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


Patent Lawyers Compare Patent Monopolies to Children

Posted in Europe, Patents at 12:58 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Will somebody think about the patents!!

Parent with patent

Summary: A glance at the sordid mess created by patents, companies’ real attitude towards patents, and propaganda from patent lawyers who monetise this mess, where legal instruments subvert real competition

IN THE MIDST of patent wars we learn about the surge in number of lawsuits, which are by no means indicators of progress. The patents storm raises the cost of everything and eliminates a lot of companies. Small companies are unable to compete and according to Rupert Murdoch’s press, “more small tech companies in the Bay Area are prioritizing patenting their own inventions as a defense and seeking patent services from law firms and businesses that help defend patent suits.”

“This means that resources get funnelled into unwanted areas rather than development.”So they get patents not because they like patents but because they are afraid of lawsuits. This means that resources get funnelled into unwanted areas rather than development. Can anyone still argue in favour of patents as facilitators of innovation? With a straight face even? That’s just the sad state in the United States and over in Europe there are attempts to make things equally bad. Well, software patents are “back again in the UK, data being processed within the computer was a physical concept, not an abstract one,” writes the FFII’s president. He cites this patent lawyers’ blog which implicitly compares children to patents (yes, honestly!):

As a caring society, we seek to protect both our children and our inventions. Occasionally one is presented with an opportunity to protect the two simultaneously. One such opportunity came in Protecting Kids the World Over (PKTWO) Ltd, in re [2011] EWHC 2720 (Pat), a decision of Mr Justice Floyd (Patents Court, England and Wales) from 26 October which somehow got lost in the wash. This decision touches once again on the potential exclusion from patent protection of an invention which looks jolly useful and, in this Kat’s opinion, would be bound to sell well — but which is afflicted by the twin blights of being implemented by computer and of being a simulation of a mental act.

Those lawyers from London crave patents on algorithms just because it would mean more business (e.g. litigation and trolling) for them. Beware those parasitical elements that write about patents. To them, “innovation” means ways of bamboozling a judge into imposing a fine on innocent parties, passing money from one company to another by bypassing real competition. Microsoft is a good example of this and we shall cover it in the next post.

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


  1. mcinsand said,

    November 11, 2011 at 2:08 pm


    >>Can anyone still argue in favour of patents as facilitators of innovation?
    >> With a straight face even?

    I can, but I am apparently from a different planet than the software world. For us, patents make it safe to invest in the research needed to develop and implement new ideas, but we actually make things, and those things have to be described in detail with clear boundaries. Without patents, investment in research centers would be stupid, since those that invest would be helping the competition, as well… best to let the state of technology remain static, if investment makes no sense. We don’t deal in formulae and language, though; what we handle are matters of composition and physical structure (no, nothing so silly as rounded corners). We steer clear of our competitors’ patented areas and, in doing so, those barriers do drive us to create our own technologies.

    The difference between my work area and software is also very stark in highlighting how your use of ‘extortion’ is precise and accurate (there is a difference). In fact, their behavior is not only a good case for antitrust action, but it also falls into what I have been taught in my career as a way to lose patent rights. If they had valid patents, if they had patents with merit, the way to protect themselves would be to proclaim that Linux, Android, HTC, whatever infringes on claims x, y, and z of patent . That isn’t what they have been doing, though. For years now, they have been indimidating an industry, claiming to have patents, but not providing any infringement information, claim numbers, or patent numbers. In other words, they have been proclaiming knowledge of infringement without giving any means for halting the infringement. Granted, one reason is no doubt to keep the ridiculousness of the patents under a shroud (emulating a pointing device? really?). That could help with getting rid of software patents, as the ’rounded corners’ and ‘slide to lock’ patents are building public awareness of how the USPTO is failing to do its job.


    MS is not protecting any patent rights. They are publicly claiming to know of infringements and doing nothing, except in the case of some examples. That is a way to dilute and then maybe eventually lose those rights.

    More importantly, whether or not there is consensus about patents as a whole, threatening companies and an industry without being public and clear on alleged infringements is extortion. It is racketeering, and I’m pretty certain it is illegal in the US; if you’re going to cast a cloud over a group with no clear evidence, that is criminal behavior.

    Sorry for the ramble, especially if I was unclear from discontinuity, but I had a quick minute and need to get back to work.


    Dr. Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    Right. When I said patents I implicitly referred to BM patents and swpats (software patents), among others like genetic patents. “Patents” is abbreviation like “Linux” (shorthand for GNU/Linux/X/etc., usually).

    There are no ways to ‘work around’ mathematics and logic.

    mcinsand Reply:

    There is no need to debate software patents, or other patents on language or mathematics (I include logic in both). However, our patent system is broken, and a good healthy overall debate is needed on all levels. I saw your reply when I was logging in to supply a couple of caveats. Most importanly, although I was providing a perspective where I see the patent system as a driving force for new developments, that does not emcompass all that patents are currently touching. Also, we cannot ignore that I am part of that particular system. I only meant to provide what I see as part of the discussion.

    We can look back for decades to see patent system failures. SLR camera manufacturers all had patents on their particular lens bayonet mount systems, despite the fact that they all (or at least all but one) clearly anticipated each other. And, if you want another bit of concrete evidence for how our patent system is royally messed up, go read US patent number 6,960,975. I would have laughed, if I had not felt more like crying.


    Dr. Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    Patent 6,960,975: Stargate Spaceship

    Apple claims to have ‘invented’ he tablet with bevelled edges and some buttons. Maybe someone should have patented that stuff from TV in the 60s:

    clip1: Apple iPad in the 1969 classic: 2001 A SPACE ODYSSEY

    Michael Reply:

    Where does Apple claim to have invented the tablet with bevelled edges and some buttons?


    You made that up.

    Roy… you do that a lot. You argue against straw men because your claims are not supportable.

    Michael Reply:

    People who actually make things, such as Apple and Google, understand the importace of protecting their investments. Roy simply cannot understand that, so he has no problem with Samsung doing all it can to copy Apple:


    As far as the “rounded corners” claim – that is a myth Roy keeps pushing. Nobody sued anyone else over “rounded corners”.

  2. mcinsand said,

    November 11, 2011 at 4:27 pm


    The tablet in 2001 is very relevant in that it shows how anticipated the basic concept is. If we do allow *REAL* technology patents, then storage, processor, batteries, and display could involve some innovation.

    Imagine a line of dots with coordinates (0,0), (1,1), (2,2), and (3,3). As we look at the line, is (4,4) innovative? Absolutely not, yet this is where the USPTO is falling down on the job and where Apple and MS derive much of their bullying ‘IP’ stick. I have had examiners use this concept (if not specific example) as an explanation for a rejection. Sometimes, I was able to explain how I saw my filing as a significant deviation from the existing line. However, if I was not successfull, then the idea was rejected because it was so clearly anticipated by the existing ‘dots.’



  3. Michael said,

    November 11, 2011 at 7:37 pm


    Some stats from your links:

    U.S. lawsuits over mobile technology: 270

    Wow. That is a lot. A lot more than just what MS and Apple, your “duopoly” is involved in. Shows how biased you are. But it gets even more extreme. You claim that the defendants are being attacked. But who is the most common defendant:

    Of the 10 largest patent lawsuits of the last 10 years:
    * 6 were tech-related
    * 4 saw Microsoft as the defendant.
    * %6 Billion was awarded total

    What! In the 4 largest lawsuits, Microsoft was the *defendant*, the one being attacked to use your terminology.

    If we go by your logic that it is the defendant that is being attacked, Microsoft is the biggest victim in this mess. Completely contrary to your claims.

    I know you hate patents, but you have yet to suggest a way for companies to prevent others from clearly doing wrong by copying their work, as shown here:


    Without a solution, your complaints do no good.

    Mikko Reply:

    still trolling with false pictures

    Michael Reply:

    Your lack of refutation is noted. Do you think some of the “after” pictures come from “before”? If so, then please show it – if you do I will be happy to admit to my error.

What Else is New

  1. IRC Proceedings: Sunday, March 29, 2020

    IRC logs for Sunday, March 29, 2020

  2. Links 30/3/2020: Linux 5.6, Nitrux 1.2.7, Sparky 2020.03.1

    Links for the day

  3. The Fall of the UPC - Part IX: Campinos Opens His Mouth One Week Later (and It's That Hilarious Delusion Again)

    Team Campinos said nothing whatsoever about the decision of the FCC until one week later, whereupon Campinos leveraged some words from Christine Lambrecht to mislead everybody in the EPO's official "news" section

  4. Pretending EPO Corruption Stopped Under António Campinos When It is in Fact a Lot Worse in Several Respects/Aspects (Than It Was Under Benoît Battistelli)

    Germany's eagerness to keep Europe's central patent office in Munich (and to a lesser degree in Berlin) means that politicians in the capital and in Bavaria turn a blind eye to abuses, corruption and even serious crimes; this won't help Germany's image in the long run

  5. IRC Proceedings: Saturday, March 28, 2020

    IRC logs for Saturday, March 28, 2020

  6. Links 28/3/2020: Wine 5.5 Released, EasyPup 2.2.14, WordPress 5.4 RC5 and End of Truthdig

    Links for the day

  7. IRC Proceedings: Friday, March 27, 2020

    IRC logs for Friday, March 27, 2020

  8. The Fall of the UPC - Part VIII: Team UPC Celebrates Death, Not Life

    Team UPC plays psychological games now; it is trying to twist or spin its defeat as good news and something to be almost celebrated; it is really as illogical (and pathetic) as that sounds

  9. Links 27/3/2020: GNU/Linux Versus COVID-19 and Release of GNU Guile 3.0.2

    Links for the day

  10. When Your 'Business' is Just 'Patent Portfolio'

    Hoarding loads of patents may seem impressive, but eating them to survive is impossible if not impermissible

  11. LOT Network is a One-Man (Millionaire's) Operation and Why This Should Alarm You

    The ugly story of Open Invention Network (OIN) and LOT; today we take a closer look at LOT and highlight a pattern of 'cross-pollination' (people in both OIN and LOT, even at the same time)

  12. Faking Production With Fake Patents on Software

    The EPO with its illegal guidelines (in violation of the EPC) can carry on churning out millions of fake patents that European courts would only waste time on and small companies be blackmailed with (they cannot afford legal battles)

  13. With the Unified Patent Court (UPC) Out of the Way Focus Will Return to EPO Corruption

    Expect the European Patent Office (EPO) to receive more negative attention now that the ’cause’ of UPC is lost and there’s no point pretending things are rosy

  14. IRC Proceedings: Thursday, March 26, 2020

    IRC logs for Thursday, March 26, 2020

  15. Links 27/3/2020: qBittorrent 4.2.2, Krita 4.2.9, pfSense 2.4, Bodhi Linux 5

    Links for the day

  16. IRC Proceedings: Wednesday, March 25, 2020

    IRC logs for Wednesday, March 25, 2020

  17. Still Work in Progress: Getting Those 2,851 Pages of Police Report About Arrest for Pedophilia in Home of Bill Gates

    It’s extremely difficult to get those police records, which were requested exactly one day before the media started attacking Richard Stallman (associating him with pedophiles based on a deliberate distortion)

  18. Links 26/3/2020: Plasma Bigscreen, New Kubernetes, Fedora's New Identity and Bodhi Linux 5.1.0

    Links for the day

  19. Guest Article: Window Managers, Github and Software Disobedience

    "Walking away from monopolies is the essence of freedom"

  20. Links 25/3/2020: LLVM 10.0.0 and UCS 4.4-4 Released, WordPress 5.4 RC4

    Links for the day

  21. 'Team UPC' Last Week

    The looks on Team UPC's faces 5 days ago (before and after the 9:30AM announcement)

  22. The Fall of the UPC - Part VII: Lies and Revisionism About the Reasons for the UPC's Ultimate Demise (to Leave the Door Open for More Failed Attempts)

    The media was lying in a hurry, in a coordinated effort to distort the meaning of the FCC's decision or belittle the impact of this decision; Techrights will carefully watch and respond to these lies

  23. IRC Proceedings: Tuesday, March 24, 2020

    IRC logs for Tuesday, March 24, 2020

  24. Linux Foundation Became Anti-Linux, Run by Microsoft People to Serve Microsoft's Agenda

    Microsoft is taking over the bodies of healthy projects, infecting the hosts in order for them to become slaves of the proprietary parasite; there's still no (known) cure, but we're familiar with the symptoms

  25. Microsoft Continues to Attack and Steal From the Open Source/Free Software Communities

    Microsoft cannot be trusted and there's no "new Microsoft," as another fairly new story serves to show

  26. Targeted Attack Leveraging FSF Servers

    Targeted by a determined and persist perpetrator, I've received over 20,000 E-mails. And the weapon of choice was the FSF's infrastructure, remotely misused against yours truly.

  27. If We Weren't Silencing Founders, Critics and People We Just Don't Like

    "In the long run, history is rarely very kind to tyrants, especially the ones who did little more than lie to people and demand things that served no real purpose."

  28. The Fall of the UPC - Part VI: Drowning in Material

    We're starting to see few good reports on the subject of UPC being rejected by the constitutional court of Germany; we also have a rapidly-growing 'buffer' of rather blatant examples of disinformation (which we'll tackle as best we can)

  29. FFII: EU Software Patent Court Stopped by Constitutional Court, Patent Industry Will Try Again

    The third attempt to validate software patents in Europe via a central patent court (UPC) has been stopped by the German Constitutional Court. The Unified Patent Court (UPC) would have given the keys of the kingdoms to the patent industry, and the last word over software patentability. FFII predict that the patent industry will continue to push for an UPC v2.0.

  30. Links 24/3/2020: Alpine 3.11.5, MythTV 31.0 and Tails 4.4.1

    Links for the day

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

Recent Posts