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

09.06.17

“Software Patents Are Evil,” But the Patent Microcosm Keeps Attacking the US Legal System for Disallowing These

Posted in America, Courtroom, Law, Patents at 6:07 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

What’s more evil than software patents are people who constantly attack those who rule against software patents

The Devil

Summary: The reality that software patents are a passing fad in the US is being challenged by those who profit from software patents (hint: they’re not at all developing any software)

EARLIER this week Benjamin Henrion alerted people to the publication of this new article which says “[t]he real enemy is software patents” in relation to an ongoing Facebook controversy. “I hope that Facebook and other multinational companies pool their resources to lobby for an end to software patents,” Henrion added. Here is what the article said:

Software patents are evil, but BSD+Patents is probably not the solution

[...]

Many open source software (OSS) projects led by industry giants use the Apache License 2.0 (henceforth the ASL2.0), compared with the MIT or BSD licenses which also enjoy popularity amongst many other OSS projects. This is the license used by projects in the Apache Software Foundation, but you can use the license without being part of the ASF. TensorFlow and many other important non-ASF projects use this license.

The ASL2.0 has appeal for enterprises for a few reasons. One obvious reason is being a redistribution-friendly, permissive license (like MIT / BSD), so you can include such code in closed source products that you sell. Another reason is that it makes patent grant rights explicit. In other words, the license grants users unrestricted use of any patented IP in the codebase in perpetuity. This patent grant applies transitively to any projects that use or redistribute the project in question.

Having code that is both permissively licensed and patented might seem a bit strange. Some companies may seek patents for IP created in OSS projects to try to protect themselves in future IP litigation . They have no intent of selling or profiting from the patents, but they want the IP distributed in their OSS projects to stay free and commercial friendly.

This is where the ASL2.0′s patent grant is so important; it protects both the OSS authors’ and users’ redistribution rights. Without this, a patent troll could start a lawsuit and potentially force code in an established OSS project to be removed, which would wreak all kinds of havoc on developers and users alike.

In my opinion, software patents are evil because they stifle innovation achieved through incrementalism, and software engineering consists of a lot of this.

[...]

The real enemy is software patents. I feel Facebook’s stance on this is ideological, and it seems unjust to make OSS developers pay the price for software patents’ continued legality in the United States. BSD+Patents may stop certain kinds of patent trolls, but the only real solution is to bring about an end to software patents altogether.

Bottom line is that I agree with the ASF’s stance on the BSD+Patents issue, and I hope that React will change its license. Further, I hope that Facebook and other highly profitable multinational companies pool their resources to lobby for an end to software patents.

We have already included nearly a dozen links about this controversy (BSD+patents) in our daily links. It has been going on for months if not a year (it’s only this summer when the subject resurfaced again and the arguments intensified).

“People like myself, who write software (since age 14 in my case), generally know that software patents are a sham. Software professionals do not want patents.”For the sake of concision, we wish to focus on the patents aspect and generally obsess over the text in bold above (it’s not us who added the bold faces).

People like myself, who write software (since age 14 in my case), generally know that software patents are a sham. Software professionals do not want patents. They need only copyrights. But the patent ‘industry’ profits not from innovation but from litigation; that’s why it keeps pushing for software patenting.

Earlier today we found this new publication from Nick Shipp (Kilburn & Strode LLP). It’s nonsense; this is based on a lie we debunked here before. This Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) decision wasn’t about Alice or software patents. In fact, it wasn’t about software at all. As we said at the time, patent maximalists would attempt to spin the decision as a defeat to Alice. And we were right. These patent maximalists continue to twist this even a month later. From Nick Shipp:

The Federal Circuit’s Visual Memory decision continues to accentuate the need for technical advantages in patent specifications to avoid eligibility issues in the US and could emphasise the advantages of US attorneys drafting more detailed patent specifications. As we explore, these two points could have knock-on positive effects around the world, especially in Europe.

[...]

While it often takes years before changes in practices in US drafting take effect amongst US practitioners and those patent applications finally find their way into Europe, as European practitioners we see the slow shift in US practice post-Alice with a generally warm glow because it should help to mitigate some of the fundamental problems European attorneys face relating to patent eligibility before the EPO. Positively, for patentees, applying these changes in drafting practice should not only improve chances of avoiding Alice rejections in the US but also bring down prosecution costs in Europe, which can only be a good thing.

What he fails to note is that this case wasn’t about software; watch how he proceeded to spinning it in regards to the EPO. Despicable!

Nick Shipp wasn’t alone this week. Another patent maximalist did his usual PTAB bashing. It’s almost the only thing he does these days. Here are some of his latest tweets:

  • “patent atty https://www.linkedin.com/in/domenico-ippolito-10b9498/ … beats PTO on ALICE 101 rejection at PTAB for Ebay client, rare feat nowadays: https://e-foia.uspto.gov/Foia/RetrievePdf?system=BPAI&flNm=fd2016002985-08-24-2017-1″ (source; “Question is,” I responded to him, “was it a software patent in the first place? Sometimes they are not.”)
  • “PTO withdraws all 103 rejections, continues to rely on 101 bc PTAB will rubber stamp any “abstract idea” rejections https://e-foia.uspto.gov/Foia/RetrievePdf?system=BPAI&flNm=fd2016007918-08-24-2017-1″ (source; also covered today by Dennis Crouch, another PTAB basher)
  • “Goldman Sachs learns $ can’t buy #patent happiness, loses on 101 at PTAB like the rest of us 99%ers https://e-foia.uspto.gov/Foia/RetrievePdf?system=BPAI&flNm=fd2016007788-08-24-2017-1″ (source)
  • “IBM loses another #patent app decision under 101 at PTAB bc Wikipedia says “crowdsourcing” been around since 1714 https://e-foia.uspto.gov/Foia/RetrievePdf?system=BPAI&flNm=fd2016007667-08-23-2017-1 …” (source)

“Another patent maximalist did his usual PTAB bashing.”We could go on and on. PTAB bashing is high on the agenda right now, also in Dennis Crouch’s blog, which has become a PTAB bashing/lobbying blog trying to influence the Supreme Court into ‘abolishing’ PTAB (because there’s a window of opportunity soon). Watch what Crouch published earlier today: Alice bashing too. Will he bash the Supreme Court too when the Supreme Court sides with PTAB? Is Alice still something to be ridiculed more than 3 years since the Supreme Court decided on it?

A few days ago Crouch wrote about USPTO patents, unintentionally revealing that such patents have devolved into a template full of cruft that overwhelms examiners for fast-and-loose grants. “To be clear,” he wrote, “I’m not demonizing patentees who submit lots of references. What I’m working toward is whether the large number of references creates any special difficulty or benefits for the examination process and whether examiners receive any special assistance in considering the large number of references submitted.”

“Will he bash the Supreme Court too when the Supreme Court sides with PTAB? Is Alice still something to be ridiculed more than 3 years since the Supreme Court decided on it?”It’s an old strategy; in examination (in schools) too. Write lots and lots of stuff, especially references (which cannot be conceivably checked exhaustively), then make a rejection (based on the evidence) harder. It’s hard for an examiner to justify rejection without reading every single reference. When there are strict time limits and unrealistic expectations, as is (notoriously) the case in the EPO, what’s an examiner to do? Reject because there are “too many references”?

Incidentally, there is this new article today which says that CAFC is going to deal with the USPTO more directly, not just the patents granted by it but the “expenses of the proceedings…”

“We intend to follow the above developments closely because the patent microcosm is working overtime to subvert the system and undermine all the progress made under Michelle Lee (whom they managed to drive out of Office).”As Managing IP put it this afternoon: “Parties have been asked to brief on the issue of whether Section 145’s “[a]ll the expenses of the proceedings” provision authorises an award of the USPTO’s attorneys’ fees, after Federal Circuit ordered a sua sponte rehearing en banc of Nantkwest v Matal” (yes, Matal is still in charge).

We intend to follow the above developments closely because the patent microcosm is working overtime to subvert the system and undermine all the progress made under Michelle Lee (whom they managed to drive out of Office).

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. “US Inventor” is a “Bucket of Deplorables” Not Worthy of Media Coverage

    Jan Wolfe of Reuters treats a fringe group called “US Inventor” as though it's a conservative voice rather than a bunch of patent extremists pretending to be inventors



  2. Team Battistelli's Attacks on the EPO Boards of Appeal Predate the Illegal Sanctions Against a Judge

    A walk back along memory lane reveals that Battistelli has, all along, suppressed and marginalised DG3 members, in order to cement total control over the entire Organisation, not just the Office



  3. PTAB is Safe, the Patent Extremists Just Try to Scandalise It Out of Sheer Desperation

    The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA), which gave powers to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) through inter partes reviews (IPRs), has no imminent threats, not potent ones anyway



  4. Update on the EPO's Crackdown on the Boards of Appeal

    Demand of 35% increases from the boards serves to show that Battistelli now does to the 'independent' judges what he already did to examiners at the Office



  5. The Lobbyists Are Trying to Subvert US Law in Favour of Patent Predators

    Mingorance, Kappos, Underweiser and other lobbyists for the software patents agenda (paid by firms like Microsoft and IBM) keep trying to undo progress, notably the bans on software patents



  6. Patent Trolls Based in East Texas Are Affected Very Critically by TC Heartland

    The latest situation in Texas (United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in particular), which according to new analyses is the target of legal scrutiny for the 'loopholes' it provided to patent trolls in search of easy legal battles



  7. Alice Remains a Strong Precedential Decision and the Media Has Turned Against Software Patents

    The momentum against the scourge of software patents and the desperation among patent 'professionals' (people who don't create/develop/invent) is growing



  8. Harm Still Caused by Granted Software Patents

    A roundup of recent (past week's) announcements, including legal actions, contingent upon software patents in an age when software patents bear no real legitimacy



  9. Links 18/11/2017: Raspberry Digital Signage 10, New Nano

    Links for the day



  10. 23,000 Posts

    23,000 blog posts milestone reached in 11 years



  11. BlackBerry Cannot Sell Phones and Apple Looks Like the Next BlackBerry (a Pile of Patents)

    The lifecycle of mobile giants seems to typically end in patent shakedown, as Apple loses its business to Android just like Nokia and BlackBerry lost it to Apple



  12. EFF and CCIA Use Docket Navigator and Lex Machina to Identify 'Stupid Patents' (Usually Software Patents That Are Not Valid)

    In spite of threats and lawsuits from bogus 'inventors' whom they criticise, EFF staff continues the battle against patents that should never have been granted at all



  13. The Australian Productivity Commission Shows the Correct Approach to Setting Patent Laws and Scope

    Australia views patents on software as undesirable and acts accordingly, making nobody angry except a bunch of law firms that profited from litigation and patent maximalism



  14. EPO 'Business' From the United States Has Nosedived and UPC is on Its Death Throes

    Benoît Battistelli and Elodie Bergot further accelerate the ultimate demise of the EPO (getting rid of experienced and thus 'expensive' staff), for which there is no replacement because there is a monopoly (which means Europe will suffer severely)



  15. Links 17/11/2017: KDE Applications 17.12, Akademy 2018 Plans

    Links for the day



  16. Today's EPO and Team UPC Do Not Work for Europe But Actively Work Against Europe

    The tough reality that some Europeans actively work to undermine science and technology in Europe because they personally profit from it and how this relates to the Unitary Patent (UPC), which is still aggressively lobbied for, sometimes by bribing/manipulating the media, academia, and public servants



  17. Links 16/11/2017: WordPress 4.9 and GhostBSD 11.1 Released

    Links for the day



  18. The Staff Union of the EPO (SUEPO) is Rightly Upset If Not Shocked at What Battistelli and Bergot Are Doing to the Office

    The EPO's dictatorial management is destroying everything that's left (of value) at the Office while corrupting academia and censoring discussion by threatening those who publish comments (gagging its own staff even when that staff posts anonymously)



  19. EPO Continues to Disobey the Law on Software Patents in Europe

    Using the same old euphemisms, e.g. "computer-implemented inventions" (or "CII"), the EPO continues to grant patents which are clearly and strictly out of scope



  20. Links 16/11/2017: Tails 3.3, Deepin 15.5 Beta

    Links for the day



  21. Benoît Battistelli and Elodie Bergot Have Just Ensured That EPO Will Get Even More Corrupt

    Revolving door-type tactics will become more widespread at the EPO now that the management (Battistelli and his cronies) hires for low cost rather than skills/quality and minimises staff retention; this is yet another reason to dread anything like the UPC, which prioritises litigation over examination



  22. Australia is Banning Software Patents and Shelston IP is Complaining as Usual

    The Australian Productivity Commission, which defies copyright and patent bullies, is finally having policies put in place that better serve the interests of Australians, but the legal 'industry' is unhappy (as expected)



  23. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Defended by Technology Giants, by Small Companies, by US Congress and by Judges, So Why Does USPTO Make It Less Accessible?

    In spite of the popularity of PTAB and the growing need/demand for it, the US patent system is apparently determined to help it discriminate against poor petitioners (who probably need PTAB the most)



  24. Declines in Patent Quality at the EPO and 'Independent' Judges Can No Longer Say a Thing

    The EPO's troubling race to the bottom (of patent quality) concerns the staff examiners and the judges, but they cannot speak about it without facing rather severe consequences



  25. The EPO is Now Corrupting Academia, Wasting Stakeholders' Money Lying to Stakeholders About the Unitary Patent (UPC)

    The Unified Patent Court/Unitary Patent (UPC) is a dying project and the EPO, seeing that it is going nowhere fast, has resorted to new tactics and these tactics cost a lot of money (at the expense of those who are being lied to)



  26. Links 15/11/2017: Fedora 27 Released, Linux Mint Has New Betas

    Links for the day



  27. Patents Roundup: Packet Intelligence, B.E. Technology, Violin, and Square

    The latest stories and warnings about software patents in the United States



  28. Decline of Skills Level of Staff Like Examiners and Impartiality (Independence) of Judges at the EPO Should Cause Concern, Alarm

    Access to justice is severely compromised at the EPO as staff is led to rely on deficient tools for determining novelty while judges are kept out of the way or ill-chosen for an agenda other than justice



  29. Links 14/11/2017: GNU/Linux at Samsung, Firefox 57 Quantum

    Links for the day



  30. Microsoft: Sheltering Oneself From Patent Litigation While Passing Patents for Trolls to Attack GNU/Linux

    Another closer look at Provenance Asset Holdings and what exactly it is (connection to AST, part of the cartel Microsoft subsidises to shield itself)


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