10.16.17
Gemini version available ♊︎Another Misleading Article Regarding Patents From Rana Foroohar at the Financial Times
Summary: In an effort to promote the agenda of patent maximalists, many of whom are connected to the Financial Times, another deceiving report comes out
A NEW article that’s composed by Rana Foroohar from New York worries us because it’s not the first time she spreads falsehoods. She recently did more of that and her latest says: “Critics fear Silicon Valley lobbying has weakened the defence of intellectual property and sapped innovation” (by “critics” she means the patent microcosm).
“The Financial Times actively participates in lobbying, e.g. for the UPC. Agenda is up for sale.”
–Foroohar writes for a large audience, namely the readers of the Financial Times which the EPO incidentally pays. The Financial Times actively participates in lobbying, e.g. for the UPC. Agenda is up for sale.
The latest nonsense from Foroohar uses false dichotomy/split (it’s not about “Big Pharma” but the patent microcosm) and quotes lobbyists like David Kappos. Unfortunately, we live in a world where big media is just a business and ‘facts’ (or ‘alternative facts’) are just a commodity to be determined by the highest bidder.
“The latest nonsense from Foroohar uses false dichotomy/split (it’s not about “Big Pharma” but the patent microcosm) and quotes lobbyists like David Kappos.”Speaking of the patent microcosm, Patently-O has just spotted that “Oral arguments for both Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, No. 16-712 and SAS Institute Inc. v. Matal, No. 16-969, have been set for November 27, 2017.”
As a reminder, Patently-O has been trying hard to ‘scandalise’ PTAB and influence this case in favour of patent trolls. The US Supreme Court will likely rubberstamp PTAB some time soon in spite of all the pressure from the patent trolls lobby and biased media including Patently-O and the Financial Times. A day earlier Patently-O presented some data about patent application pendency at the USPTO. To quote:
The chart below shows the pendency timing for issued US patents — looking particularly at the time from priority filing (including foreign priority claims) until issuance of the US patent.
This does not show anything profoundly interesting, but compared to the EPO it looks consistent. The EPO is just rushing things through and granting low-quality patents — the very same thing which the patent microcosm in the US wants. It’s all about litigation to these people. █
ᶃ Gemini Space
This post is also available in 
Content is available under CC-BY-SA