IRC: #techbytes @ Techrights IRC Network: Wednesday, August 23, 2023
beginning of new day, August 23
00:48 *jacobk (~quassel@6wygwq2t5e2hw.irc) has joined #techbytes
00:49 *MinceR gives voice to jacobk
1 AM, August 23
01:13 *jacobk has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)
01:34 *jacobk (~quassel@6wygwq2t5e2hw.irc) has joined #techbytes
01:36 *MinceR gives voice to jacobk
2 AM, August 23
02:40 *rianne__ has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)
02:40 *asusbox has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)
3 AM, August 23
03:12 *techrights[sec]_ has quit (connection closed)
03:31 *jacobk has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)
4 AM, August 23
04:47 *tokwe (~tokwe@3stvfjh5iuw88.irc) has joined #techbytes
04:47 *tokwe is now known as techrights-[sec]
04:47 *MinceR gives voice to techrights-[sec]
5 AM, August 23
05:24 schestowitz; >> Watch the shirt he wears: freedo of gnu linux-libre
05:24 schestowitz; >> https://odysee.com/@AlphaNerd:8/the-fall-of-linus-tech-tips:1
05:24 schestowitz; > Cool, eh?
05:24 schestowitz; >
05:24 schestowitz; > I wonder if that's the T shirt design by Jeff Moe, or someone else's.
05:24 schestowitz; >
05:24 schestowitz; > Thanks for the link!
05:24 -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-odysee.com | The Fall of Linus Tech Tips
10 AM, August 23
10:59 schestowitz;
10:59 schestowitz; <p>Microsoft fired 50 people at MSN News in 2020, then turned the “content” over to an “AI” Chaff Bot that told vacationers to Canada to <a href="https://www.engadget.com/microsoft-retracts-ai-written-article-advising-tourists-to-visit-a-food-bank-on-an-empty-stomach-182701884.html">visit a food pantry while they’re hungry</a>.</p>
10:59 schestowitz; <p>This is not surprising. In fact, it’s to be expected. “AI” spew doesn’t cost them anything to post, they can put ads on it, and the audience is people who aren’t smart enough to remove Windows from their PC and get a real Web browser.</p>
10:59 schestowitz; <p>Microsoft is barely investing in their products and MSN News isn’t really even a corner case. Windows is decrepit and fading into irrelevance. They fire people tending to that corpse too, but can’t simply turn it over to a bot because bots don’t even know how to answer simple programming questions, much less replace programmers. </p>
10:59 schestowitz; <p>(Although many lose their jobs because of a bad economy, and the fact that they only had work because of low interest debt.)</p>
10:59 schestowitz; <p>Unfortunately, actual news sites are also looking into the “cost savings” side of Chaff Bot “content”. </p>
10:59 schestowitz; <p>The Chaff Bot Problem is helping the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Internet_theory">Dead Internet Theory</a> along. No humans, just PR firms and Chaff Bot spew.</p>
10:59 schestowitz; <p>It’s not quite there yet, but the bots don’t have to sleep and can spew things all over the place that are morbid, stupid, incorrect, and low quality for corporations such as Microsoft to slap advertising on. </p>
10:59 schestowitz; <p>The article, which Microsoft removed, about Canada, was so low quality it was essentially a word salad like no human would ever write, cobbled together with random and low quality (even pixelated) images. (The one of the food bank was just a maple leaf.)</p>
10:59 schestowitz; <p>What’s also not helping is the fact that real Web browsers that are not designed by billion dollar corporations, are choking on an enormous amount of garbage invented mostly by Google. It’s amazing that SeaMonkey’s view of the Web platform is hardly a few years old, and already so much falls apart. Even trying to keep the Web working in a year under a still-supported version of Firefox ESR starts to become a problem
10:59 schestowitz; .</p>
10:59 schestowitz; <p>The Web must be replaced.</p>
10:59 schestowitz; <p>It’s terrifying, depressing, how we all just walk around hitting up the same 5-10 sites, few of which are even people anymore. Most of them hosted on CloudFlare, which is the enemy of your privacy.</p>
10:59 schestowitz; <p>It takes no effort to flood the Web with crap, and companies like Microsoft (and their useful idiots) obviously have no reservations about doing it, which is why we need to take our cheese and leave.</p>
10:59 schestowitz; <p>It’s really aggravating to see what even the New York Times has decayed into, and they still expect you to pay money to read it. Imagine what happens when they replace Paul Krugman, who is a propagandist, who writes utterly predictable “content”, with a “KrugmanBot” that just blasts how, hey, sure your husband is losing all his hours at Walmart because nobody buys anything anymore while plenty of people
10:59 schestowitz; are stealing things and setting the place on fire, and the economy under Biden is a miracle. </p>
10:59 schestowitz; <p><strong>All day long, miracle. (No sleep. Just miracles, and ads.)</strong></p>
10:59 schestowitz; <p>Web 4.0</p>
10:59 schestowitz; x https://siliconangle.com/2023/08/22/microsoft-integrates-python-programming-language-excel/
10:59 schestowitz; x https://www.theregister.com/2023/08/22/python_excel_anaconda/
10:59 schestowitz; <p>Miracle.</p>
10:59 -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-Microsoft retracts AI-written article advising tourists to visit a food bank on an empty stomach | Engadget
10:59 -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-en.wikipedia.org | Dead Internet theory - Wikipedia
11 AM, August 23
11:00 -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-Microsoft integrates the Python programming language into Excel - SiliconANGLE
11:00 -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.theregister.com | Python scripting in Microsoft Excel now in public preview The Register
11:23 *DaemonFC has quit (Quit: ChatZilla 0.17 [SeaMonkey 2.53.17/20230804000000])
11:48 *GNUmoon2 has quit (Quit: Leaving)
11:51 *GNUmoon2 (~GNUmoon@r9irv7kyrpv3c.irc) has joined #techbytes
1 PM, August 23
13:23 *MinceR gives voice to GNUmoon2
13:28 *jacobk (~quassel@32hz32it3ih2k.irc) has joined #techbytes
13:35 *schestowitz gives voice to jacobk
2 PM, August 23
14:49 *asusbox (~rianne@3stvfjh5iuw88.irc) has joined #techbytes
14:49 *rianne__ (~rianne@3stvfjh5iuw88.irc) has joined #techbytes
14:51 *MinceR gives voice to asusbox rianne__
3 PM, August 23
15:00 *asusbox has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)
15:00 *rianne__ has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)
15:19 *asusbox (~rianne@3stvfjh5iuw88.irc) has joined #techbytes
15:19 *rianne__ (~rianne@3stvfjh5iuw88.irc) has joined #techbytes
15:26 *MinceR gives voice to asusbox rianne__
15:29 *asusbox has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)
15:30 *rianne__ has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)
15:56 *jacobk has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)
4 PM, August 23
16:09 *jacobk (~quassel@6wygwq2t5e2hw.irc) has joined #techbytes
16:11 *MinceR gives voice to jacobk
5 PM, August 23
17:05 *jacobk has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)
17:13 *jacobk (~quassel@99ed6ukzxymmc.irc) has joined #techbytes
17:15 *MinceR gives voice to jacobk
17:16 *jacobk has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)
17:17 *jacobk (~quassel@99ed6ukzxymmc.irc) has joined #techbytes
17:19 *MinceR gives voice to jacobk
17:28 *jacobk has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)
6 PM, August 23
18:47 *jacobk (~quassel@6wygwq2t5e2hw.irc) has joined #techbytes
18:48 *MinceR gives voice to jacobk
7 PM, August 23
19:20 schestowitz; http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2023/08/adding-matter-by-amending-description.html?showComment=1692700644947#c4511045873888100486
19:20 schestowitz;
19:20 schestowitz;
19:20 schestowitz; @DXT<br />It does not help your cause, nor advance the debate here one iota, if you do not engage in good faith. Your most recent response includes examples of:<br />1) failing to follow a train of thought to its logical conclusion (eg Art 69 and the EPO's "non-EPC" claim interpretation approach);<br />2) shifting the debate to a different point (interpretation of Art 69 EPC) without concluding the original debate (interpreta
19:20 schestowitz; tion of Art 84 EPC);<br />3) "whataboutery" (eg alleged problems with a "strict" interpretation of Art 69 EPC);<br />4) attacking others for allegedly holding views that they never espoused (eg: my alleged desire for a "perfect" interpretation of claim wording during EPO proceedings);<br />5) maligning the motives of others (eg the allegation that I wish to "<i>push the boundaries further than the actu
19:20 schestowitz; al contribution to the art</i>"); and<br />6) dismissing / minimising issues clearly demonstrated by others (eg the risk of added matter from <i>limiting</i>amendments to the description).<br /><br />To me, the presence of so many examples of failure to engage in good faith suggests that the commentator has perception bias, is wilfully blind, and reinterprets "uncomfortable" facts to make them fit with a preconceived worl
19:20 schestowitz; d view.<br /><br />I also find point 5 above to be particularly amusing, in that it relies upon turning logical reasoning on its head. Wishing for more protection than that provided by the EPO's "rough approximation" of the meaning of the claims (ie the strict, literal meaning of that wording) could simply be wishing for the scope of protection afforded by Art 69 EPC and its Protocol. That Article and Protocol were drafted spe
19:20 schestowitz; cifically in order to provide a <b>fair</b> reward for the patentee's contribution to the art. So how can wishing for such a scope of protection possibly represent pushing <i>beyond</i> the contribution to the art?<br /><br />Also, with regard to point 6 above, I would simply ask the following questions. Firstly, does the EPO case law not include numerous examples of addition of subject matter by <i>limiting</b> amendments (eg deletions
19:20 schestowitz; from multiple lists, intermediate generalisations and insertion of non-disclosed disclaimers)? Secondly, why would the national courts not apply the same (or similar) principles from that case law when assessing the validity of pre-grant amendments to the description? Thirdly, what is language such as "<i>not the invention according to the claims</i>" other than a form of non-disclosed disclaimer?<br /><br />Whether you reali
19:20 schestowitz; se it or not, I have been seeking to establish the common ground between us, so that I can identify and then analyse (the reasons for) the point where our views diverge. This is not so that I can rubbish your reasoning, but instead so that I can better <b>understand</b> the points that you find so persuasive. Indeed, I remain open to the possibility that I might just find those points to be persuasive too. So it really is counter-produc
19:20 schestowitz; tive to your cause if you do not engage in good faith ... not least because it makes me suspect that the reason you are so defensive / evasive is that you are concerned that your reasoning might not stand up to detailed scrutiny.
19:20 schestowitz;
19:20 schestowitz;
19:20 schestowitz;
19:20 schestowitz; And so once again the pemetrexed decision comes up, and once again we go off on a series of tangents that have, at best, marginal relevance to the actual issue of concern.<br /><br />We all understand that DXT seems to be particularly aggrieved by the pemetrexed decisions - or perhaps just by the decision of the UK Supreme Court? It would be interesting to know whether the decisions of other national courts in this litigation are also
19:20 schestowitz; so upsetting to you, and if so why.<br /><br />However, let's try to get the discussion back on track:<br /><br />It is <i>completely irrelevant</i> what a retired judge said, in a different forum, about a decision which he was not involved with.<br /><br />It is <i>completely irrelevant</i> why certain claims or statements at various levels of generalisation were present, or not present, in the pemetrexed application as originally file
19:20 schestowitz; d.<br /><br />It is <i>completely irrelevant</i> whether or not the EPO was right to object under Article 123(2).<br /><br />It is <i>completely irrelevant</i> what amendments were made during prosecution, and why.<br /><br />What <i>is</i> relevant is the content of the patent <i>as granted by the EPO</i> and what influence, if any, the granted description had on the interpretation of the granted claims.<br /><br />With that in mind, c
19:20 schestowitz; an we please try to refocus on the actual problem?
19:20 -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | Adding matter by amending the description to exclude embodiments (Ensygnia v Shell [2023] EWHC 1495 (Pat)) - The IPKat