Techrights logo

IRC: #techbytes @ Techrights IRC Network: Wednesday, March 29, 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.

*Noisytoot has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)Mar 29 01:37
*Noisytoot (~noisytoot@tkbibjhmbkvb8.irc) has joined #techbytesMar 29 01:39
*psydruid has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)Mar 29 03:37
schestowitz[TR]>   Gemini address: Mar 29 04:24
schestowitz[TR]> gemini:// 29 04:24
schestowitz[TR]Will soon be accessed 2000 times.Mar 29 04:24
schestowitz[TR]Your article was very good. I hope you can do articles regularly. We need community voices to override the corporate noise. :-)Mar 29 04:24
schestowitz[TR]"Dear colleagues,Mar 29 06:21
schestowitz[TR]The consultation period regarding the proposed staff representation election rules has ended and we warmly thank all colleagues who dedicated time and energy to provide input.Mar 29 06:21
schestowitz[TR]The local staff committee The Hague took the comments into account and the final draft of the election rules which will be proposed for adoption during the General Assembly of Wednesday 29th March can be consulted here.Mar 29 06:21
schestowitz[TR] "Mar 29 06:21
schestowitz[TR]Thank you Proof of the Pudding. I believe far more... ☞ 29 09:35
schestowitz[TR]Thank you Proof of the Pudding. I believe far more...</a></h5><blockquote>Thank you Proof of the Pudding. I believe far more in the capabilities of EPO Board of Appeal members than legislators, in essence because legislators are too far removed from the system to know how the laws impact on getting and defending a patent. Of course it's good that you disagree. But you are also pushing the problems elsewhere (to legislators etc) whenMar 29 09:35
schestowitz[TR] the EPO is best placed to reengineer itself as needed. I hope it will become much more like a Supreme Court in due course with policy issues impacting on everything it does. When the 'Just Patent Law' blog started up, I found it very interesting that it explicitly excluded 'politics' from its remit. Clearly people want to keep patent ideas distinct from other matters. That is understandable, but the 'messiness' of the real world isMar 29 09:35
schestowitz[TR] also very real, and I believe the EPO should be much more involved in the politics and economics of technology.Mar 29 09:35
schestowitz[TR]Dear Max Drei,<br /><br />With due respect to your knowledge and experience, some words should not be used in comments. Leaving the description “unbastardized” is a good example of what should not be used. <br /><br />Furthermore what does the adaptation of the description has to do with the topic discussed by the EBA?Mar 29 09:35
schestowitz[TR]Santa, just to let you know that my last comment inadvertently omitted words from each of the last two sentences. What I meant to say was:<br />&quot;it is completely implausible that the relevant adjustment can be (or can best be) made <b>only</b> by &quot;tweaking&quot; the EPO case law / practice part of the system. Also, over-reliance upon that mechanism of adjustment can lead to legislators becoming too lazy to make adjustmentsMar 29 09:35
schestowitz[TR] <b>to the legislation</b> that can achieve far more than even a &quot;dynamic&quot; interpretation of the EPO's case law&quot;.<br /><br />I would also add that, in addition to being horribly undemocratic, relying upon the EPO to adjust its case law and practice in response to perceived economic needs opens up the patent system to (even more) potential abuse by lobbyists.<br /><br />Rule 28(2) EPC is a case in point. That rule, aloMar 29 09:35
schestowitz[TR]ng with other changes to EPO practice on the patenting of plants and animals, embodied the top item on the 2017 wish-list of the plant breeder's lobbyists. Whether through force of logic and/or other means, those lobbyists managed to get the European Commission, the EU Council and the European Parliament &quot;on side&quot; with their aims and objectives. Whilst that kind of activity is par for the course, what happened next is mostMar 29 09:35
schestowitz[TR] definitely not. That is, instead of focusing their efforts on legislative adjustments at the EU level, the Commission and the Parliament pressured the EPO (and its Administrative Council) into passing a new EPC Implementing Regulation.<br /><br />There are crucial differences between new EU legislation and new EPC Implementing Regulations. With regard to the legislative process, the passing of a new EPC Implementing Regulation invoMar 29 09:35
schestowitz[TR]lves far less transparency and far less (public) debate. It also eliminates the need for any kind of investigation into the potential (economic) impact of the proposed change. In short, it is a lobbyist's wet dream, as it allows &quot;legislation&quot; to be put into place without having to deal with any inconvenient questions or facts about what it seeks to achieve.Mar 29 09:35
schestowitz[TR]On a related point, is anybody else frustrated by the Examining Division's increasing propensity to intervene and add amendments of their own to the text intended for grant issued alongside the 71(3) communication?  I am yet to see a single case where the Examining Division has made its own amendments without introducing a least one typo, more commonly dozens. I am rejecting almost every text intended for grant that comes by me thesMar 29 09:35
schestowitz[TR]e daysMar 29 09:35
-TechBytesBot/ | EPO tries to have its cake and eat it on claim interpretation (T 0169/20) - The IPKatMar 29 09:35
schestowitz[TR] 29 09:35
-TechBytesBot/ | EPO Board of Appeal toes the party-line on description amendments (T 1024/18) - The IPKatMar 29 09:36
schestowitz[TR]Santa, it very much sounds as though you are turne... ☞ 29 09:37
schestowitz[TR]Santa, it very much sounds as though you are turned off by the messy realities that are an inescapable feature of democracy and the rule of law, and are instead drawn to the idea of a more ordered EP patent system in which the EPO and its Boards (and presumably also the UPC) become the de facto rulers of some form of benign dictatorship.<br /><br />I think that it is fair to say that I have a <b>very</b> different perspective. It isMar 29 09:37
schestowitz[TR] not that I am blind to the problems with getting legislators and supreme courts involved in patent law. Far from it. Indeed, that is the worst possible system that I can imagine ... except, that is, for all of the others.<br /><br />For example, do you really think that it would be a good idea to hand both legislative and interpretive powers to one body? The separation of powers principle has been developed for a reason, you know. Mar 29 09:37
schestowitz[TR]And to hand such powers to an international body comprising unelected and unaccountable individuals who benefit from immunities that render them essentially untouchable? I do not believe that anyone in their right mind would conclude that doing that could possibly end well.Mar 29 09:37
schestowitz[TR]Dear &quot;anonymous&quot; I am sorry if you have taken offence at my use of the b word. It is the misplaced zeal with which some EPO Examiners &quot;conform&quot; the description in preparation for issuing a 71(3) Commn which makes me emotional.<br /><br />The EBA has now told us to derive from the disclosure content of the application as filed, the original disclosure, the effects relevant to patentability. When the EPO &quot;confMar 29 09:37
schestowitz[TR]orms&quot; the description, it alters that disclosure. I should prefer it if the tribunal deciding on validity and infringement does so on the basis of one single disclosure document, namely the description originally filed. <br /><br />The exercise of &quot;conforming&quot; the description is a minefield under Art 123(2) EPC despite protestations that for a competent attorney it is no such thing. And now, thanks to G2/21, it opens Mar 29 09:37
schestowitz[TR]up a can of worms under Art 56 EPC. It consumes huge amounts of time. And all for what? Just because of pemetrexed and so that courts can be more firmly guided by the EPO on matters of the Doctrine of Equivalents? That seems to me presumptious and unnecessary. But then, I'm not within the privileged inner circle of persons guiding the necessarily strategic and political thinking of the tenant on the top floor, the EPO President for Mar 29 09:37
schestowitz[TR]the time being.<br /><br />I hope that my provocative remarks will stimulate further comment.<br />Mar 29 09:37
schestowitz[TR]MaxDrei and Proof of the Pudding, just to finish off my contribution to this thread I would point to the oral arguments happening at the US Supreme Court in Amgen v Sanofi - see<br />The questions raised by the judges are seen as naive or lacking scientific and patent expertise, but are Mar 29 09:37
schestowitz[TR]important policy matters in terms of what scope of monopoly to give to functional definitions. It's refreshing to see such a public debate on policy on claim scope, though of course it is a little simplistic, etcMar 29 09:37
schestowitz[TR]I respectfully disagree MaxDrei. G2/21 essentially give the Boards of Appeal free rein to proceed as they wish in accepting post-published evidence provided the spec reaches some sort of threshold level for defining the relevant technical effect (in this case a synergistic activity). Which technical effect we are talking about will be very important in the test for use of post-filing data. It is therefore essential for third partiesMar 29 09:37
schestowitz[TR] that the relevant technical effect for inventive step, sufficiency, plausibility is reflected in the description of the patent as best as possible, i.e. subject matter outside that technical effect is either deleted or marked as not part of the invention. It is only correct that EPO case law is focusing more and more on the technical effect to resolve issues such as use of post-filing data, but that makes it more crucial that thirdMar 29 09:37
schestowitz[TR] parties can be helped to derive the correct technical effect by the amendments made to the description (and of course as I have argued in comments on the most recent IPKat post on description amendment, this is also necessary to help with determining infringement equivalence scope)Mar 29 09:37
-TechBytesBot/ | EPO tries to have its cake and eat it on claim interpretation (T 0169/20) - The IPKatMar 29 09:37
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes- ( status 404 @<br )Mar 29 09:38
*Moocher5254 has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)Mar 29 09:58
schestowitz[TR]x 29 10:05
schestowitz[TR]# spamMar 29 10:05
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-How Microsoft became tech’s top dog again | ComputerworldMar 29 10:05
schestowitz[TR]x 29 10:05
schestowitz[TR]# more puff piecesMar 29 10:05
-TechBytesBot/ | How Three TikTokers Used God to Find Surrealism – Rolling StoneMar 29 10:05
schestowitz[TR]  <li>Mar 29 10:13
schestowitz[TR]                                    <h5><a href="">How to Quickly Merge PDF Files on Linux</a></h5>Mar 29 10:13
schestowitz[TR]                                    <blockquote>Mar 29 10:13
schestowitz[TR]                                        <p>In this guide I cover merging PDF files on Linux in two different ways: CLI and GUI.</p>Mar 29 10:13
schestowitz[TR]                                        <p>If you’re comfortable at the command-line there’s a cool tool most Linux distributions come with that can do this task; or if you’re more comfortable clicking your way around there’s a user-friendly app for the task, available in most distro’s repos.</p>Mar 29 10:13
schestowitz[TR]                                        <p>Either way, whether you’re a beginner or an experienced Linux user, by the end of this guide you’ll know how to merge PDF files quickly, easily, and all without affecting the quality of the content inside.</p>Mar 29 10:13
schestowitz[TR]                                    </blockquote>Mar 29 10:13
schestowitz[TR]                                </li>Mar 29 10:13
-TechBytesBot/ | How to Quickly Merge PDF Files on Linux - OMG! LinuxMar 29 10:13
*psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has joined #techbytesMar 29 10:14
schestowitz[TR]     <li>Mar 29 10:15
schestowitz[TR]                                    <h5><a href="">SUSE claims new era of confidential computing through its adaptable Linux platform</a></h5>Mar 29 10:15
schestowitz[TR]                                    <blockquote>Mar 29 10:15
schestowitz[TR]                                        <p>German open-source firm SUSE claims its new adaptable Linux platform, the latest iteration of which is to be released on 31 March, is the future of enterprise Linux – an application-centric, secure and flexible platform designed to focus on workloads while abstracting from hardware and application runtime layers.</p>Mar 29 10:15
schestowitz[TR]                                    </blockquote>Mar 29 10:15
schestowitz[TR]                                </li>Mar 29 10:15
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-iTWire - SUSE claims new era of confidential computing through its adaptable Linux platformMar 29 10:16
*psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has left #techbytesMar 29 10:20
*psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has joined #techbytesMar 29 10:26
*psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has left #techbytesMar 29 10:32
*psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has joined #techbytesMar 29 10:35
*psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has left #techbytesMar 29 11:01
*psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has joined #techbytesMar 29 11:05
*psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has left #techbytesMar 29 11:11
*psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has joined #techbytesMar 29 11:15
*psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has left #techbytesMar 29 11:21
*psydroid2 (~psydroid@u8ftxtfux23wk.irc) has joined #techbytesMar 29 11:23
*psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has joined #techbytesMar 29 11:24
*u-amarsh04 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)Mar 29 13:19
schestowitz[TR]li>Mar 29 13:22
schestowitz[TR]                                    <h5><a href="">Finnix 125 released</a></h5>Mar 29 13:22
schestowitz[TR]                                    <blockquote>Mar 29 13:22
schestowitz[TR]                                        <p>Today marks the release of Finnix 125, the original utility live Linux distribution. Finnix 125 includes a number of fixes, new packages and new features: [...]</p>Mar 29 13:22
schestowitz[TR]                                    </blockquote>Mar 29 13:22
schestowitz[TR]                                </li>Mar 29 13:22
-TechBytesBot/ | Finnix 125 releasedMar 29 13:22
schestowitz[TR]   <li>Mar 29 13:23
schestowitz[TR]                                    <h5><a href="">The Quality Assurance Process with Levi</a></h5>Mar 29 13:23
schestowitz[TR]                                    <blockquote>Mar 29 13:23
schestowitz[TR]                                        <p>Hi! I'm Levi, the quality assurance manager at System76. I’m here to take you a small peek behind the curtain at what our QA process looks like for a brand new product.</p>Mar 29 13:23
schestowitz[TR]                                        <p>The first thing that we do when we receive a new piece of hardware is to install Pop!_OS on it and see how well it works. If you’ve ever had a machine that initially came with Windows, then installed Linux on it, you probably have a pretty good idea of what that can look like. If we find any weird bugs, we write down the steps to reproduce them, then make bug reports for the engineers to Mar 29 13:23
schestowitz[TR]look into.</p>Mar 29 13:23
schestowitz[TR]                                    </blockquote>Mar 29 13:23
schestowitz[TR]                                </li>Mar 29 13:23
-TechBytesBot/ | The Quality Assurance Process with Levi - System76 BlogMar 29 13:23
*u-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@nqkitbgnqjad4.irc) has joined #techbytesMar 29 13:24
*u-amarsh04 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)Mar 29 13:56
*u-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@nqkitbgnqjad4.irc) has joined #techbytesMar 29 14:30
*amygdaloncus (~matrix-bo@freenode-nqk.pq2.5f8vm6.IP) has joined #techbytesMar 29 14:38
*psydroid2 has quit (Quit: Leaving)Mar 29 16:56
*psydroid2 (~psydroid@u8ftxtfux23wk.irc) has joined #techbytesMar 29 16:56
*psydroid2 has quit (Quit: Leaving)Mar 29 17:41
*psydroid2 (~psydroid@u8ftxtfux23wk.irc) has joined #techbytesMar 29 17:41
*amygdaloncus has quit (Ping timeout: 120 seconds)Mar 29 18:17
*u-amarsh04 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)Mar 29 18:41
*u-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@nqkitbgnqjad4.irc) has joined #techbytesMar 29 18:42
*psydroid2 has quit (Quit: Leaving)Mar 29 18:52
*psydroid2 (~psydroid@u8ftxtfux23wk.irc) has joined #techbytesMar 29 18:52
*psydroid3 (~psydroid@u8ftxtfux23wk.irc) has joined #techbytesMar 29 20:24
*psydroid2 has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)Mar 29 20:24
*psydroid3 has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)Mar 29 20:27
*psydroid2 (~psydroid@u8ftxtfux23wk.irc) has joined #techbytesMar 29 20:30
*Noisytoot has quit (Quit: ZNC 1.8.2 - 29 20:37
*Noisytoot (~noisytoot@tkbibjhmbkvb8.irc) has joined #techbytesMar 29 20:37
*GNUmoon2 has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)Mar 29 21:44
*GNUmoon2 (~GNUmoon@ws2bs482xtmk6.irc) has joined #techbytesMar 29 21:52
*psydroid2 has quit (connection closed)Mar 29 23:00

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