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

01.10.16

Patent Lawyers and Judges Don’t Understand Software Development and It Harms Programmers, Practicing Software Companies

Posted in America, Europe, Patents at 7:27 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Metaswitch logoSummary: Europeans, including European companies such as Metaswitch (British), continue to suffer from software patents in the United States and from British patent lawyers to whom the whole notion of software development is elusive, grossly misunderstood (they profit from the misunderstanding)

HAVING written literally thousands of articles on this subject, it often feels like repetition even when it isn’t. It’s never repetitive because new cases and new observations come to light. The other day, Patent Buddy fished out this recent court’s decision [PDF] (originally OOXML) and said that “TX [Texas] Magistrate Report Rejecting Alice101 Ineligibility Argument Against a Firewall Patent” (used against Metaswitch Networks, a British company). We have looked at this 18-page decision and found Alice mentioned in page 3 as follows: “The Supreme Court has held that there are three specific exceptions to patent eligibility under § 101: laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas. Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 601 (2010). In Mayo, the Supreme Court set out a two-step test for “distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 355 (2014) (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1296–97 (2012)).”

“So here we have a British company sued in the capital of patent trolls, by a company called Genband LLC, which is based in Frisco, Texas, the United States (where the lawsuit is also being poorly assessed, determined and ultimately ruled against a foreign company).”Alice is also mentioned many times in page 4, then 14-15 and in page 17 it says: “Metaswitch is likewise wrong to characterize “an application proxy” and “a packet filter” as inherently abstract components because they refer to “broad ‘types’ or ‘classes’ of firewall components and do not require or connote any specific structure.” (Dkt. No. 255 at 24). A hypothetical claim limitation directed to “a cup” might encompass an extensive class of objects of varying shapes, sizes, materials, and functions (a coffee mug, a champagne flute, a disposable paper cup), and thus the word “cup” is abstract in the sense that it spans many different structures. But a cup is not an “abstract idea” in the sense meant by Alice, and neither are the “application proxy” and “packet filter” components recited in the claims. These components are not “building blocks of human ingenuity,” “a method of organizing human activity,” a “fundamental truth,” an “idea of itself,” or the like. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354–56. The “application proxy” and “packet filter” terms refer to specific components that have been construed to perform specific functions within a network. See (Dkt. No. 310 at 7–13). The fact that these components can be implemented in the form of “hardware and/or software” does not change their concrete, network-specific nature.”

So here we have a British company sued in the capital of patent trolls, by a company called Genband LLC, which is based in Frisco, Texas, the United States (where the lawsuit is also being poorly assessed, determined and ultimately ruled against a foreign company). In page 18 it says: “For the foregoing reasons, Claim 12 of the ’561 Patent is patent-eligible under § 101. The Court agrees with Metaswitch that Claim 12 is representative for purposes of the § 101 analysis; the other asserted claims of the ’561 Patent are likewise patent-eligible.”

Here is the court’s conclusion: “For the reasons stated above, summary judgment of no willful infringement should be GRANTED. Partial summary judgment of no indirect infringement prior to April 14, 2014 should be GRANTED. Partial summary judgment of no indirect infringement after April 14, 2014 should be DENIED. Summary judgment of invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 101 should be DENIED.”

“Why is a British company on the receiving end of software patents when British law clearly does not include but preclude such patents?”This is a classic case where software is being described as non-abstract by trying to tie it to “network” and the likes of that. There is a whole infamous class of “over the Internet” patents and this one too resembles that. The decision cites a case of the world’s largest patent troll, Intellectual Ventures v. Capital One Bank, in page 4 along with Alice and Bilski.

How clueless could the judge be? Did the judge ever write a computer program? Was a degree in some scientific discipline earned/acquired? Was the judge bamboozled by mumbo-jumbo from lawyers? Why is a British company on the receiving end of software patents when British law clearly does not include but preclude such patents? Does US law dominate globally? Well, rhetorical question actually. This is similar to the cases of Finjan, which is a patent aggressor in a similar field of technology.

As a British programmer myself, I cannot help but worry that the Texan courts now threaten the British industry as well. The UPC would make things even worse and there are already signs of that happening with patent trolls that come to Europe and attack from London (Unwired Planet). Apple too is attacking companies from inside Europe, with help from ridiculous software patents that are found invalid by European courts after EPO negligently issues them. Recall the case of Wi-Lan v. Apple, which pro-software patents sites are writing about these days. Why is the industry tolerating this? How can anyone wrongly deduce that this is good for innovation, or in other words, encourages the creation of better computer products, programmes, etc. available in the market?

“Developers of software don’t brainstorm or innovate, they typically take existing building blocks (either Free/Open Source software or proprietary with compartmentalised modules/layers/standards) and combine these to form bug-free and increasingly efficient algorithms.”When patent lawyers, who don’t actually create anything, speak of (or hijack the word) “innovation” we end up with clueless blog posts such as this new one from IP Kat. While EPO coverage from IP Kat has been rather good, much of the rest constitutes UPC promotion, patent maximalism, and clueless prose such as this: “Second is the recurring assertion that the patent system is intended to encourage innovation. There are various implications that flow from this, most notably that any patent that does not further the innovation interest is at odds with the patent system. Weak patents, patent trolls, patent thickets, patent hold-up and other patent undesirables all derive from the underlying assumption that patents are the hand-maiden of innovation. As such, at least in the US, a material driver of proposed patent legislation is to better align the patent system with the needs of innovation. The only problem with this view is that it is not correct. Patents are about encouraging invention and not impeding competition in a manner consistent with the patent grant, where the legal system has developed tools to define invention. Some forms of innovation (however defined) can be expected to flow from improving the manner by which we encourage and protect invention, but innovation is not a surrogate for invention. Introducing innovation as a construct within the patent system, parallel to invention, novelty and inventive step, is simply inappropriate.”

“Software developers don’t “invent”. They write code, and some code may be better than other.”The above says “innovation is not a surrogate for invention”, but these are just clueless repetitions (regurgitations) or rather meaningless/vague terms, none of which actually alludes to or pertains to programming (these words predate computer programs). Developers of software don’t brainstorm or innovate, they typically take existing building blocks (either Free/Open Source software or proprietary with compartmentalised modules/layers/standards) and combine these to form bug-free and increasingly efficient algorithms. Everything is being reused and built on top of existing work. One should expect people who never saw or wrote a computer program to actually grasp this. The comments from readers, who are mostly patent lawyers, are equally clueless or weak. One says regarding “Innovation vs. Invention”: ”

If innovation = ‘new’
Then innovation is one prong of a three-prong test for invention.
The other two prongs are ‘useful’ and ‘non-obvious’

Software developers don’t “invent”. They write code, and some code may be better than other. Lawyers using terms like “innovation” are clueless. They’re reusing terms from centuries ago and another one says

One has to focus on the fact that the patent system is about disclosure of inventions. Although such disclosure may impact innovation, invention and innovation are not the same thing. One looks at various comments distinguishing the two.

What needs to be assessed is whether more (or less) code is generated which is solid and reliable in the presence of 100,000-1,000,000 software patents. Evidence suggests that patents have done virtually nothing to provide an incentive to write better (or more) algorithms; programmers don’t even bother reading patent applications (it’s infeasible). They just get sued, often by trolls that produce nothing at all.

“Evidence suggests that patents have done virtually nothing to provide an incentive to write better (or more) algorithms; programmers don’t even bother reading patent applications (it’s infeasible).”It should be noted that several people sent us links to the above article and several programmers expressed annoyance at this level of ignorance. Why is a system that presents itself as “protecting inventors” (or whatever) run by non-inventors? When will it be geeks and computer science professors running such courts* (if any courts “as such” are necessary at all)? The system, as is, became besieged by parasites preying on software developers, rather than people with the required skills and knowledge. It’s a form of takeover or coup. Programmers need to unite so as to fight to regain control.
___
* I myself have been writing software since I was 14 and it’s what I currently do for a living in many languages and paradigms, as well as (peer) reviewing papers about software for international journals, so the opinions above don’t come from a position of cluelessness but from genuine concern for a scientific discipline which multinational conglomerates want to monopolise as a matter of law.

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

What Else is New


  1. EPO Loses More Than 80% of Cases at the International Labour Organisation (ILO)

    The International Labour Organisation (or Organization) helps show just to what degree the European Patent Office (EPO) violates the rights of workers



  2. To Understand What Battistelli Has Turned the EPO Into Look at Turkey and China

    Battistelli and his notorious Vice-President from SIPO (Croatia) turn the European Patent Office, once the pride of Europe, into a human rights cesspool with SIPO (China) connections



  3. Patent Lawyers Move Closer to Battistelli's Rubber-stamping Office While the Appeal Boards Pushed Away as Collective Punishment Which Masks Decline in Patent Quality

    Urgently sending appeal boards away and urgently granting applicants patents without proper examination will be Battistelli's sorrow legacy at the European Patent Office



  4. Software Patents a Dying Breed, But Patent Lawyers in Denial Over it and Notorious Judge Rodney Gilstrap Ignores Alice (Supreme Court)

    A look at what law and practice are saying about software patents, contrasted or contradicted by the patent industry and trolls-friendly courts (which make business out of or together with patent aggressors)



  5. CAFC Meddling in PTAB Affairs; Unified Patents Fights a Good Fight by Invalidating Software Patents

    A look at how the AIA's Patent Trial and Appeal Board is invalidating software patents post-Alice, with or without involvement of patent courts



  6. Early Certainty That Benoît Battistelli is Dangerously Clueless and a Major Risk to the EPO

    The chaos which Team Battistelli is assured to deliver if it doesn't treat scientists like scientists, instead viewing them as a production line with rubber-stamping duties



  7. OIN Makes Claims About “Open Source Innovation”, But It Produces Nothing and Protects Virtually Nobody

    The Open Invention Network (OIN) reports growth, but in practical terms it does little or nothing to help developers of Free/Open Source software



  8. Links 27/7/2016: New CrossOver, Blackmagic for GNU/Linux

    Links for the day



  9. The Death of Software Patents and Microsoft's Coup Against Yahoo! Made the Company Worthless

    A look at what happens to companies whose value is a house of software patents rather than code and a broad base of users/customers



  10. Munich Attack Mentioned by EPO But Not Ansbach

    The EPO does the usual right-wing thing (exploiting disaster/emergency for domestic crackdowns), but some bemoan the omission of the explosion at Ansbach (also in Germany)



  11. Kluwer Thinks People Are Clueless About the Unitary Patent System and Pretends It's Business as Usual

    Flogging the dead UPC horse at times of great uncertainty (enough to bring the UPC to a standstill)



  12. Almost Everything That the Government Accountability Office Says is Applicable to the EPO

    The Government Accountability Office in the United States produces reports which can serve as a timely warning sign to the European Patent Office, where patent quality is rapidly declining in order to meet 'production' goals



  13. Microsoft Says It Loves Linux, But Its Anti-Linux Patent Trolls Are Still Around and Active

    Highlighting just two of the many entities that Microsoft (and partners) use in order to induce additional costs on Free (as in freedom) software



  14. Links 26/7/2016: Microsoft Growing Desperate, Linux 4.8 Visions

    Links for the day



  15. Links 25/7/2016: Linux 4.7 Final, PostgreSQL 9.6 Beta 3

    Links for the day



  16. Leaked: Boards of Appeal Face 'Exile' or 'Extradition' in Haar After Standing up to Battistelli

    A look at some of the latest moves at the European Patent Office (EPO), following Battistelli's successful coup d’état which brought the EPO into a perpetual state of emergency that perpetuates Battistelli's totalitarian powers



  17. The US Government Accountability Office (GAO) Comes Across as Against Software Patents, Relates to the EPO as Well

    Some analysis of the input from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) with focus on the EPO and software patents



  18. In the US, Patent Trolls Engage in Patent Wars and Shakedowns, Whereas in China/Korea Large Android OEMs Sue One Another

    Highlighting some of the differences between the US patent system and other patent systems



  19. Links 24/7/2016: Elive 2.7.1 Beta, New Flatpaks and Snaps

    Links for the day



  20. Links 23/7/2016: Leo Laporte on GNU/Linux, Dolphin Emulator’s Vulkan Completion

    Links for the day



  21. Links 22/7/2016: Wine 1.9.15, KaOS 2016.07 ISO

    Links for the day



  22. Haar Mentioned as Likely Site of Appeal Boards as Their Eradication or Marginalisation Envisioned by UPC Proponent Benoît Battistelli

    Not only the Staff Union of the European Patent Office (SUEPO) is under severe attack and possibly in mortal danger; the increasingly understaffed Boards of Appeal too are coming under attack and may (according to rumours) be sent to Haar, a good distance away from Munich and the airport (half an hour drive), not to mention lack of facilities for visitors from overseas



  23. EPO Attaché Albert Keyack Viewed as Somewhat of a Mole, Reporting From the US Embassy in Brazil Until Shortly Before the Temer Coup

    Public responses to the role played by Albert Keyack on behalf of the United States inside the European [sic] Patent Office



  24. EPO Insiders Explain Why the EPO's Examination Quality Rapidly Declines and Will Get Even Worse Because of Willy Minnoye

    Public comments from anonymous insiders serve to highlight a growing crisis inside the European Patent Office (EPO), where experienced/senior examiners are walking away and leaving an irreplaceable bunch of seats (due to high experience demands)



  25. Patents Roundup: BlackBerry, Huawei, PTAB, GAO, Aggressive Universities With Patents, and Software Patents in Europe

    Various bits and pieces of news regarding patents and their fast-changing nature in the United States nowadays



  26. Glimpse at Patent Systems Across the World: Better Quality Control at the USPTO Post-America Invents Act (2011), Unlike the EPO Post-Battistelli (2010)

    While the EPO reportedly strives to eliminate pendency and appeal windows altogether (rubberstamping being optimal performance as per the yardstick du jour), the USPTO introduces changes that would strengthen the system and shield innovation, not protect the business model of serial litigants



  27. Blockstream Has No Patents, But Pledges Not to Sue Using Patents

    Blockstream says that it comes in peace when it comes to software patents, which triggers speculations about coming Blockchain patent wars



  28. Links 21/7/2016: Ubuntu 16.04.1 LTS, Linux Mint 18 “Sarah” Xfce Beta

    Links for the day



  29. Links 21/7/2016: An Honorary Degree for Alan Cox, Looks Back at DebConf16

    Links for the day



  30. EPO USA: Under Battistelli, the 'European' Patent Office Emulates All the Mistakes of the USPTO

    Conservative Benoît Battistelli is trying to impose on the European Patent Office various truly misguided policies and he viciously attacks anyone or anything that stands in his way, including his formal overseers


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