EditorsAbout the SiteComes vs. MicrosoftUsing This Web SiteSite ArchivesCredibility IndexOOXMLOpenDocumentPatentsNovellNews DigestSite NewsRSS

08.31.09

Patents Roundup: Bilski Revisited, FFII Seems Confused, EU Seemingly Hijacked by Large Corporations

Posted in America, Deception, Europe, Free/Libre Software, Intellectual Monopoly, Microsoft, Patents at 10:19 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Death to the King

Summary: Worrying signs of important establishments being captured by higher interests that promote software patents

THERE is quite a heap of material on software patents and other related issues of intellectual monopolisation. We shall start with a recommendation of this excellent writeup which goes under the heading “What Intellectual Property Law Should Learn from Software.”

There are lots of reasons to doubt that this vision of “creation out of nothing” works very well, even in the arts, the traditional domain of copyright law. But whatever its merits or defects in the arts, it seems completely wrong-headed when it comes to software. Software solutions to practical problems do converge, and programmers definitely draw upon prior lines of code. Worse still, software tends to exhibit “network effects.” Unlike my choice of novel, my choice of word-processing program is strongly influenced, perhaps dominated, by the question of what program other people choose to buy. That means that even if a programmer could find a completely different way to write a word-processing program, this programmer has to be able to make it read the dominant program’s files and mimic its features if the programmer is to attract any customers at all. This hardly sounds like completely divergent creation.

According to Patently-O, an important opportunity to abolish software patents in the United States will now involve Kappos personally.

The USPTO has issued a set of interim examination guidelines for determining whether a claim is properly directed to patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. S 101, relevant Supreme Court precedent, and Bilski. The instructions begin with a realization that the area is in flux and that more permanent guidelines will be established once the Supreme Court rules on Bilski v. Kappos. In addition, these are guidelines rather than rules or laws. Thus, an examiner’s failure to follow the guidelines is “neither appealable nor petitionable.”

Kappos is an opponent of the Bilski ‘doctrine’, but then again, Kappos came from IBM, whose stance on the subject has been consistent all along. Kappos is now leading the USPTO, so it’s screaming for “conflict of interests”. Here is the accompanying press release.

As we shall show in a moment, this system is gradually made more friendly towards monopolies (or big businesses) and watch this. They are now getting their own special rules that are more favourable to them, as in “the patent system is fine, as long as it’s working for the big players and adds exclusion to forbid/limit counter-action.”

Technology majors Intel, Apple, Cisco and Microsoft have won an appeals court ruling that limits the amount of patent damages they will have to pay for products shipped outside the US.

This relates nicely to the i4i vs Microsoft case [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11], which now has this extensive resources page. The i4i debacle shows that Microsoft has different and special rules to defend itself from patent lawsuits. This system does not work equally for all. It’s imbalanced against the “small inventor” which it originally purported to defend. Patently-O suggests that even reexamination is underway.

Pending Reexamination: Microsoft has submitted its motion for a stay of injunctive relief pending the outcome of its appeal to the Federal Circuit. Oddly, the first sentence of Microsoft’s introduction begins with a statement that the PTO “already had provisionally rejected upon reexamination as anticipated and obvious.” By ‘provisionally rejected’ Microsoft means that a non-final office action has been mailed out in the ex parte reexamination that it requested in November 2008 (the litigation was filed in March 2007).

“Microsoft tries to use the “too big to fail” defense in the i4i case,” tells us one reader. “Smaller companies get wiped out by bogus patents and defending themselves all the time, but Microsoft gets let off so Dell and HP won’t suffer? Give me a break.”

We have also remarked on the role of the corrupted US juridical system in all this. No surprises here [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8].

This leads us to a side issue which is nonetheless important. Law.com has this new report about systemic changes that also involve “life sciences innovations”.

An upcoming en banc rehearing before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has the potential to reverse a written description requirement for patents that the court imposed a dozen years ago. Owners of broadly written patents such as those covering life sciences innovations are watching closely.

Speaking of these so-called “life sciences innovations”, watch how even cancer genes are now being patented. There is no limit to this insanity.

Breast Cancer Gene Patent Challenge:

* The ACLU, PUBPAT, and others continue their fight against patents covering the breast cancer genes BRCA1 and BRCA2 held by Myriad and the University of Utah. The federal lawsuit argues (1) that the genes should not be patentable as “products of nature” and (2) that the patentee’s use of patent rights to limit scientific research on the genes violates constitutional First Amendment protections.

More patents are standing in the way of medical doctors:

Patent examiner Deandra Hughes decided that all 66 claims of the 6,188,988 patent are, indeed, patentable, despite more than 200 pages of evidence submitted by Shafer and his lawyers. Even though doctors had used databases to help choose therapies to treat various ailments for decades before the first relevant patent application at issue was filed in 1998, Hughes said the ’988 patent should be allowed. Her reasoning: the prior art references didn’t distinguish a system with exactly three “knowledge bases.” And that distinction alone—having three “knowledge bases”—is a patentable advance, Hughes decided. See Notice of Intent to Uphold the Claims of the ’786 patent [PDF].

If that’s not bad enough, even food is being patented. This leads to very serious ethical questions.

Members Of Human Rights Expert Committee At UN Question Patents On Food

[...]

A group of experts working as a think-tank for the United Nations Human Rights Council raised the issue of patents and food at a meeting this week. Meanwhile, a new report by the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food expected to be available at the end of August will focus on the intersection between intellectual property and the human right to food.

Moving over to Europe, there are very obvious conflicts of interests.

The committee on economic and monetary affairs (ECON), responsible for regulating the financial sector, will be chaired by British MEP Sharon Bowles. Bowles was previously accused of having a conflict of interests after pushing for software patents while also being partner in a law firm run by her husband representing clients with a direct interest in software patent protection.

There has also been controversy over the newly-elected chair of the Legal Affairs Committee, Klaus Heiner Lehne. During the previousl administration, Lehne was one of the MEPs pushing strongly for software patents. At the same time he was a partner at Taylor Wessing, a law firm with a large patent department advising clients on patenting strategy in the software sector.

Glyn Moody has just written another post about SAP’s role. SAP is close to Microsoft [1, 2] and it is still lobbying for software patents in Europe.

It’s probably too much to expect a sudden outburst of common sense among SAP’s management, but at least it’s good to see a pro-software patent company learning the hard way that overall, the costs of litigating and licensing patents from others outweigh any income gained from licensing to third parties. It’s not even a zero-sum gain: the only people who win here are the lawyers.

By mere serendipity we’ve come across a little unfinished document from the FFII, which lobbies against software patents in Europe. But there must be some kind of a colossal mistake in this draft of an amicus brief regarding Bilski (written by Reinier Bakels), which states odd things such as, “In U.S. patent law, there is no basis to prohibit software patenting categorically, or to make any other specific exception for software.

What?

This can’t be FFII speaking. What is this? It is the very opposite of what FFII is all about. Is the FFII — just like Europe in general — letting its very own Lehnes grab the podium? If the FFII carries its name and message in vain like this, then it can cause more harm than good. This document will hopefully be mended and the message rectified before it’s finalised.

“The European Patent Office is an executive organisation, it deals especially with patent applicants, as such, its view of the world may be biased. As an executive organisation, its interpretative powers are very limited. The European Patent Convention excludes computer programs, it is outside the EPO’s power to change this.”

Ante Wessels

Share this post: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • co.mments
  • DZone
  • email
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • NewsVine
  • Print
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Facebook

If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

Pages that cross-reference this one

2 Comments

  1. rbakels said,

    August 31, 2009 at 6:27 pm

    Gravatar

    Would you please remove the draft “amicus brief” for the Bilski case immediately? Being a draft, it is a preliminary text. I have circulated the text in a closed group, obviously not intended for publication. Apparently someone who was not satisfied by my draft text chose to leak it to you, instead of passing suggestions for text improvement to me.
    For you, it was clear that the draft was not intended for publication. If you have not removed the text by tomorrow (1/9) afternoon, I will take legal (criminal) action, either on the basis of copyright or on the basis of fencing.
    I appreciate that you are strongly opposed against software patents, but it does not help the cause to break the basis norms of decency and to try to defame me – instead of proposing a text improvement.
    Incidentally, anyone familiar with American law will confirm what I said – but you choose to “kill the messenger”.

    Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    rbakels,

    I’ve removed the document. My interpretation of the document still stands (I regret my wording though), but if you’re open to debate then you can make sure it omits pro-software patents rhetoric, however subtle this may be. It would be wasteful to throw away this rare In Re Bilski opportunity because IBM, for instance, has been far from helpful. I thought that FFII was as stubborn as it gets on this issue (swpats, not bm pats).

    Best regards.

What Else is New


  1. IRC Proceedings: July 2nd – July 29th 2017

    Many IRC logs



  2. IRC Proceedings: June 4th – July 1st, 2017

    Many IRC logs



  3. IRC Proceedings: May 7th – June 3rd, 2017

    Many IRC logs



  4. IRC Proceedings: April 9th, 2017 – May 6th, 2017

    Many IRC logs



  5. Patent Scope Recognised as Essential For Patent Quality, But Software Patents Continue to be Granted

    Patents that are toothless, clawless lions are being accumulated by companies that should know various courts would scrutinise these enough to rule them invalid



  6. Litigation and Patenting Versus Research and Development

    reminder of who's 'stealing' jobs from engineers and who it is done for (who benefits from mass taxation rather than actual production)



  7. The Federal Circuit Has Become the Go-To Place For Patent Appeals Arising From USPTO Errors

    Patent appeals that come to CAFC as a result of bad Patent Office decisions now outnumber the appeals coming from district courts (an extraordinary situation)



  8. The Truly Odd Concept of Design Patents, Which the US Supreme Court Might Crush Very Soon

    The epidemic of shallow patents, which has already resulted in patents on mere designs, be soon end; but not before an unprecedented gold rush for such patents



  9. Quality of European Patents Has Sunk, Value Diminished

    The trouble associated with declining patent quality at the European Patent Office and early warnings about it from the staff union



  10. The Notorious 1-Click Buying Patent Expired Rather Than Invalidated

    As proof of the fact that many bogus patents (typically on software) are worthless but not invalidated, we now have Amazon's patents reaching their end of life



  11. PTAB Crushes Software Patents and Patent Extremists Are Not Happy About It

    The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), a legal facility which invalidates many software patents, still faces opposition from those who profit from software patents (not software developers)



  12. Software Patents and Patent Trolls Are Almost the Same Problem (Still)

    Apple just got sued again, Microsoft-connected patent trolls continue serial litigation against Microsoft's competitors, and a bike shop gets sued using software patents



  13. Links 20/8/2017: KStars 2.8.1, Fedora Design Interns

    Links for the day



  14. Lack of Independent Judiciary Under the Unitary Patent (Like Boards of Appeal Under Battistelli, in Defiance of the EPC) Will Possibly Kill the Unified Patent Court

    Germany, a key player in UPC negotiations (most patents at stake), cannot proceed to ratification and Britain's expected exit from the European Union further restricts any progress



  15. The Staff Union of the EPO Has Long Warned About Declining Patent Quality

    The quality of granted European Patents (EPs) has been declining sharply and the EPO's staff representatives have warned about it for a long time, only to find themselves severely reprimanded for telling the truth



  16. The EPO's Management Needs a Perception of Security Crisis

    The EPO follows that familiar pattern of writing about every Islamic terror attack in Europe (and in the US too) while media in Munich tells a story where facts are yet uncertain



  17. Links 18/8/2017: Wallpaper of Plasma 5.11, Oracle Liberates Java EE a Bit

    Links for the day



  18. Links 17/8/2017: Krita 3.2.0, New Raspbian GNU/Linux OS

    Links for the day



  19. Corruption at the European Patent Office and Systematic Bullying That Leads People to Suicide/Bankruptcy

    A look back at 3 years of intensive EPO coverage and what's coming up next (suppression of truth behind closed doors in the courtrooms)



  20. Supreme Court Decision on TC Heartland v Kraft Food Brands Group Already Vacates the Eastern District of Texas

    Patent trolls are losing their mojo as patent lawsuits drop 21% in the Eastern District of Texas and this collapse is expected to accelerate



  21. Media Dominated by the Patent Microcosm Spreads Myths and Defends Patent Trolls, Collectors

    Popular culture myths, such as Edison being a prolific inventor, and what we all ought to know about an actual patent epidemic (vast increase in the number of patents granted, bringing the total to over 10 million in the US)



  22. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board Squashes Many Software Patents (Abstract) and §101 Seems Safe From Lobbying by the Patent Microcosm

    The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), together with the Alice-inspired §101, is an efficient eliminator of bogus patents on software and there is no end to that in sight



  23. Ericsson Hired From the World's Largest Patent Troll and Became a Massive Troll in Europe

    Ericsson's patent aggression campaign (even in Europe) carries on; it turns out the person behind this strategy came from Intellectual Ventures



  24. Links 16/8/2017: Ardour 5.11, 24th Birthday of Debian

    Links for the day



  25. Links 15/8/2017: New LibreELEC and More

    Links for the day



  26. The Collapse of Patent Quality at the EPO is Inviting to Europe Some of the World's Worst Patent Trolls

    As troll litigation soars in Europe we must take a careful look at the sorts of patents granted by the EPO these days and the policies that support such grants



  27. The EPO is Paying Journalists For Trips Abroad and May be Buying Fake Twitter Followers (Still)

    The EPO's media strategy -- a nefarious strategy which is costing many millions of euros and is corrupting the media -- explained in light of recent activity and reporting (in German)



  28. 'US Inventor' is an Extremist Group Created by Watchtroll (Not Inventors) to Troll the USPTO for Patent Maximalism

    The face behind so-called 'US Inventor' (an anti-PTAB group) which enlists, apparently, a handful of people and does not actually represent American inventors



  29. Links 14/8/2017: Linux 4.13-RC5, PostgreSQL 10 Beta 3, GCC 7.2

    Links for the day



  30. Links 13/8/2017: DebConf 2017 and GUADEC 2017 Wrapups

    Links for the day


CoPilotCo

RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channel: Come and chat with us in real time

CoPilotCo

Recent Posts