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

03.05.17

The US Patent System Has Become a Dog-Wagging Tail That Serves Patent Law Firms and Parasites But Not Inventors

Posted in America, Patents at 3:12 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

And this is where genuine inventors’ money goes (using a recently-invalidated patent that Erich Spangenberg had exploited to collect almost $50,000,000 in 'protection' money)

Erich Spangenberg greed
Reference: Has Patent, Will Sue: An Alert to Corporate America

Summary: Lack of justice in the US patent system, which became a virtual cash cow of rogue actors that produce nothing and are taxing everything, as long as the system lets them get away with it

THE previous post may have seemed harsh on Patently-O, but having followed the site for many years, we did notice a somewhat notable bias (unlike before). Academia is supposed to view things from an independent and open-minded viewpoint, but sometimes it gets seduced into one side of the debate — often the side that pays better. The other day Patently-O published a post for Tim Holbrook, Professor of Law at Emory University School of Law.

“In our view, Texas gets far too much of the ‘action’ when it comes to patents, partly by disregarding the rules, ignoring precedence, and inviting patent trolls to judges that are notorious for pro-plaintiffs (or anti-defendants) bias.”The post speaks of Life Technologies Corp. v. Promega Corp. (covered here before) and says it “may reflect a shift away from the use of the presumption in interpreting particular provisions within a particular statute once the extraterritorial reach of that provision already has been confirmed.”

As this case was covered here before, we don’t wish to re-introduce it (look up Life Technologies Corp. as it’s all over the Web, notably this patent case). Patently-O recently wrote about another case — one in which Crouch intervenes. He wrote: “There’s a ton of briefing between the parties and other amicus on whether, or not, Texas state courts should recognize a patent agent-client privilege.”

“The article at hand shows how the patent system has basically become the game of a bunch of law firms with proprietary software, not sole inventors like the mythology goes.”In our view, Texas gets far too much of the ‘action’ when it comes to patents, partly by disregarding the rules, ignoring precedence, and inviting patent trolls to judges that are notorious for pro-plaintiffs (or anti-defendants) bias. SCOTUS urgently needs to put an end to it. The whole situation has damaged the perception of patent justice and generally discredited much of the system, demolishing public consent to it. How many people in the US still view patent law — with all the patent trolls they keep reading about — as desirable? If very few, then maybe policy is the problem, or the push towards patent maximalism where public interests are altogether disregarded. The EPO has recently accomplished the same thing — to the point where 0% of EPO stakeholders support the EPO's management and an identical number (it doesn't get any lower than this) of well-paid EPO staff say they support their management.

Curiously enough, and for a change (this wasn’t from Crouch), Patently-O wrote the other day about “ethics of docketing software,” basically just citing another article and adding: “Although I understand why it is so, I often joke that patent prosecutors seem to miss only deadlines for the very valuable patents….”

“Huge corporations with tens of thousands of patents each and some outside law firm/s command the lion’s share of patents.”The article at hand shows how the patent system has basically become the game of a bunch of law firms with proprietary software, not sole inventors like the mythology goes. Huge corporations with tens of thousands of patents each and some outside law firm/s command the lion’s share of patents. They do everything in bulk and can crush any small company that ‘dares’ sue, unless it’s a troll (in which case there’s nothing to sue it over). To quote a portion: “As an attorney, your primary goal should be to provide competent representation for your clients. Both the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and state ethics rules mandate that lawyers commit themselves to competence. This means that attorneys must have the requisite “legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation” to handle each case, according to the American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.1.”

It also says: “Legal technology is here to stay. Don’t miss out on the game-changing benefits various softwares and platforms could have on your firm. Your clients — and your colleagues — will appreciate increases in efficiency, and customer acquisition will follow suit.”

“We heard similar stories about the EPO; EPO stakeholders who chose not to waste money on law firms were urged to do so by the EPO and were repeatedly rebuffed by the EPO — to the point where the whole process (for one single patent) cost as much as a whole house!”How many people other than law firms can afford such software? It seems like the whole system has become the den of few law firms rather than actual inventors who can follow instructions and get patents granted. This new book, “Patent Office Litigation,” is in fact composed by a law firm, not actual inventors. It says a lot about what the patent system became in the US. We heard similar stories about the EPO; EPO stakeholders who chose not to waste money on law firms were urged to do so by the EPO and were repeatedly rebuffed by the EPO — to the point where the whole process (for one single patent) cost as much as a whole house! It got so serious that one single case was eventually escalated to British and EU-level authorities, to no avail (because the EPO enjoys immunity).

Going back to Patently-O, it’s made apparent that interacting with the patent system in the US is a hard job; “patent infringement complaints,” it says, “like all others, must comply with Iqbal and Twombly, which require pleading factual material that, if taken as true, plausibly states a claim upon which relief can be granted.”

Sounds like a time-consuming process. Here is the entire relevant part:

As you know, it used to be you could file a complaint for patent infringement using Form 18, which barely said anything beyond “Plaintiff owns a patent, and you infringe it.” Nowadays, patent infringement complaints, like all others, must comply with Iqbal and Twombly, which require pleading factual material that, if taken as true, plausibly states a claim upon which relief can be granted.

A while back, I wrote about how this is going to be difficult to do in some cases: how do you gather a Rule 11 basis to plead plausible facts when, for example, the claimed method is practiced by a corporation inside its well-guarded factory?

A recent decision, Harvard v. Micron (17-11249, D. Mass. Jan. 31, 2017) (available here), gives a real world example of this. The original complaint alleged that the patented method was commonly used to perform the accused process. The defendant moved to dismiss, asserting that this was not enough to make it “plausible” that, in fact, the defendant used the method.

The last part (above) sounds like a lawyers’ trick to just buy more time and cost more money (to the plaintiff). And if the above wasn’t compelling enough an example of systems where only lawyer win (more time means more money to them, at clients’ expense), get this: the patents system now attracts not only patent trolls but also frauds and charlatans, such as in this example:

NOV initially refused to produce the ACA, instead producing only a “Assistant Secretary’s Certificate,” which assigned only “physical assets.” After being forced to produce the ACA, Omron renewed its motion to dismiss for lack of standing. The district court agreed that that NOV could not prove ownership of the ’142 Patent as of the filing date of this case, and dismissed the case, with prejudice, for lack of standing.

In other words, the plaintiff turns out to now even ‘own’ the patent (or not sure about it). How did they even get this far? And what if there was an out-of-court settlement, agreed upon patents that are basically vapour? We saw examples like these before and it should be regarded or treated as a criminal offense, akin to extortion rackets.

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. Indifference or Even Hostility Towards Patent Quality Results in Grave Injustice

    The patent extravaganza in Europe harms small businesses the most (they complain about it), but administrative staff at patent offices only cares about the views of prolific applicants rather than the interests of citizens in respective countries



  2. Links 18/6/2019: CentOS 8 Coming Soon, DragonFly BSD 5.6 Released

    Links for the day



  3. 'AI Taskforce' is Actually a Taskforce for Software Patents

    The mainstream media has been calling just about everything "HEY HI!" (AI), but what it typically refers to is a family of old algorithms being applied in possibly new areas; patent maximalists in eastern Asia and the West hope that this mainstream media's obsession can be leveraged to justify new kinds of patents on code



  4. Patent Maximalism is Dead in the United States

    Last-ditch efforts, or a desperate final attempt to water down 35 U.S.C. § 101, isn't succeeding; stacked panels are seen for what they really are and 35 U.S.C. § 101 isn't expected to change



  5. Links 18/6/2019: Linux 5.2 RC5 and OpenMandriva Lx 4

    Links for the day



  6. Weaponising Russophobia Against One's Critics

    Response to smears and various whispering campaigns whose sole purpose is to deplete the support base for particular causes and people; these sorts of things have gotten out of control in recent years



  7. When the EPO is Run by Politicians It's Expected to Be Aggressive and Corrupt Like Purely Political Establishments

    António 'Photo Op' Campinos will have marked his one-year anniversary in July; he has failed to demonstrate morality, respect for the law, understanding of the sciences, leadership by example and even the most basic honesty (he lies a lot)



  8. Links 16/6/2019: Tmax OS and New Features for KDE.org

    Links for the day



  9. Stuffed/Stacked Panels Sent Back Packing After One-Sided Patent Hearings That Will Convince Nobody, Just Preach to the Choir

    Almost a week ago the 'world tour' of patent lobbyists in US Senate finally ended; it was an utterly ridiculous case study in panel stacking and bribery (attempts to buy laws)



  10. 2019 H1: American Software Patents Are as Worthless as They Were Last Year and Still Susceptible to Invalidation

    With a fortnight left before the second half of the year it seems evident that software patents aren't coming back; the courts have not changed their position at all



  11. As European Patent Office Management Covers up Collapse in Patent Quality Don't Expect UPC to Ever Kick Off

    It would be madness to allow EPO-granted patents to become 'unitary' (bypassing sovereignty of nations that actually still value patent quality); it seems clear that rogue EPO management has, in effect, not only doomed UPC ambitions but also European Patents (or their perceived legitimacy, presumption of validity)



  12. António Campinos -- Unlike His Father -- Engages in Imperialism (Using Invalid Patents)

    Despite some similarities to his father (not positive similarities), António Campinos is actively engaged in imperialistic agenda that defies even European law; the EPO not only illegally grants patents but also urges other patent offices to do the same



  13. António Campinos Takes EPO Waste and Corruption to Unprecedented Levels and Scale

    The “B” word (billions) is thrown around at Europe’s second-largest institution because a mischievous former EUIPO chief (not Archambeau) is ‘partying’ with about half of the EPO’s all-time savings, which are supposed to be reserved for pensions and other vital programmes, not presidential palaces and gambling



  14. Links 15/6/2019: Astra Linux in Russia, FreeBSD 11.3 RC

    Links for the day



  15. Code of Conduct Explained: Partial Transcript - August 10th, 2018 - Episode 80, The Truth About Southeast Linuxfest

    "Ask Noah" and the debate on how a 'Code of Conduct' is forcibly imposed on events



  16. Links 14/6/2019: Xfce-Related Releases, PHP 7.4.0 Alpha

    Links for the day



  17. The EPO is a Patent Troll's Wet Dream

    The makers of software and games in Europe will have to spend a lot of money just keeping patent trolls off their backs — a fact that seems to never bother EPO management because it profits from it



  18. EPO Spreading Patent Extremists' Ideology to the Whole World, Now to South Korea

    The EPO’s footprint around the world's patent systems is an exceptionally dangerous one; The EPO amplifies the most zealous voices of the patents and litigation ‘industry’ while totally ignoring the views and interests of the European public, rendering the EPO an ‘agent of corporate occupation’



  19. Guest Post: Notes on Free Speech, and a Line in the Sand

    We received this anonymous letter and have published it as a follow-up to "Reader's Claim That Rules Similar to the Code of Conduct (CoC) Were 'Imposed' on LibrePlanet and the FSF"



  20. Links 13/6/2019: CERN Dumps Microsoft, GIMP 2.10.12 Released

    Links for the day



  21. Links 12/6/2019: Mesa 19.1.0, KDE neon 5.16, Endless OS 3.6.0 and BackBox Linux 6

    Links for the day



  22. Leaked Financial 'Study' Document Shows EPO Management and Mercer Engaging in an Elaborate “Hoax”

    How the European Patent Office (EPO) lies to its own staff to harm that staff; thankfully, the staff isn't easily fooled and this whole affair will merely obliterate any remnants of "benefit of the doubt" the President thus far enjoyed



  23. Measuring Patent Quality and Employer Quality in Europe

    Comparing the once-famous and respected EPO to today's joke of an office, which grants loads of bogus patents on just about anything including fruit and mathematics



  24. Granting More Fundamentally Wrong Patents Will Mean Reduced Certainty, Not Increased Certainty

    Law firms that are accustomed to making money from low-quality and abstract patents try to overcome barriers by bribing politicians; this will backfire because they show sheer disregard for the patent system's integrity and merely lower the legal certainty associated with granted (by greedy offices) patents



  25. Links 11/6/2019: Wine 4.10, Plasma 5.16

    Links for the day



  26. Chapter 10: Moving Forward -- Getting the Best Results From Open Source With Your Monopoly

    “the gradual shift in public consciousness from their branding towards our own, is the next best thing to owning them outright.”



  27. Chapter 9: Ownership Through Branding -- Change the Names, and Change the World

    The goal for those fighting against Open source, against the true openness (let's call it the yet unexploited opportunities) of Open source, has to be first to figuratively own the Linux brand, then literally own or destroy the brand, then to move the public awareness of the Linux brand to something like Azure, or whatever IBM is going to do with Red Hat.



  28. Links 10/6/2019: VLC 3.0.7, KDE Future Plans

    Links for the day



  29. Patent Quality Continues to Slip in Europe and We Know Who Will Profit From That (and Distract From It)

    The corporate media and large companies don't speak about it (like Red Hat did before entering a relationship with IBM), but Europe is being littered and saturated with a lot of bogus software patents -- abstract patents that European courts would almost certainly throw out; this utter failure of the media to do journalism gets exploited by the "big litigation" lobby and EPO management that's granting loads of invalid European Patents (whose invalidation goes underreported or unreported in the media)



  30. Corporate Front Groups Like OIN and the Linux Foundation Need to Combat Software Patents If They Really Care About Linux

    The absurdity of having groups that claim to defend Linux but in practice defend software patents, if not actively then passively (by refusing to comment on this matter)


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