Member Info for oldsharedog

Phimx - maybe your right maybe your wrong, it's the maner that you post that many genuine investors dislike.

Maybe change the word ego in your underhand insult too understanding of genuine investors & look at following comments after any posts by either you or I, and the answer becomes clear.

It's May on Friday and I have a bath every month whether I need one or not - so I don't think it's me.

P.S. Lemonhead I have smashed lots of plates - especially when we first got here. However it became addictive and now Dame has invested in paper plates - spoiling all my fun !!

No such thing as clever posters ! Occasionally there are lucky posters, but generally there are mostly unlucky posters:)

Why is that?

Because clever posters ( Phimx photo fixer ) are blissfully unaware of the real truths behind those enticing RNS

MrH- that’s not pocket money either - why would anyone put significant amounts into a failing business project - it’s encouraging that they believe that QBT has something worth investing in.

OSD - going snorkelling 🤿 😇🇬🇷

On the subject of outstanding value of shares - I mentally wrote this off last year, so it has no monetary value or impact. The lack of clear and open friendship between genuine investors is however PRICELESS.

Every cloud !! I am going to put the spare time to perfecting my Greek dancing :)

Until of course I get called up for a strictly experience !

Is Craig still a judge ? If so I may send him a Tik tok video - that is of course if someone shows me how to do such technically challenging things 😇

Callit - things must be dire - I think that the production of sausage rolls is coming to an end :(

The main objective of this forum was to create a touch of humour - it seems to be lacking this morning.

With so little to add up they surely should consider employing new accountants !!

Sunday sermon will be delayed until further notice due to a severe lack of inspiration.

You never know some kind naysayer will come along and save the day, in the mean time enjoy the enforced silence.

Exam - or the sign of a good education & a willingness to learn.

Please don’t be so quick to judge :)

OSD - learning every day 😇

And just when they may be getting the message - all factual posts are deleted - but just the ones highlighting the obvious deceptive posts of those who wish to deceive. Is it laughable NO not really - is it usual YES completely - is it acceptable NO noy at all.

Useless Steve - I have a direct message for you: You obviously have been met with a higher level of understanding on patent law and its governing continuance. Please do not try to mislead any further - your posts are going to be picked apart, lie by lie, incompleteness by incompleteness, and will be corrected and completed by someone who actually knows about patent law.

OSD - The truth cannot be silenced 😇

To be fair - I bought multi millions months ago - then sold and bought millions yesterday morning - just over 5 mls - why why why why why !!!

Don't tell him your name Crober 🤣🤣🤣

Cont. isn’t applicable in this case!!

I have as a matter of courtesy reported your inaccurate information and hope that your posts in future include relevant guidance and not selective sentences picked from irrelevant information.

I will be checking during the rest of the day whilst mending a rudder 😇🇬🇷⛵️

Useless Steve’s done it again — grabbed a paragraph from the EPO guidelines, waved it around like a holy relic, and hoped nobody would notice he’s applied it to the wrong situation entirely.

Let’s tidy up the mess.

1. He’s quoting the generic rule, not the actual test applied to crypto‑mining patents

The line he’s clinging to — “it is not sufficient that the mathematical method is algorithmically more efficient…” — is the baseline rule for cases where the invention has no technical purpose.

Crypto‑mining, hashing, and optimisation of hardware‑bound processes are explicitly recognised by the EPO as technical purposes.

He’s quoting the “if it’s just maths” section

…to argue against something that isn’t “just maths”.

It’s like quoting the Highway Code for bicycles to argue that lorries shouldn’t be allowed on the motorway.

2. He’s pretending the EPO treats all algorithms the same

They don’t.

The EPO distinguishes between:

Mathematical methods with no technical purpose → not patentable

Mathematical methods used to improve a technical process → absolutely patentable

And guess what sits squarely in the second category?

Anything that:

reduces hardware workload

improves computational throughput

optimises resource usage

changes the behaviour of a physical system

improves execution on specific architectures (ASICs, GPUs, FPGAs)

Which is exactly the domain QBT’s filings sit in.

Steve’s quote is from the “don’t try to patent pure maths” section, not the “optimising hardware‑executed processes” section.

3. He’s ignoring the key phrase: “does not serve a technical purpose”

That’s the hinge of the entire rule.

If the method does serve a technical purpose — and crypto‑mining is explicitly listed by the EPO as one — then the rule he quoted does not apply.

He’s basically arguing:

“If something isn’t technical, it’s not technical.”

A circular masterpiece.

4. He’s trying to imply that efficiency gains don’t matter

They do — when they produce a technical effect.

The EPO has granted patents for:

faster image processing

more efficient compression

improved signal filtering

optimised hardware scheduling

reduced computational load on specific architectures

All of these are “mathematical methods” that became patentable because they improved a technical process.

Steve’s claim that “efficiency doesn’t count” is simply wrong.

Efficiency doesn’t count only when the invention has no technical purpose.

Crypto‑mining does.

5. He’s doing his usual trick: quote a rule, ignore the context, hope nobody checks

This is classic Useless Steve:

Find a paragraph

Strip it of context

Pretend it applies universally

Declare doom

It’s the legal‑analysis equivalent of reading the first line of a recipe and claiming you’re now a Michelin chef.

In short:

Steve has quoted the right guideline but applied it to the wrong category of invention.

The rule he’s waving around

Just the facts KK - nothing special - to make it 'special' I would have to omit the facts and make things up !!

Useless Steve has mashed together one paragraph from an EPO communication, misunderstood the law, and then drawn conclusions that simply do not follow.

Useless Steve’s argument collapses once you understand how the EPO actually works. He treats a routine early‑stage objection as a final legal conclusion, misreads Article 52 EPC, and then leaps to sweeping claims that simply don’t follow.

1. The examiner’s comment isn’t a verdict

The “pen and paper” line is a standard preliminary objection. It means the current wording of the claim doesn’t yet express a technical feature. It does not mean the invention is unpatentable. Examiners raise this all the time before applicants amend claims to highlight the technical effect.

2. Mathematical methods are excluded only “as such”

Useless Steve quotes Article 52(2) but ignores 52(3), which limits the exclusion:

Mathematical methods are excluded only to the extent the application relates to them as such.

This is why Europe grants patents on algorithms for video compression, cryptography, error‑correction, signal processing, and machine‑learning. They all involve maths. They are patentable because they produce a technical effect.

So Useless Steve’s blanket claim that “Methods A, B and C are clearly not eligible” is legally wrong. The EPO grants algorithmic patents EVERY WEEK !!

3. The “pen and paper” test is diagnostic, not disqualifying

The examiner is saying:

“You haven’t yet shown the technical contribution in the claim wording.”

That’s all.

It’s not a statement about the underlying invention. It’s a prompt to amend.

4. The hardware angle isn’t a ‘side‑step’

Useless Steve imagines some plot to “side‑step Article 52 by insisting Method C must run on hardware”. In reality, demonstrating a technical implementation is one of the normal, accepted ways to establish technical character. It’s not a loophole — it’s exactly what the EPO guidelines require.

5. Useless Steve’s conclusion doesn’t follow from the evidence

He takes:

one early objection

on one version of one claim

before amendments

before arguments

before technical effects are clarified

…and declares the methods “clearly not eligible”.

That’s not analysis. It’s wishful thinking dressed as certainty.

Useless Steve as usual tries to skew the facts to fit his narrative

In short:

Useless Steve misunderstood the law, misread the examiner, ignored Article 52(3), and jumped from a routine procedural comment to a sweeping, incorrect conclusion. Nothing in the examiner’s note proves the methods are unpatentable — it only proves the claims need to be rewritten to emphasise the technical contribution, which is standard practice.

A more comprehensive explanation can easily be posted to bash you around the head with - unless of course you STOP posting false narratives to suit your own agenda.

OSD - Always happy to help 😇

Key Aspects of Sausage Roll Thefts:

Case Details: A "serial thief" in Sunderland was noted for stealing over £20 worth of sausage rolls, and others have been banned from all Greggs locations in England and Wales due to repeated thefts.

Sentencing: Perpetrators can face significant consequences, including fines and jail time, with one individual receiving over a year in prison for multiple thefts that included sausage rolls.

Impact: The rise in shoplifting has prompted increased security measures.

Unusual Incidents: In a humorous, unrelated note, a seagull was jokingly reported as being found guilty of stealing a sausage roll.

OSD - doing crime research 😇

I have just read in one of yesterday’s papers that there is an increase in the theft of - wait for it - sausage rolls !!

It didn’t give any single description of the culprits, but I do have my suspicions !!

I suggest that all evidence is disposed of as soon as possible, as we wouldn’t want any of the congregation being charged with handling ‘hot’ goods 😇

Chats are winning at the moment 😇

I have the option of bailing out - but that’s just not in my nature !!

With 4 months of this year already gone and only 3% up overall with all of my stocks I have a long way to go to match last years returns.

But, as you know, things can change dramatically with just one RNS from any one of our investments, no matter what we hold at the moment.