THE US COURTS, unlike the USPTO, are eager to be tough on patents. They demand proof that patents granted by the USPTO are in fact eligible and they put the burden of proof increasingly on plaintiffs (or petitioners in the case of PTAB).
"A lot of that boils down to pure nonsense and gossip, not facts."The above tweet matches a pattern that we've observed for a number of months. Patent maximalists try to paint their side as the "small guy" and in doing so they create conspiracy theories about Michelle Lee and Google, about corporate ties to reform, and so much more. A lot of that boils down to pure nonsense and gossip, not facts. The above person, who obviously does not want his/her (sur)name known, seemingly pretends that only those 5 companies call for patent reform (they don’t). That's pure nonsense. The text of the above is reproduced as follows (in case the original tweet gets deleted): "I’m going to keep tweeting this table to remind people how untrue these 5 sound when they cry injury and the need for more patent reform"
I've already argued with him/her about it, but it seems pointless. S/He maintains his/her position on this and so do sites like Watchtroll. They pretend they stand for inventors -- the very thing their stance keeps harming the most.
"They pretend they stand for inventors -- the very thing their stance keeps harming the most."The account above is called "patentsales" -- the very same thing that large corporations like doing. Recall IP3 for example [1, 2]; IAM blogged yesterday that "[t]he news, which was announced today, follows last year’s original IP3, which saw a group of companies from diverse industries come together to build on an initiative that Google had originally undertaken in 2015. This year’s version of the platform will only be available to AST’s 30 members, who include Ford, Google, IBM, Microsoft and recent joiner Uber."
IAM's report/blog is titled "Fixed-time patent-buying programme IP3 back again for 2017; but this time it’s different" (remember who's behind IP3).
Meanwhile, over at Watchtroll, they promote the notion of "intellectual property as a driver of innovation" (that's the headline) while leaving critical bits aside until late in the report. To quote:
In questioning, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) decided to advance the patent troll narrative and found a perfect sounding box in Eron to do so. “Patent trolls can use weak patents to extract monies,” Klobuchar said. Eron assented, noting that, while she was not an expert in IP laws, her understanding was that low-quality patents hurt Intel’s resources, diverting them from innovative R&D and towards litigation defense. “We do have a problem with patent trolls,” Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) would later add. “I don’t buy this idea that big guys are trying to squeeze out the small guys, a lot of times they’re looking for those smaller guys to scale up,” Tillis said, noting that app stores are filled with services being brought to the market on platforms provided by larger developers like Google and Apple.
"For those who allege that United for Patent Reform is some kind of front for Google, Apple etc. watch the complete list of companies they stand for."United for Patent Reform, which recently defended Michelle Lee for her tough stance on trolls, is quoting Mytheos Holt as saying that "[p]atent trolls “exist purely to register patents and then accuse actual inventors of violating them”" (links to an article we mentioned 2 days ago). It later tweets (with photo) "I stopped innovating. I stopped creating." --Small business owner Eric Rosebrock on the result of his fight with a patent troll" and also tweets: "Thanks to Darrell Issa for coming to the screening of The Patent Scam today, and for being a champion in the fight to fix patents every day" (we also mentioned "The Patent Scam" 2 days ago).
For those who allege that United for Patent Reform is some kind of front for Google, Apple etc. (that's the new talking point), watch the complete list of companies they stand for. Here is a current screenshot from the front page (list of backers).
