by the EPO. I doubt that the | Jan 18 18:30 |
| schestowitz | external members of the EBA are acting for free when they are coming to sit in the EBA. And then they are also paid by the EPO. Why would they then be more independent that the non-external members? | Jan 18 18:30 |
| schestowitz | One should not forget, however in a totally different context, that the independence of members of the BA, and hence of the EBA, has been challenged before the German Constitutional Court. Raising the suspicion that members of the BA or the EBA are not independent is certainly not helping the cause of the BA resp. EBA before the German Constitutional Court. | Jan 18 18:30 |
| schestowitz | " | Jan 18 18:30 |
| schestowitz | http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2020/01/crispr-hearing-day-4-still-clear-cut.html?showComment=1579196328965#c91287453174469315 | Jan 18 18:31 |
| schestowitz | " | Jan 18 18:31 |
| schestowitz | Well done dear Board of Appeal! | Jan 18 18:31 |
| schestowitz | The financial impact of the decision was left aside, and independence correctly exercised! | Jan 18 18:31 |
| schestowitz | " | Jan 18 18:31 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | CRISPR hearing Day 4: Still a clear cut case of invalid priority, Broad Institute's appeal dismissed - The IPKat | Jan 18 18:31 | |
| schestowitz | http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2020/01/crispr-hearing-days-2-3-board-of-appeal.html?showComment=1579211374451#c4149742073840733451 | Jan 18 18:31 |
| schestowitz | " | Jan 18 18:31 |
| schestowitz | I would have welcomed a referral but I can live with a reaffirmation of the established case law too. | Jan 18 18:31 |
| schestowitz | Absolute strictness on "same person" is consistent with absolute strictness on "same invention" and the EPC's "absolute" strictness on what constitutes the state of the art (including "any other way" and excluding any reliance on a general grace period). The USA is unfamiliar with the strictures of First to File. For the sake of their clients, US patent attorneys should speedily educate themselves on its essentials (as I imagine they are | Jan 18 18:31 |
| schestowitz | already doing). It is not as if the EPO's strictness on Art 87 is automatically rendering the patent incurably invalid. Rather, all it's doing is declining to recognise Paris Convention priority. Those who publish before they file at the PTO are making a mistake. Those who publish (or otherwise shake things up) during the Paris year, before they file PCT, are also taking risks with their (or their client's) property. | Jan 18 18:31 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | CRISPR hearing days 2-3: Board of Appeal poised to refer to the EBA? - The IPKat | Jan 18 18:31 | |
| schestowitz | " | Jan 18 18:31 |
| schestowitz | "" | Jan 18 20:23 |
| schestowitz | Hi | Jan 18 20:23 |
| schestowitz | Hello | Jan 18 20:23 |
| schestowitz | You refused to write back | Jan 18 20:23 |
| schestowitz | I'm gonna unsubscribe your channel now | Jan 18 20:23 |
| schestowitz | "Hi" was very generic, it's hard to know if it's automated as some just say hi and that's it.. | Jan 18 20:23 |
| schestowitz | " | Jan 18 20:23 |
| -->X-Scale (~ARM@83.223.250.219) has joined #techbytes | Jan 18 21:34 | |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/EuroPleasureMac/status/1218640894464790528 | Jan 18 21:48 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@EuroPleasureMac: @schestowitz How about Twitter? | Jan 18 21:48 | |
| schestowitz | mastodon and diaspora | Jan 18 21:48 |
| <--oiaohm has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer) | Jan 18 23:17 | |
| -->oiaohm (~oiaohm@unaffiliated/oiaohm) has joined #techbytes | Jan 18 23:18 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.6 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!