Techrights logo

IRC: #techbytes @ Techrights IRC Network: Tuesday, February 21, 2023

(ℹ) Join us now at the IRC channel | ䷉ Find the plain text version at this address (HTTP) or in Gemini (how to use Gemini) with a full GemText version.

*geert has quit (Quit: Lost terminal)Feb 21 04:42
*GNUmoon2 has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)Feb 21 05:41
*GNUmoon2 (~GNUmoon@2x7efkc2if2fa.irc) has joined #techbytesFeb 21 05:42
schestowitz[TR]   <li>Feb 21 08:06
schestowitz[TR]                                    <h5><a href="https://drewdevault.com/2023/02/20/2023-02-20-Helios-aarch64.html">Porting Helios to aarch64 for my FOSDEM talk, part one</a></h5>Feb 21 08:06
schestowitz[TR]                                    <blockquote>Feb 21 08:06
schestowitz[TR]                                        <p>Booting up is a sore point on most systems. It involves a lot of arch-specific procedures, but also generally calls for custom binary formats and annoying things like disk drivers — which don’t belong in a microkernel. So the Helios bootloaders are separated from the kernel proper, which is a simple ELF executable. The bootloader loads this ELF file into memory, configures a few simple Feb 21 08:06
schestowitz[TR]things, then passes some information along to the kernel entry point. The bootloader’s memory and other resources are hereafter abandoned and are later reclaimed for general use.</p>Feb 21 08:06
schestowitz[TR]                                    </blockquote>Feb 21 08:06
schestowitz[TR]                                </li>Feb 21 08:06
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-drewdevault.com | Porting Helios to aarch64 for my FOSDEM talk, part oneFeb 21 08:06
schestowitz[TR] <li>Feb 21 08:09
schestowitz[TR]                                    <h5><a href="https://ostechnix.com/how-to-use-lvm-snapshot-to-backup-your-data-in-linux/">How To Use LVM Snapshot To Backup Your Data In Linux</a></h5>Feb 21 08:09
schestowitz[TR]                                    <blockquote>Feb 21 08:09
schestowitz[TR]                                        <p>There are two options to safeguard your data from disk failures or other issues. You can take full or incremental backups and store N number of copies. Alternatively with LVM, you can create a snapshot volume that will take snapshots when changes are made to the source volume.</p>Feb 21 08:09
schestowitz[TR]                                        <p>LVM snapshots use a copy-on-write mechanism to take snapshots. Initially, when you create a snapshot volume it will hold some metadata about the source logical volume and its block details. When you make any changes in the source volume, LVM will monitor the changes and take a snapshot of the modified blocks. Here LVM just stores the changes blocked to the snapshot volume.</p>Feb 21 08:09
schestowitz[TR]                                    </blockquote>Feb 21 08:09
schestowitz[TR]                                </li>Feb 21 08:09
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-Resolving timed out after 10520 milliseconds ( status 0 @ https://ostechnix.com/how-to-use-lvm-snapshot-to-backup-your-data-in-linux/ )Feb 21 08:10
schestowitz[TR]<li>Feb 21 08:12
schestowitz[TR]                            <h5><a href="https://guix.gnu.org/blog/2023/dissecting-guix-part-2-the-store-monad/">Dissecting Guix, Part 2: The Store Monad</a></h5>Feb 21 08:12
schestowitz[TR]                            <blockquote>Feb 21 08:12
schestowitz[TR]                                <p>In the last post, we briefly mentioned the with-store and run-with-store macros. Today, we'll be looking at those in further detail, along with the related monad library and the %store-monad!</p>Feb 21 08:12
schestowitz[TR]                                <p>Typically, we use monads to chain operations together, and the %store-monad is no different; it's used to combine operations that work on the Guix store (for instance, creating derivations, building derivations, or adding data files to the store).</p>Feb 21 08:12
schestowitz[TR]                                <p>However, monads are a little hard to explain, and from a distance, they seem to be quite incomprehensible. So, I want you to erase them from your mind for now. We'll come back to them later. And be aware that if you can't seem to get your head around them, it's okay; you can understand most of the architecture of Guix without understanding monads.</p>Feb 21 08:12
schestowitz[TR]                            </blockquote>Feb 21 08:12
schestowitz[TR]                        </li>Feb 21 08:12
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-guix.gnu.org | Dissecting Guix, Part 2: The Store Monad — 2023 — Blog — GNU GuixFeb 21 08:12
schestowitz[TR] <li>Feb 21 08:14
schestowitz[TR]                                    <h5><a href="https://9to5linux.com/you-can-now-install-linux-kernel-6-2-on-ubuntu-heres-how">You Can Now Install Linux Kernel 6.2 on Ubuntu, Here’s How</a></h5>Feb 21 08:14
schestowitz[TR]                                    <blockquote>Feb 21 08:14
schestowitz[TR]                                        <p>I don’t recommend installing a mainline kernel on an Ubuntu LTS (Long-Term Support) edition, such as Ubuntu 22.04 LTS, so I’ve only tested the install on Ubuntu 22.10, but it can be installed on any supported Ubuntu release.</p>Feb 21 08:14
schestowitz[TR]                                    </blockquote>Feb 21 08:14
schestowitz[TR]                                </li>Feb 21 08:14
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-You Can Now Install Linux Kernel 6.2 on Ubuntu, Here's How - 9to5LinuxFeb 21 08:14
schestowitz[TR]<li>Feb 21 08:18
schestowitz[TR]                                    <h5><a href="https://daniel.haxx.se/blog/2023/02/20/7-88-1-the-second-final-one/">7.88.1 the second final one</a></h5>Feb 21 08:18
schestowitz[TR]                                    <blockquote>Feb 21 08:18
schestowitz[TR]                                        <p>As this is a rushed patch-release, there is only a small set of bugfixes merged in this cycle. The following notable bugs were fixed.</p>Feb 21 08:18
schestowitz[TR]                                    </blockquote>Feb 21 08:18
schestowitz[TR]                                </li>Feb 21 08:18
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-7.88.1 the second final one | daniel.haxx.seFeb 21 08:19
*Mio14 has quit (Ping timeout: 120 seconds)Feb 21 08:43
*Mio14 (~quassel@freenode-q1n.iak.fgsf49.IP) has joined #techbytesFeb 21 08:45
schestowitz[TR]Still getting trolled by a total nutcase:Feb 21 09:02
schestowitz[TR]Re: ft.meadeFeb 21 09:02
schestowitz[TR]> Looking forwards to seeing one of the Top Brass going on-to live TV, Feb 21 09:02
schestowitz[TR]> saying "We here at the National Security Agency do not endorse nor do we Feb 21 09:02
schestowitz[TR]> condone the poking of little Kiddies in the Bum-Bum! However it has come Feb 21 09:02
schestowitz[TR]> to our attention that 80 Billion of you may have inadvertently gone out Feb 21 09:02
schestowitz[TR]> and bought a little Red Box Phone called "Lucifer" and we here at the Feb 21 09:02
schestowitz[TR]> national security would appreciate the return of our property by sending Feb 21 09:02
schestowitz[TR]> it to, aint-this-yur-red-phone-bitch@ftmeade.gov.usFeb 21 09:02
schestowitz[TR]> Feb 21 09:02
schestowitz[TR]> Oh hail Satan yes sir!Re: bright futureFeb 21 09:02
schestowitz[TR]> Dont worry about it @ RoyFeb 21 09:02
schestowitz[TR]> Feb 21 09:02
schestowitz[TR]> It'll be a Bright Future, the president they have now, has a son that Feb 21 09:02
schestowitz[TR]> smokes crack and president 45's daughter still has daddy's nut stains on Feb 21 09:02
schestowitz[TR]> her back!Feb 21 09:02
schestowitz[TR]> Feb 21 09:02
schestowitz[TR]> We'll sprinkle them with holy water, whilst the fuck and fertilize your Feb 21 09:02
schestowitz[TR]> daughter!Feb 21 09:02
schestowitz[TR]Re: Troll magazineFeb 21 09:04
schestowitz[TR]> https://line.dealmakersforums.com/download-issue-2/ Feb 21 09:04
schestowitz[TR]> <https://line.dealmakersforums.com/download-issue-2/>Feb 21 09:04
schestowitz[TR]Site barely usableFeb 21 09:04
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-line.dealmakersforums.com | Download Issue 2 - Dealmakers ForumsFeb 21 09:04
schestowitz[TR]https://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2023/02/14/quality-at-the-epo-one-modest-and-one-serious-proposal/Feb 21 09:05
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-patentblog.kluweriplaw.com | Quality at the EPO – One Modest and one Serious Proposal - Kluwer Patent BlogFeb 21 09:05
*psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has left #techbytesFeb 21 09:07
*psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has joined #techbytesFeb 21 09:09
schestowitz[TR]https://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2023/02/14/quality-at-the-epo-one-modest-and-one-serious-proposal/Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]"Patent robotFeb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]FEBRUARY 14, 2023 AT 5:48 PMFeb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]I would abolish the maintenance fees before grant and compensate them with higher designation fees proportional to the number of designated states.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]I also would deduct (one or) two points of the examiner if a patent is (partially) revoked after opposition/appeal proceedings.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]A quality problem at the EPO? You must be mistaken!Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]FEBRUARY 14, 2023 AT 6:55 PMFeb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]I am on the opinion that both your proposals appear not fully thought through.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]Your first proposal would require an amendment of the EPC for various reasons:Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]– According to Art 79(1) all contracting states are designated in the application as filed.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]– There is presently one designation fee for all contracting states and according to Art 79(2) + R 39(3), in principle, no designation is reimbursed.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]– According to Art 79(3) a designation of a Contracting State can be withdrawn at any time up to grant.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]Do not confuse designations with validations after grant.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]I see thus little chance for your proposal to be considered.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]The second proposal is as well not envisageable.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]– For a start a decision in appeal on an opposition is taken years after grant. To be effective any sanction has to be as immediate as possible.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]– A second problem is that in some technical areas there are no oppositions. Some technical areas are laden with oppositions. Oppositions can also vary in time in a given technical area. Oppositions can also vanish when proprietors sign non-aggression pacts.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]– Overall only around 5% of the patents are opposed. Only focussing on the results of appeals in opposition would thus disadvantage certain examiners.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]– Last but not least, an examiner gets his points in each calendar year and his production is an important part of the marking scheme. It is therefore not possible to retroactively reduce the number of points an examiner has acquired in the past. There would be no legal certainty for examiners. even the ILO-AT would not agree.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]The problem lies with the upper management of the EPO.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]Do not blame first those working in dreadfull conditions.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]ExaminerFeb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]FEBRUARY 14, 2023 AT 8:53 PMFeb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]I think you might have overlooked some of the irony…Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]A quality problem at the EPO? You must be mistaken!Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]FEBRUARY 16, 2023 AT 10:47 AMFeb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]Knowing Patent Robot and his usual comments, I do not think irony has a place….Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]Patent robotFeb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]FEBRUARY 17, 2023 AT 8:22 AMFeb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]Actually, my first proposal was not ironic at all.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]The second one was a little more provocative.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]Patent robotFeb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]FEBRUARY 15, 2023 AT 9:09 AMFeb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]Maybe you are young enough not to remember that some years ago designation fees were proportional to the number of designated States. There is no need to amend Art. 79 for this purpose.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]On the other hand, Art. 86 has to be amended to avoid renewal fees for pending applications. You could also obtain the same effect by reducing the renewal fees, which are really high, even higher than the renewal fees for granted unitary patents.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]High renewal fees for pending applications are a deterrent for the EPO to grant patents quickly.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]A quality problem at the EPO? You must be mistaken!Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]FEBRUARY 16, 2023 AT 11:07 AMFeb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]I can agree that in the early days of the EPO, the designation fees were only proportional to the number of designations. This was only valid up to 6 designations.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]By paying 7 designation fees all contracting states were designated.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]Under EPC 1973, the designation fees were originally due at filing, later before entering examination as they had an influence on the prior art under Art 54(3), cf. Art 54(4) EPC73.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]In EPC 2000 the system was simplified and since, the ED do not have to check whether there are common designated states in case of prior art under Art 54(3). Art 54(4) EPC1973 was deleted.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]If you want to levy a fee per designation, you will have to amend not only Art 79(1) but also Art 54.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]Just compare the text of Art 79(1) EPC 2000 with Art 79(1) EPC1973.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]As the contracting states are keen on getting their share of renewal fees, they want patents to be granted as quickly as possible. And the upper management has done and continues to do everything possible in this respect. You do not see many files ending as “submarines” in a cupboard.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]Patent robotFeb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]FEBRUARY 17, 2023 AT 9:07 AMFeb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]Gosh, I forgot Art 54(4) EPC1973!Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]The renewal fees for pending EP applications are quite high. I do not understand why the AC allows their steady increase: the slower the EPO grants patents, the less the MS receive after grant.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]One of those examiners....Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]FEBRUARY 17, 2023 AT 9:31 AMFeb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]High renewal fees are a deterrent….Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]Weird, our management is pushing us to grant as fast as possible, which seems to counteract your reasoning completely.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]Why would our management do that?Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]Furthermore, I as examiner are not concerned with how old my files are, beyond the fact that I am penalised for being in a field that has always been understaffed, and thus has never been able to treat examinations with any priority (my grants are “too old”, and that reflects my “timeliness”, which is measured by the average age of files I grant – not average age of files in stock).Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]My pay simply does not depend on whether my files get old or not.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]Concerned observerFeb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]FEBRUARY 14, 2023 AT 5:58 PMFeb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]Thorsten, I fully agree.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]It would be nice if the EPO were to sit up and take notice of your proposals. Given that serious complaints about quality are now coming from users whose fee payments fund the EPO, it is hard to imagine that the EPO’s management can continue to (completely) ignore those complaints.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]Nevertheless, I do think that the EPO’s management will be far more inclined to adopt your first proposal than your second. Whilst you and I may be horrified by the thought of the EPO turning into a rubber-stamping authority, this is (and has been for about a decade) the undeniable direction of travel. Increases in the EPO’s “profitability” provide financial rewards for the EPO’s management and (the offices of) the AC deleFeb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]gations / delegates. Therefore, asking them to prioritise actual quality over such financial rewards is like asking turkeys to vote for Christmas.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]When the EPC was first drafted, I imagine that its authors envisaged the national patent offices as being competitors to the EPO … and hence that a supervisory body run by delegations from the national offices would provide suitable governance / oversight. Whether or not this view was justified at the time, it is probably the biggest mistake made by the EPO’s founding fathers. Indeed, things have got so bad now that when one looFeb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]ks at the dictionary definition of “regulatory capture”, it just reads “See the Administrative Council of the EPO”.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]Thus, for your more serious proposal to stand any chance of gaining traction, my view is that it really needs to be coupled with an overhaul of the EPO’s governance … as otherwise, whilst the turkeys may throw users a few scraps, there is zero chance of them ever voting for Christmas!Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]Don’tFeb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]FEBRUARY 14, 2023 AT 10:37 PMFeb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]As long as the tail will be wagging the dog, there is no chance that things will improve at the EPO.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]The founders of the EPO never envisaged that the „cooperation“ budget would actually be misused as bribery system to buy votes.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]All presidents of the EPO played with the cooperation budget, but none, besides the Napoleon of the 10th floor and his successor, developed it to such a corruption instrument. After each AC session the cooperation budget is tailored to the voting behaviour of the delegations at the AC. Like in the EU, the principle of one country one vote has led to such problems!Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]When the boards were exiled to Haar, the vote was acquired thanks to the smaller countries which file very few applications, but have full vote!Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]The same delegations are now voting, without any shame for bringing the boards back into town!Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]It is not only the the EPO’s governance which needs to change, but also the AC to revise its position in order to play again their role of controlling the EPO!Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]francis hagelFeb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]FEBRUARY 17, 2023 AT 7:57 AMFeb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]You have every right to express criticism on the management of the EPO and the delegations of the AC, but assertions of corruption and bribery are clearly beyond the pale.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]A. NonymousFeb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]FEBRUARY 18, 2023 AT 5:46 PMFeb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]Mr Hagel,Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]You have every right to have your own opinion, but I doubt you have evidence that the cooperation budget is used as you imagine. First, should there even be a cooperation budget, which after all is financed by the fees applicants have to pay. Then if there should be a cooperation budget, should it be as large as it is. The cooperation budget is approved by the Member States for their own benefit. Doesn’t that say enough?Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]Are you aware of what the money really is used for, whether it is used for projects that benefit the EP applicants? What has been reported in previous comments could have been proven incorrect if this budget was transparent. It has been a while now that delegations do not dare vote against the EPO proposals for fear of reductions in a share of the cooperation budget that they (unfortunately) need. Lately, the German delegation must Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]have felt lonely …Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]Thus, in my opinion, the words that you criticise alas reflect a situation that I sincerely hope will change.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]Stop misusing the EPOFeb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]FEBRUARY 19, 2023 AT 10:42 AMFeb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]I can only support what has been said by A. Nonymous.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]It is the sad reality.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]Now you know why the AC is not controlling the EPO, but the upper management is controlling the AC.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]A lot of money from the users is being wasted in order for the AC to abide by the wishes of the upper management.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]This cannot be criticized enough!Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]A quality problem at the EPO? You must be mistaken!Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]FEBRUARY 14, 2023 AT 8:09 PMFeb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]Thanks to T. Bausch who managed again to combine an amusing story with very serious proposals.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]It should become more and more difficult for the upper management of the EPO to deny quality problems. especially at search level. But denial and verbose statements without content are nothing new in the Isar building and especially on the 10th floor.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]If people are pushed to grant, they will do as required since they do not want to get fired for incompetence.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]I am of the opinion that incompetence is not with examiners but with those taking decisions without having any clue of the work done.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]This is going on a par with a big disdain for examiners and their work. As a famous tenant of the 10th floor once said “duds go into the patents”, not realising that he was himself belonging to this group. He has then started to harass its staff. And its successor continues. We see the result today.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]The problem is that those people and the delegations in the AC do not realise that they are actually sawing the branch on which they are sitting. You can milk a cow for a long time, but it comes a moment when the cow will dry up.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]It is a pity to see an organisation like the EPO run into the wall by would-be managers.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]CaballeroFeb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]FEBRUARY 15, 2023 AT 9:03 AMFeb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]EP grant numbers for 2022 are down to 81.762, another 24.8% decrease. Although I am only a humble service provider and not a patent attorney I understand the quality over quantity argument. However, the current situation of ever more filings (just under 5% per annum) and vastly reduced number of closed files, will not improve the quality of patents. A growing backlog puts more pressure on the patent office and the examiners. Unless Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]the pressure is reduced patent quality will continue to deteriorate. How long until the first patent is granted just in time to pay the 20th annuity?Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]Another examinerFeb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]FEBRUARY 15, 2023 AT 10:09 AMFeb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]The figures about revocation rate can be explained in a slightly different manner.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]Basically, what we are discussing here is inventive step. Novelty is simple enough and clarity is not a ground for opposition.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]Obviously inventive step depends on the prior art found. If the search is bad, everything is novel and inventive. I certainly agree that search should be as good as possible. But, generally speaking, search is not that bad. Other patent offices rarely find much better documents (and when they do, we usually check them and introduce them in the procedure). There is room for improvement, but not necessarily a lot.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]The examination side may be more of a problem. If the criteria in the examination procedure is lower than the one in the opposition procedure, you will have more revocations. My feelings are that some of this is at play. I don’t know whether my feelings are true, I only see a small part of the Office as a whole, but the latest instructions on inventive step appear to make it very difficult to draft a rejection, unless everything iFeb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]s in the prior art, including how to combine the documents. That is very close to novelty.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]A quality problem at EPO? You { must d! S wFeb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]FEBRUARY 15, 2023 AT 11:05 PMFeb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]The problem is that it is more difficult to find proper documents for IS in an electronic search.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]For noveltyFeb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]“But when the opponent comes with a highly relevant novelty destroying novelty, or even prior art under Art 54(3), do not tell me the search was OK!Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]Whilst I can follow your considerations about the quality of the application , this point might be turned around. What was first there, the bad search or the bad applications. In other words, what was first, the chicken or the egg?Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]There is room for improvement: search correctly!:Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]15 – 20 years ago, the idea was raising the bar for IS.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]Now it seems more lowering the bar, so that there are more grants. ?Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]Another examinerFeb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]FEBRUARY 16, 2023 AT 10:04 AMFeb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]I cannot that that it is more difficult to find documents for inventive step in an electronic search, but I suppose it may be different in different technical fields.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]And again: I don’t think the quality of the search is generally bad. That, again, may depend on the technical field, some are very difficult to search (and they were also difficult to search on paper, I think). But in the few fields I know, I can compare the searches in the EPO with searches in other offices and I don’t feel that they are vastly different. Of course, patent offices check the searches of the others, so I can onlyFeb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR] compare the earliest search of one file to the earliest search of another file.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]A quality problem at the EPO? You must be mistaken!Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]FEBRUARY 17, 2023 AT 6:44 AMFeb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]You are bringing forward that the quality of search is still better than that of other offices. This is exactly what is claimed by the upper management of EPO.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]The problem is however that it happens that when the patent is revoked or maintained in amended form. It is only in very few cases due to prior art which could not be available in the search documentation, like public prior uses, catalogues etc.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]When the opponent brings the highly relevant document when the search Report is laden with X or A documents, it is difficult to consider that the search was of good quality. The same applies when the opponent turns out with Art 54(3) prior art, sometimes from the patent proprietor.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]This is the problem which has been put to light!Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]Examiners are not to be blamed as such. It is the whole system set up by the management of the EPO which is the cause.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]If the measures mentioned in the quality charter would be actually applied, the EPO would not be under criticism.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]Quality is more than timeliness,Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]It is delivering searches which gives a high presumption of validity.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]When barely 15% of patents do come out untouched after opposition it becomes alarming. In the past, this proportion was around 1/3. Those days have goneFeb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]Another examinerFeb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]FEBRUARY 15, 2023 AT 10:15 AMFeb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]Another, separate comment. You mentioned artificial intelligence. It goes without saying that the management of the EPO is interested in artificial intelligence, if is very fashionable at the moment.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]There are two problems:Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]1: very few people are able to design AI systems and private companies can offer them considerably more than what the EPO is prepared to pay.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]2: AI is very sensitive to adversarial poisoning. That means that any AI system can be “poisoned” by somebody deliberately feeding it specially crafted data. That will be a problem for patents.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]Max DreiFeb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]FEBRUARY 15, 2023 AT 12:51 PMFeb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]Thorsten, you are very persuasive but I’m not (yet) totally convinced how vital it is for the EPO, before it grants somebody a patent, to work with a fine-toothed comb through each and every provision which the EPC makes about patentability. As everybody agrees, the EPO is a “public service” organisation and what service the public needs from a patent system is that good inventions receive protection that is speedily enforceabFeb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]le against infringers and that bad inventions are weeded out and quckly shown to be unworthy of exclusive rights. Who provides that public service is debatable. With 10 year petty patents, or copyright, for example, it is more the courts than the Patent Office. Prior to 1978, the UK Patent Office looked at novelty but not at obviousness (because back then it was thought that only in inter Partes proceedings can the obviousness enquiFeb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]ry be conducted effectively). It was the courts, not the Office, that did the weeding out. It is not absurd to argue that the Patent Office (like the pre-1978 UK Patent Office) should deliver a first class search report but then, after that, the Applicant (as opposed to an EPO Examiner, or Examining Division) should take care to go to grant with documents that will withstand a determined and well-financed post-issue assault on validFeb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]ity and courts will decline to help those patentees who were negligent in their conduct prior to grant. Caveat emptor is a very good principle. Rely on the self-interest of Applicants to do their own scheme of prosecution amendment, after they have been given a first class search report to work with.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]Times change. I am not convinced that all those corporations demanding better examination performance from the EPO are willing to pay for it. They want the EPO to refuse all the applications from their competitors while allowing all of the applications they themselves file. The AC members so busy slicing up the EPO profits cake will say that public service is pre-eminent, in that they are taxing the big corporations and spending EPOFeb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR] dividends on public services, that the best way to deliver ever greater “public service” from the EPO is to adopt your “modest proposal” in full. Milk the cash cow ever more efficiently for the good of the public. Grant entry tickets to the courts, and let the courts grant patent owners all the financial relief from infringement that they crave. Then there will be no further fall-off in the number of patent applications filFeb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]ed, even when the EPO fees are exorbitant.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]Management performs to “make the numbers”. Counting how many patents are granted per quarter year is an easy number to count. Counting how many hours it takes (on average) to perform an FTO analysis for Europe is hard enough already. Suppose the EPO grants willy-nilly, without any examination of patentability. How many more hours will an FTO analysis then take? 10% more? 500% more%. Who knows? And anyway, who cares?Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]Anonymous AttorneyFeb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]FEBRUARY 15, 2023 AT 4:55 PMFeb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]Given the commoditization of patent attorney services, I too am not convinced that these corporations actually want to pay for the services that they demand from the EPO. Words are cheap.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]A quality problem at EPO? You must be mistaken!Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]FEBRUARY 15, 2023 AT 10:28 PMFeb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]@Max Drei,Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]What you suggest is another way to look at the usefulness of patents.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]Just carry out a search and leave the courts to decide is what has been done in France after 1968. And yet France has now started examination and opposition procedures. There must be a good reason for it.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]If you go further, it is best to let peer review decide.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]But why should we then need qualified representatives as well as substantiveexaminerFeb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]The problem is that the search quality at the EPO is going down!Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]Why is it that there are more revocations than maintenance in amended form. ‘Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]The number of rejections of oppositions is modest in comparison.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]Another examinerFeb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]FEBRUARY 16, 2023 AT 10:06 AMFeb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]France does not examine novelty or inventive step. Check the instructions for the examiners published at the INPI web site.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]If they did, they would need vastly more examiners than what they presently have.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]A quality problem at the EPO? You must be mistaken!Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]FEBRUARY 16, 2023 AT 11:23 AMFeb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]I do no know which version of the instructions to examiners you have consulted.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]Just look at page 97 and following of the document with the following link:Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]https://www.inpi.fr/sites/default/files/DIRECTIVES_BREVETS_LIVRE1_INSTRUCTION%20DES%20DEMANDES_140422.pdfFeb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]I quote directly page 103 Activité Inventive 5.5. Examen par l’InstitutFeb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]Pour les demandes de brevet ayant une date de dépôt antérieure au 22Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]mai 2020, le Code n’a pas prévu le rejet d’une demande de brevet pour défaut d’activité inventive.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]L’examinateur ne pourra pas notifier de rejet sur la base de ce motif.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]Néanmoins, l’activité inventive est prise en compte par l’Institut pour établir le rapport de recherche préliminaire et l’opinion l’accompagnant, le rapport de recherche accompagnant le brevet délivré (cf. titre I, section C, chapitre VIII) et l’avis documentaire (cf. titre II, section C).Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]Pour les demandes de brevet déposées à partir du 22 mai 2020, le Code a prévu le rejet des demandes pour lesquelles l’invention n’implique pas d’activité inventive en considérant que son objet n’est pas brevetable selon le premier paragraphe de l’article L.611-10 (cf. titre I, section E).Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]Le rejet pour défaut d’activité inventive peut s’appliquer à une ou plusieurs revendications d’une demandeFeb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]Even if French is not your mother tongue, as EPO examiner you should be able to understand that inventive step plays a role in the examination by the INPI.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]Bring aboutFeb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]FEBRUARY 17, 2023 AT 9:48 AMFeb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]Very off-topic here, but this is indeed a quite recent change that has come with the “loi PACTE” from 2019. The INPI has been recruiting examiners to cope with it.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]Another examinerFeb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]FEBRUARY 17, 2023 AT 1:18 PMFeb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]Indeed the INPI instructions changed in 2020, I had not realized that. The text you cited explicitly said an application could not be rejected for lack of inventive step before that date: “L’examinateur ne pourra pas notifier de rejet sur la base de ce motif.”Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]Still the conditions for rejection at page 122-123 are similar to what the practice was before that date: the applicants are asked to comment and/or change the claims on the basis of the search report. If they do that, it is a patent. In my opinion, this is still not an examination system.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]Aliens in UnderpantsFeb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]FEBRUARY 15, 2023 AT 4:27 PMFeb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]An important aspect not mentioned above is quality at source. Whatever about the effectiveness of the quality filter function of the EPO it is very difficult to make a silk purse out of a sow‘s ear. The drafting quality and size of the incoming applications very often leaves a lot to be desired.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]The quality of search is clearly dependent on the intellectual investment of the examiner in analyzing the application and defining a proper search strategy. The next hurdle is the sheer volume of information sources and databases which have to be consulted. The amount of possible prior art sources has increased dramatically over the last 10-15 years with the surging availability of information in the digital transformation. There iFeb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]s no such thing as a perfect search nor is the requisite time envisaged. The search fees on average don’t even cover the costs of the initial search and opinion.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]A quality problem at EPO? You must be mistaken!Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]FEBRUARY 15, 2023 AT 11:18 PMFeb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]What you are saying here is the mere repetition of what every search generation says: life was easier for the preceding generation.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]When searching electronically, you can compare it with a fisher on the side of a lake.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]He will have a hit for a novelty destroying document much easier than for inventive step.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]The search as such can be quick. What is needed is more intellectual investment!Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]Searching is more than using a few “preparations”!Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]The procedural fees do not cover the costs. The renewal fee do the trick.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]Ever compared the fee for appeal with the actual costs a dealing with an appeal?Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]A. NonymousFeb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]FEBRUARY 18, 2023 AT 5:28 PMFeb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]Aliens in the patent world.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]“The search fees on average don’t even cover the costs of the initial search and opinion.”Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]Of course, they don’t. The cost of a search is somewhere above 3000€, and that is what patent offices have to pay. Applicants pay less, but they pay maintenance fees. QED.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]Docte CagallóFeb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]FEBRUARY 15, 2023 AT 10:06 PMFeb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]Happily someone mentioned quality at source. EPO examiners alone cannot create quality patents from poor-quality applications. Does this make sense? Thorsten was talking about patents with 100 claims. Come on! No invention deserves 100 patent claims, but we see such applications everyday. Remember claims conciseness and indication of essential features, art.84, rule 43? Do applicants have access to the prior art relevant for their iFeb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]nventions themselves when drafting? Do they only rely on the EPO search? Remember rule 43? Similarly with art.83…. Some quality pre-requisites must come with the application ex tunc. No quality search can be reasonably performed where this is lacking, and examination then becomes extremely inefficient. For quality patents must necessarily result from a fair and loyal applicant-examiner cooperation. Should we devote some thoughts tFeb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]o the fatal combination of huge numbers of low quality applications and EPO management serving only greed-driven big corporations? Would that help complete the picture?Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]Docte CagallóFeb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]FEBRUARY 16, 2023 AT 8:36 AMFeb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]The second “rule 43” was obviously rule 42, which I quote: 1) The description shall: (b) indicate the background art which, as far as is known to the applicant, can be regarded as useful to understand the invention, draw up the European search report and examine the European patent application, and, preferably, cite the documents reflecting such art;Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR](c) disclose the invention, as claimed, in such terms that the technical problem, even if not expressly stated as such, and its solution can be understood, and state any advantageous effects of the invention with reference to the background art.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]This is not wishful thinking; this is the EPC: this is what applicants must provide with their applications upon filing if they want a quality search and examination; this is their part in the deal.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]A quality problem at the EPO? You must be mistaken!Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]FEBRUARY 17, 2023 AT 6:52 AMFeb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]If the quality of incoming applications was as bad as you claim, then a search would not be possible and lots of communications under R 63 should be issued.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]The quality of the incoming applications has very little to do with the quality of the search.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]If the claims are understandable from a technical point of view, a search is possible and should deliver the best basis for a thorough examination, and not to patents which come out maimed from opposition in 85% of the cases, on the basis of documents which were in the search files for more than 90% of the casesFeb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]Docte CagallóFeb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]FEBRUARY 17, 2023 AT 11:42 AMFeb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]A quality patent application fully disclosing novel and inventive subject-matter would result in a 100% quality patent even without search and examination filters. The real problem is the tons of crap patent applications distorting the patent system in the interest of a few and patent office policies serving these interests.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]A quality problem at the EPO? You must be mistaken!Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]FEBRUARY 18, 2023 AT 2:16 AMFeb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]I might agree with you that there are “tons of crap patent applications distorting the patent system in the interest of few”, but have you asked yourself why?Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]That the EPO grants any crap does certainly play a role. The number of refusals is rather law, but the number of patents coming out maimed from opposition shows that in all those cases that the patent should never have been granted in the form it was granted.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]If all applications were “fully disclosing novel and inventive subject-matter” would render examiners redondant. Have you ever thought of this?Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]A. NonymousFeb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]FEBRUARY 18, 2023 AT 5:30 PMFeb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]Where is the problem? Crap patent applications must be refused. Full stop.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]Der NörglerFeb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]FEBRUARY 15, 2023 AT 11:40 PMFeb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]A few thoughts on this:Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]1. I can empathise with some of the criticisms raised by the IPQC. Clearly it can help applicants (and examiners, and 3rd parties) to get a thorough search. Similarly, deeming certain claim features unclear or non-technical before the search and then not searching them is unhelpful for the applicant (and others). The claimed subject-matter should be searched, any objections can still be raised in the search opinion.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]2. Another example of poor quality is poorly reasoned objections (e.g. just reciting the claim language with a few reference signs from D1 usually isn`t very helpful or convincing). Providing scarce analysis / objection on 54, 56, while trying to get the applicant to narrow a claim based on far-fetched clarity/essential features objections is another irritation. Sometimes feels as if examiners see that as a quicker/easier way to getFeb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR] a more limited claim and an allowance. Not really fair to either the applicant or 3rd parties. And don’t get me started on examiner amendments to the claims at 71(3) stage with no indication of basis..Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]3. All that said, the EPO still provides a high quality, in my experience better than other national offices in Europe and better than other major patent offices.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]4. Re the statistic on grants cited in the article: From other statistics I’ve seen, the grant rate has gone up over recent years but so has the refusal rate. So the ratio grant/refusal hasn’t shifted that much. Deemed withdrawals are down. Perhaps because examination is quicker, fewer applicants lose interest before a final decision?Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]5. Re the statistics on revocations cited in the article: The decrease in revocations at 1st instance is interesting. My subjective view is that OD’s have become more patentee friendly in recent years, but that is hardly based on a statistical sample size. As for the Boards, is the higher rate of revocation driven in part by the tougher procedural rules? In any event, the difference in % revocations between 1st instance and appealFeb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR] is interesting. Perhaps part of the difference can be explained by appellant behaviour, i.e. which party (patentee or opponent) is more likely to appeal a 1st instance decision? Finally, from other statistics I’ve seen, the final outcomes of opposition proceedings (i.e. final decision, whether that was reached at 1st instance if no appeal, or if reached after appeal) haven’t moved so much over recent years, i.e. ratios of patenFeb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]ts maintained as granted, amended, revoked.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]6. Admittedly this is nitpicking a bit, but the sentence “As many as 46% of those patents that have been granted and opposed are now revoked by a Board of Appeal” isn’t quite right. This is 46% of the patents that have been opposed and that have gone to appeal. That is a skewed sample of all of the patents that have been opposed. See my comment above about which party is more likely to appeal – I’d have to check, but I thiFeb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]nk opponents appeal more often than patentees, e.g. where a patent is maintained in amended form.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]7. In my view, whether timeliness is considered part of ‘quality’ or not, it is nevertheless still important. If you think back ~ 15 years the EPO was slow and many applicants didn’t like that, especially paying renewal fees while nothing happened. A patent office should deliver reasonable decisions (not perfect ones) in a reasonable timeframe. By comparison, I routinely see communications from the German PTO stating that “iFeb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]n view of the number of earlier filed applications and the workload of the examiners no date can be given for when this application will be examined. In recent years the number of examination and search procedures has increased considerably and with it the workloads of the examiners. Therefore, longer waiting times unfortunately cannot be avoided at the present time”. That’s not good service to the applicant or to the public. ItFeb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR] prolongs legal uncertainty for applicants and 3rd parties. Imagine the criticism the EPO would get if it routinely sent out communications like that…Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]8. Following on from 7, as I’ve raised before on here, it does seem ‘easier’ to criticise the EPO than national institutions. Maybe it is a psychological thing, it being more ‘difficult’ to criticise your own country’s institution, at least on a forum with foreign readers. e.g. there was an article in praise of the outgoing DPMA head on here recently, while that same patent office sends out communications as mentioned abFeb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]ove. And can we Germans criticise the quality at the EPO and the need for a quality examination (see the article “Of course, you can leave everything to Opposition Divisions, Boards of Appeal and/or Courts, but you should also consider the less desirable consequences……contentious proceedings before each of these bodies take a considerable amount of time and are expensive,….. It is thus in the interest of a democratic societyFeb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR] that awards equal rights to everyone (and every company) to provide, as a public service, an effective filter that separates the good from the bad inventions and provides for a reasonable certainty that the rights eventually awarded to patentees are good and valid”) while simultaneously maintaining our utility model system?Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]Adam BlondelFeb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]FEBRUARY 16, 2023 AT 8:27 AMFeb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]A modest proposal would be to respect the Law (EPC art52) and restore freedom of programming computers.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]Another more radical proposal would be to transform the EPO into an EU agency, without any ‘self-financed’ objective to pressure examiners to grant as many patents as possible.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]A quality problem at the EPO? You must be mistaken!Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]FEBRUARY 16, 2023 AT 11:32 AMFeb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]You must be a friend of Zoobab.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]The case law of the EBA and BA has made clear how to deal with CII.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]Not allowing patentabilty just because you need a program would be denying lots of inventions the possibility of being patented. Is this what you want? For instance, lots of control functions are nowadays using CII. Denying protection for those technical items would be ludicrous.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]What is not patentable is a program AS SUCH! As soon as a program has a link with a technical reality, it is patentable. And rightly so.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]Transforming the EPO as an EU agency is not possible as there are 39 contracting states at the EPO and only 27 at the EU.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]Printed on A3 paper.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]FEBRUARY 16, 2023 AT 6:25 PMFeb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]“Good quality needs time, and better quality needs more time”.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]It is now on my office door.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]Thanks for your efforts Thorsten.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]I’ll come to you when I am fired from the EPO.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]A quality problem at the EPO? You must be mistaken!Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]FEBRUARY 17, 2023 AT 7:06 AMFeb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]Good quality does not necessarily need more time,Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]It needs a good training to start with.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]Well trained examiners will know what to do.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]This is not any longer the case.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]Experienced examiners are leaving the office as soon as soon as they can.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]A big source of knowledge is thereby lost.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]Examiners cannot be blamed when they play with the system as well as the system plays with them.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]I feel deeply sorry for examiners. They are “managed” by a bunch of incompetent people who do not have a clue about the work done and are hypnotised by Excel tables!Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]The biggest problem at the EPO is that those who carry out the work have the same qualifications as people sitting in management. The management has never understood this. The present management even less than their ancient predecessorsFeb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]Follow the moneyFeb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]FEBRUARY 17, 2023 AT 3:09 PMFeb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]Why does the upper management push for patents to be granted as quickly as possible?Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]Mr bausch complained on this same blog about this frantic move to quick grants!Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]When patents are granted as soon as possible, it means that renewal fees go much earlier to national patent offices/national budgets, as they can keep 50% of the renewal fees.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]This combined with a very specific use of the “cooperation budget” explains why the AC has given up its control function and the tail is wagging the dog.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]All presidents of the EPO have at times played with the “cooperation budget”, but the present incumbent and its predecessor have institutionalised the process to their clear advantage.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]The AC is rubber stamping anything coming from the 10th floor. Whether it corresponds to the letter and spirit of the EPC has become irrelevant. The chair of the BA also plays a role when looking at decisions like G 3/19 and G 1/21.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]The president of the EPO and its predecessor are primarily to blame for the degradation of quality, but the AC is contributing too!Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]In the past it happened that the AC sometimes first refused the financial discharge to a president and even nipped in the bud a president’s desire to build a new building for the EPO, cf. EPO 2000 in Voorburg.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]This also explains why in The Hague it took so long to built a replacement for the tower built at the time by the IIB.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]In those days the AC played the role it was meant too!Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]Some explanations about the present situationFeb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]FEBRUARY 19, 2023 AT 10:53 AMFeb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]When the EPO was set up, existing international organizations were more controlled by the AC than by the heads of the organization.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]At the EPO, the head should get more power.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]This worked fine as long as the heads of the office were reasonable. Since roughly 2010 this is not any longer the case.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]The presidents just think that immunity means impunity. They act accordingly. They think the office is their private playground.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]The AC, is for obvious reasons, see above, not any longer controlling the office.Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]Hence the present problems of bad staff relations combined with dwindling quality."Feb 21 09:11
schestowitz[TR]^ all commentsFeb 21 09:12
schestowitz[TR]some might have been censored alreadyFeb 21 09:12
schestowitz[TR]> Refocussing on patents, not FOSS:Feb 21 09:14
schestowitz[TR]> Feb 21 09:14
schestowitz[TR]> http://www.fosspatents.com/2023/02/gradually-refocusing-foss-patents-on.html?m=1 <http://www.fosspatents.com/2023/02/gradually-refocusing-foss-patents-on.html?m=1>Feb 21 09:14
schestowitz[TR]Yes, his blog became useless to us.Feb 21 09:14
schestowitz[TR]He probably needs money.Feb 21 09:14
schestowitz[TR] <li>Feb 21 09:21
schestowitz[TR]                                    <h5><a href="https://portswigger.net/daily-swig/most-web-api-flaws-are-missed-by-standard-security-tests-corey-j-ball-on-securing-a-neglected-attack-vector">‘Most web API flaws are missed by standard security tests’ – Corey J Ball on securing a neglected attack vector</a></h5>Feb 21 09:21
schestowitz[TR]                                    <blockquote>Feb 21 09:21
schestowitz[TR]                                        <p>He subsequentially obtained CEH, CISSP, and OSCP certificates before eventually being offered an opportunity to help lead penetration testing services at public accounting firm Moss Adams, where he still works as lead web app pen tester.</p>Feb 21 09:21
schestowitz[TR]                                        <p>Recently focusing more narrowly on web API security – a largely underserved area – Ball has launched a free online course on the topic and published Hacking APIs: Breaking Web Application Programming Interfaces (No Starch Press, 2022).</p>Feb 21 09:21
schestowitz[TR]                                        <p>In an interview with The Daily Swig, Ball explains how the growing use of web APIs requires a change of perspective on how we secure our applications.</p>Feb 21 09:21
schestowitz[TR]                                    </blockquote>Feb 21 09:21
schestowitz[TR]                                </li>Feb 21 09:21
schestowitz[TR]                                Feb 21 09:21
schestowitz[TR]   <li>Feb 21 09:22
schestowitz[TR]                                    <h5><a href="https://jpieper.com/2023/02/20/moteus-clock-synchronization/">moteus clock synchronization</a></h5>Feb 21 09:22
schestowitz[TR]                                    <blockquote>Feb 21 09:22
schestowitz[TR]                                        <p>To make this work, there are two pieces. First we need to be able to change the rate at which the microcontroller’s clock operates. The microcontroller does provide a trim mechanism for exactly this purpose. At the factory it is calibrated and then the firmware is able to further tweak the result in approximately 40kHz increments, as compared to the 16MHz base RC oscillator frequency. ForFeb 21 09:22
schestowitz[TR] moteus, that works out to about 0.25% increments of speed. This trim was already exposed as an undocumented configuration option clock.hsitrim, but not in a form suitable for modification online.</p>Feb 21 09:22
schestowitz[TR]                                    </blockquote>Feb 21 09:22
schestowitz[TR]                                </li>Feb 21 09:22
schestowitz[TR]   <li>Feb 21 09:22
schestowitz[TR]                                    <h5><a href="https://buttondown.email/hillelwayne/archive/code-review-vs-code-proofreading/">Code review vs code proofreading</a></h5>Feb 21 09:22
schestowitz[TR]                                    <blockquote>Feb 21 09:22
schestowitz[TR]                                        <p>The further up the rung you go, the more editing becomes an art. I’ve had lots of different people help edit my blog posts and I’ve noticed that people tend to “settle” on one style of feedback. It also seems to form a pyramid: it’s a lot easier to find people who like to do proofreading and copyediting than who do substantive editing. That’s likely because proofreading is very Feb 21 09:22
schestowitz[TR]objective while substantive editing is heavily subjective.</p>Feb 21 09:22
schestowitz[TR]                                        <p>The important thing is that these are different skills and activities. The techniques and challenges of proofreading are different from the challenges and techniques of copyediting, which are different from substantive editing.</p>Feb 21 09:22
schestowitz[TR]                                    </blockquote>Feb 21 09:22
schestowitz[TR]                                </li>Feb 21 09:22
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.fosspatents.com | FOSS Patents: Gradually refocusing FOSS Patents on patents WHILE exploring alternatives for antitrust analysis and commentaryFeb 21 09:25
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-portswigger.net | ‘Most web API flaws are missed by standard security tests’ – Corey J Ball on securing a neglected attack vector | The Daily SwigFeb 21 09:25
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-jpieper.com | moteus clock synchronization | A Modicum of FunFeb 21 09:26
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-buttondown.email | Code review vs code proofreading • ButtondownFeb 21 09:26
*psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has left #techbytesFeb 21 09:27
*GNUmoon2 has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)Feb 21 09:27
*psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has joined #techbytesFeb 21 09:31
schestowitz[TR] <li>Feb 21 09:39
schestowitz[TR]                                    <h5><a href="https://www.securityweek.com/twitter-shuts-off-text-based-2fa-for-non-subscribers/">Twitter Shuts Off Text-Based 2FA for Non-Subscribers</a></h5>Feb 21 09:39
schestowitz[TR]                                    <blockquote>Feb 21 09:39
schestowitz[TR]                                        <p>The decision — and the way it is positioned as a paid feature — attracted backlash from security professionals who argue that text-based 2FA is better than nothing at all. Worse, it creates a false sense of security among paying subscribers who may think the weakest form of 2FA is a premium feature.</p>Feb 21 09:39
schestowitz[TR]                                        <p>Twitter’s own internal data shows that multi-factor adoption remains startlingly low. According to a 2021 transparency report, Twitter found that barely 2.3 percent of all its active accounts have enabled at least one method of two-factor authentication between July and December 2020.</p>Feb 21 09:39
schestowitz[TR]                                    </blockquote>Feb 21 09:39
schestowitz[TR]                                </li>Feb 21 09:39
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-Twitter Shuts Off Text-Based 2FA for Non-Subscribers - SecurityWeekFeb 21 09:39
*GNUmoon2 (~GNUmoon@etygfgxsisyta.irc) has joined #techbytesFeb 21 09:42
schestowitz[TR]<li>Feb 21 09:43
schestowitz[TR]                                            <h5><a href="https://blog.apnic.net/2023/02/20/opinion-to-dnssec-or-not/">[Opinion] To DNSSEC or not?</a></h5>Feb 21 09:43
schestowitz[TR]                                            <blockquote>Feb 21 09:43
schestowitz[TR]                                                <p>The canonical specification of the DNS that is normally cited are the pair of RFCs, RFC 1034, ‘Domain names – concepts and facilities’, and RFC 1035, ‘Domain names – implementation and specification’, both published in November 1987. However, these two core specifications are just the tip of a rather large iceberg. One compendium of all the RFCs that touch upon the DNS lFeb 21 09:43
schestowitz[TR]ists some 292 RFCs. That implies that to claim that the DNS is essentially unchanged over this forty-year period might be a bit of a stretch, but nevertheless, the fundamentals of the DNS have been constant. Those additional 292 RFCs illustrate the observation that we’ve spent a huge amount of time and effort over these forty years focused on tinkering at the edges!</p>Feb 21 09:43
schestowitz[TR]                                            </blockquote>Feb 21 09:43
schestowitz[TR]                                        </li>Feb 21 09:43
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-blog.apnic.net | [Opinion] To DNSSEC or not? | APNIC BlogFeb 21 09:43
schestowitz[TR] <li>Feb 21 09:54
schestowitz[TR]                            <h5><a href="https://www.helsinkitimes.fi/finland/finland-news/domestic/22996-yle-publishes-search-engine-for-schools-drawing-criticism.html">YLE publishes search engine for schools, drawing criticism</a></h5>Feb 21 09:54
schestowitz[TR]                            <blockquote>Feb 21 09:54
schestowitz[TR]                                <p>Jouko Jokinen, an acting editor-in-chief at YLE, on Sunday expressed his puzzlement with the public debate prompted by the article.</p>Feb 21 09:54
schestowitz[TR]                                <p>“Our duty is to produce new and meaningful information for society, and the number of [pupils learning Finnish as a second language] and their distribution between different parts of the country are simple facts. Telling them is important and interesting,” he stated to Helsingin Sanomat.</p>Feb 21 09:54
schestowitz[TR]                            </blockquote>Feb 21 09:54
schestowitz[TR]                        </li>Feb 21 09:54
schestowitz[TR]                        Feb 21 09:54
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-Empty reply from server ( status 0 @ https://www.helsinkitimes.fi/finland/finland-news/domestic/22996-yle-publishes-search-engine-for-schools-drawing-criticism.html )Feb 21 09:54
*psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has left #techbytesFeb 21 10:07
*psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has joined #techbytesFeb 21 10:11
schestowitz[TR]   <li>Feb 21 10:12
schestowitz[TR]                                    <h5><a href="https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/inside-the-covert-firm-that-spreads-lies-and-chaos-around-the-world-a-3c55e1cd-7d61-4cf8-8321-999da1996aa8">How a Covert Firm Spreads Lies and Chaos Around the World</a></h5>Feb 21 10:12
schestowitz[TR]                                    <blockquote>Feb 21 10:12
schestowitz[TR]                                        <p>Former Israeli agents have apparently manipulated nearly three dozen elections. Their clients: power-hungry politicians and wealthy businessmen. They are part of a rapidly growing global disinformation industry in which Russia is far from the only player.</p>Feb 21 10:12
schestowitz[TR]                                    </blockquote>Feb 21 10:12
schestowitz[TR]                                </li>Feb 21 10:12
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.spiegel.de | How a Covert Firm Spreads Lies and Chaos Around the World - DER SPIEGELFeb 21 10:12
*MinceR has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)Feb 21 10:44
schestowitz[TR] <li>Feb 21 10:44
schestowitz[TR]                            <h5><a href="https://qz.com/microsoft-activision-blizzard-deal-eu-hearing-1850135969">Microsoft is getting ready to defend its Activision Blizzard acquisition to EU regulators</a></h5>Feb 21 10:44
schestowitz[TR]                            <blockquote>Feb 21 10:44
schestowitz[TR]                                <p>The Redmond, Washington-based software giant will make a “last-ditch effort” to defend its bid at a closed hearing in Brussels tomorrow (Feb. 21), Reuters reported. The company will counter the statement of objections from the European Commission warning about the deal being anti-competitive.</p>Feb 21 10:44
schestowitz[TR]                            </blockquote>Feb 21 10:44
schestowitz[TR]                        </li>Feb 21 10:44
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-qz.com | Microsoft presents Activision Blizzard deal defense to the EUFeb 21 10:44
*psydroid2 (~psydroid@cbcfptirpkfqa.irc) has joined #techbytesFeb 21 11:18
*MinceR (~mincer@bringer.of.light) has joined #techbytesFeb 21 11:44
*irc.techrights.org sets mode +a #techbytes MinceRFeb 21 11:44
*geert (~geert@xx9wx74t6usdy.irc) has joined #techbytesFeb 21 13:55
*geert has quit (Quit: Lost terminal)Feb 21 14:16
*psydroid2 has quit (connection closed)Feb 21 22:39
*psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has left #techbytesFeb 21 23:03
*psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has joined #techbytesFeb 21 23:05
*psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has left #techbytesFeb 21 23:11
*psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has joined #techbytesFeb 21 23:20

Generated by irclog2html.py 2.6 | ䷉ find the plain text version at this address (HTTP) or in Gemini (how to use Gemini) with a full GemText version.