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

01.30.16

The Greedy USPTO Leaves Loopholes, “Per Se”, for Patenting of Software in the United States Despite the Alice Case

Posted in America, Europe, Patents at 9:10 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

No loopholes “as such”, just loopholes “per se”

USPTO subject matter

Summary: The US patent office, USPTO, is still trying to sidestep rulings from the law setters in the United States, probably because of greed and no quality control motivations

THE United States’ Supreme Court was pretty clear about abstract patents and the USPTO very begrudgingly took this into account, only after courts have time after time thrown in the wastebasket patents granted by the USPTO, where quality control is worse than black comedy (is any examination being done at all or just stamping for a fee?).

“Unsurprisingly, in this extremely unregulated system, the patent office does the very minimum to realign as per court rulings and it leaves many loopholes for patenting of abstract software ideas.”Based on this page about “Patent Subject Matter Eligibility”, the USPTO does not want to actually obey the law as interpreted by the Supreme Court. Unsurprisingly, in this extremely unregulated system, the patent office does the very minimum to realign as per court rulings and it leaves many loopholes for patenting of abstract software ideas. The term “per se” is mentioned at least 5 times in this page and Benjamin Henrion (FFII) rightly said that the “USPTO is abusing the “per se”, as the EPO has abused “as such” to render software patentable at the end” (these words are like vague exceptions to each rule).

“Patents,” wrote a patents-centric person, “New entrant in § 101 (subject matter eligibility) tome. When do they update MPEP?”

Henrion, who will speak about similar issues pertaining to software patents in Europe tomorrow in Brussels, responded to the above by saying “that’s written by legalese guys that want to exploit loopholes.”

“USPTO is abusing the “per se”, as the EPO has abused “as such” to render software patentable at the end”
      –Benjamin Henrion
Another person who opposes software patents wrote: “Interpreting the Law to serve themselves? In order to obtain fees?”

Henrion later called it “EPO style power money grab” (recall how the EPO does this).

They are rendering software patents “acceptable” (or implicitly allowed) so as to grab more power and money at at the expense of citizens. This is just wrong. It shouldn’t be done. These organisations have .org and .gov domains, but they operate like greedy corporations and serve the greediest corporations, not citizens.

Writing about the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), this pro-software patents site (of patent lawyers) wrote yesterday that CAFC “Did Not Abuse Its Discretion To Allow Defendant’s § 101 Defense After Alice; Claims for “Anonymous Load Shopping” Using Generic Computer Technology Are Abstract And Unpatentable.”

It also said that “the plaintiff moved to strike the re-asserted invalidity defense under §101 as not made with good cause and as unfairly prejudicial. The defendant argued that the change was made in view of the Supreme Court’s §101 decision in Alice v. CLS Bank, which was decided two months before the final invalidity contentions were served. The district court agreed that the Alice decision was sufficient cause to re-assert the §101 defense in the final invalidity contentions. The district court later granted summary judgment of invalidity under §101. The plaintiff appealed.”

As can be seen here, the USPTO grants patents on software, but as per Supreme Court rulings, these patents are ruled invalid. This means that the USPTO no longer does what’s lawful and the wordings above (“per se”) help show that it’s not even interested in obeying the law. It just wants to exponentially grow the number of granted patents (the number doubled in a matter of a few years!).

This extreme greed means that a patent bubble is being created (leading to incorrect valuations of some companies) and it will inevitably explode/burst, causing a lot of damage to the US economy. It wouldn’t be so bad for patent lawyers when it finally happened.

Australian patent lawyers, in the meantime, try to figure out how to patent software in the US and in Australia. Lawyers’ media has just published “Business Method and Software Patent Eligibility: Australian and U.S. Standards” and it says:

RPL held that “[i]t is not a patentable invention simply to ‘put’ a business method ‘into’ a computer to implement the business method using the computer for its well-known and understood functions.” Stated another way, the computer cannot be “a mere tool in which the invention is performed,” but rather “must involve the creation of an artificial state of affairs where the computer is integral to the invention . . . .” The inventive aspect (“ingenuity” as termed by the Australian court) must be “in the way in which the computer is utilised,” not in the scheme, plan, or process that is being implemented.

At first blush, this sounds similar to the guide posts present in the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l. The Supreme Court held that “a mere instruction to ‘implement’ an abstract idea ‘on a computer’ . . . cannot impart patent eligibility.” Instead, citing prior cases, Alice held that the invention may be patent eligible where it “improve[s] the functioning of the computer itself,” or “effect[s] an improvement in any other technology or technical field.”

More and more places around the world, including Europe, rule/deem software patents invalid, at least when they reach the courts. It’s time for the public to pressure patent offices and patent lawyers whom they interact with (all for the accumulation of money), demanding that they stop ignoring the law. They shouldn’t be pursuing software patents. They are a big part of plenty of today’s problems. If patents are being compared to “products” and maximisation of “sales” (to clients/customers, not applicants) is the goal, no wonder we ended up in an increasingly horrible, sordid mess.

“[The EPO] can’t distinguish between hardware and software so the patents get issued anyway.”

Marshall Phelps, Microsoft

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. Links 23/3/2019: Falkon 3.1.0 and Tails 3.13.1

    Links for the day



  2. The Unified Patent Court is Dead, But Doubts Remain Over the EPO's Appeal Boards' Ability to Rule Independently Against Patents on Nature and Code

    Patents used to cover physical inventions (such as engines); nowadays this just isn't the case anymore and judges who can clarify these questions lack the freedom to think outside the box (and disobey patent maximalists' dogma)



  3. Patent Law Firms Still Desperate to Find New Ways to Resurrect Dead Software Patents in the United States

    There's no rebound and no profound changes that favour software patents; in fact, judging by caselaw, there's nothing even remotely like that



  4. Links 22/3/2019: Libinput 1.13 RC2 and Facebook's Latest Security Scandal

    Links for the day



  5. Why the UK Intellectual Property Office (UK-IPO) Cannot Ignore Judges, Whereas the EPO Can (and Does)

    The European Patent Convention (EPC) ceased to matter, judges' interpretation of it no longer matters either; the EPO exploits this to grant hundreds of thousands of dodgy software patents, then trumpet "growth"



  6. The European Patent Office Needs to Put Lives Before Profits

    Patents that pertain to health have always posed an ethical dilemma; the EPO apparently tackled this dilemma by altogether ignoring the rights and needs of patients (in favour of large corporations that benefit financially from poor people's mortality)



  7. “Criminal Organisation”

    Brazil's ex-President, Temer, is arrested (like other former presidents of Brazil); will the EPO's ex-President Battistelli ever be arrested (now that he lacks diplomatic immunity and hides at CEIPI)?



  8. Links 21/3/2019: Wayland 1.17.0, Samba 4.10.0, OpenShot 2.4.4 and Zorin Beta

    Links for the day



  9. Team UPC (Unitary Patent) is a Headless Chicken

    Team UPC's propaganda about the Unified Patent Court (UPC) has become so ridiculous that the pertinent firms do not wish to be identified



  10. António Campinos Makes Up Claims About Patent Quality, Only to be Rebutted by Examiners, Union (Anyone But the 'Puff Pieces' Industry)

    Battistelli's propagandistic style and self-serving 'studies' carry on; the notion of patent quality has been totally discarded and is nowadays lied about as facts get 'manufactured', then disseminated internally and externally



  11. Links 20/3/2019: Google Announces ‘Stadia’, Tails 3.13

    Links for the day



  12. CEN and CENELEC Agreement With the EPO Shows That It's Definitely the European Commission's 'Department'

    With headlines such as “EPO to collaborate on raising SEP awareness” it is clear to see that the Office lacks impartiality and the European Commission cannot pretend that the EPO is “dafür bin ich nicht zuständig” or “da kenne ich mich nicht aus”



  13. Decisions Made Inside the European Patent Organisation (EPO) Lack Credibility Because Examiners and Judges Lack Independence

    The lawless, merciless, Mafia-like culture left by Battistelli continues to haunt judges and examiners; how can one ever trust the Office (or the Organisation at large) to deliver true justice in adherence or compliance with the EPC?



  14. Team UPC Buries Its Credibility Deeper in the Grave

    The three Frenchmen at the top do not mention the UPC anymore; but those who promote it for a living (because they gambled on leveraging it for litigation galore) aren't giving up and in the process they perpetuate falsehoods



  15. The EPO Has Sadly Taken a Side and It's the Patent Trolls' Side

    Abandoning the whole rationale behind patents, the Office now led for almost a year by António Campinos prioritises neither science nor technology; it's all about granting as many patents (European monopolies) as possible for legal activity (applications, litigation and so on)



  16. Where the USPTO Stands on the Subject of Abstract Software Patents

    Not much is changing as we approach Easter and software patents are still fool's gold in the United States, no matter if they get granted or not



  17. Links 19/3/2019: Jetson/JetBot, Linux 5.0.3, Kodi Foundation Joins The Linux Foundation, and Firefox 66

    Links for the day



  18. Links 18/3/2019: Solus 4, Linux 5.1 RC1, Mesa 18.3.5, OSI Individual Member Election Won by Microsoft

    Links for the day



  19. Microsoft and Its Patent Trolls Continue Their Patent War, Including the War on Linux

    Microsoft is still preying on GNU/Linux using patents, notably software patents; it wants billions of dollars served on a silver platter in spite of claims that it reached a “truce” by joining the Open Invention Network and joining the LOT Network



  20. Director Iancu Generally Viewed as a Lapdog of Patent Trolls

    As Director of the Office, Mr. Iancu, a Trump appointee, not only fails to curb patent trolls; he actively defends them and he lowers barriers in order to better equip them with bogus patents that courts would reject (if the targets of extortion could afford a day in court)



  21. Links 17/3/2019: Google Console and IBM-Red Hat Merger Delay?

    Links for the day



  22. To Team UPC the Unified Patent Court (UPC) Has Become a Joke and the European Patent Office (EPO) Never Mentions It Anymore

    The EPO's frantic rally to the very bottom of patent quality may be celebrated by obedient media and patent law firms; to people who actually produce innovative things, however, this should be a worrisome trend and thankfully courts are getting in the way of this nefarious agenda; one of these courts is the FCC in Germany



  23. Links 16/3/2019: Knoppix Release and SUSE Independence

    Links for the day



  24. Stopping António Campinos and His Software Patents Agenda (Not Legal in Europe) Would Require Independent Courts

    Software patents continue to be granted (new tricks, loopholes and buzzwords) and judges who can put an end to that are being actively assaulted by those who aren't supposed to have any authority whatsoever over them (for decisions to be impartially delivered)



  25. The Linux Foundation Needs to Speak Out Against Microsoft's Ongoing (Continued) Patent Shakedown of OEMs That Ship Linux

    Zemlin actively thanks Microsoft while taking Microsoft money; he meanwhile ignores how Microsoft viciously attacks Linux using patents, revealing the degree to which his foundation, the “Linux Foundation” (not about Linux anymore, better described as Zemlin’s PAC), has been compromised



  26. Links 15/3/2019: Linux 5.0.2, Sublime Text 3.2

    Links for the day



  27. The EPO and the USPTO Are Granting Fake Patents on Software, Knowing That Courts Would Reject These

    Office management encourages applicants to send over patent applications that are laughable while depriving examiners the freedom and the time they need to reject these; it means that loads of bogus patents are being granted, enshrined as weapons that trolls can use to extort small companies outside the courtroom



  28. CommunityBridge is a Cynical Microsoft-Funded Effort to Show Zemlin Works for 'Community', Not Microsoft

    After disbanding community participation in the Board (but there are Microsoft staff on the Board now) the "Linux Foundation" (or Zemlin PAC) continues to take Microsoft money and polishes or launders that as "community"



  29. Links 14/3/2019: GNOME 3.32 and Mesa 19.0.0 Released

    Links for the day



  30. EPO 'Results' Are, As Usual, Not Measured Correctly

    The supranational monopoly, a monopoly-granting authority, is being used by António Campinos to grant an insane amount of monopolies whose merit is dubious and whose impact on Europe will be a net negative


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