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

02.09.18

Joe Mullin Joins the EFF to Fight Mean Software Patents, Starting With Coverage About Unified Patents Defeating Sportbrain

Posted in America, EFF, Patents at 5:59 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Related: CAFC Meddling in PTAB Affairs; Unified Patents Fights a Good Fight by Invalidating Software Patents

Joe Mullin
Joe Mullin’s Twitter account

Summary: The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has just smashed another troublesome patent and Joe Mullin was there, this time in EFF clothing, to cover it

THE previous post spoke about patent trolls with USPTO-granted patents and the EFF’s response to them. The good news is, not only does the EFF tackle the right issues (it used to have a poorer and rather misguided strategy). The EFF has just hired Joe Mullin for activism/journalism against software patents and patent trolls — something he had done in a blog before some media companies took him on board. Eventually he must have realised that advocacy without the whole pretense of “balance” would be better use of his time; at least that’s what happened with me (more than a decade ago I wrote for media companies, but they did not give me sufficient freedom to express myself).

“The EFF has just hired Joe Mullin for activism/journalism against software patents and patent trolls — something he had done in a blog before some media companies took him on board.”“I’m happy to report I’m working at @EFF now,” he announced in Twitter, “working mostly on IP-related things.

“Here’s my first blog post,” he wrote after had published this piece about Sportbrain [1, 2, 3] (covered here before). To quote:

The importance of the US Patent Office’s “inter partes review” (IPR) process was highlighted in dramatic fashion yesterday. Patent appeals judges threw out a patent [PDF] that was used to sue more than 80 companies in the fitness, wearables, and health industries.

US Patent No. 7,454,002 was owned by Sportbrain Holdings, a company that advertised a kind of ‘smart pedometer’ as recently as 2011. But the product apparently didn’t take off, and in 2016, Sportbrain turned to patent lawsuits to make a buck.

A company called Unified Patents challenged the ’002 patent by filing an IPR petition, and last year, the Patent Office agreed that the patent should be reviewed. Yesterday, the patent judges published their decision, canceling every claim of the patent.

The ’002 patent describes capturing a user’s “personal data,” and then sharing that information with a wireless computing device and over a network. It then analyzes the data and provides feedback.

After reviewing the relevant technology, a panel of patent office judges found there wasn’t much new to the ’002 patent. Earlier patents had already described collecting and sharing various types of sports data, including computer-assisted pedometers and a system that measured a skier’s “air time.” Given those earlier advances, the steps of the Sportbrain patent would have been obvious to someone working in the field. The office cancelled all the claims.

That means the dozens of different companies sued by Sportbrain won’t have to each spend hundreds of thousands of dollars—potentially millions—to defend against a patent that, the government now acknowledges, never should have been granted in the first place.

Joe Mullin was debunking patent myths and naming trolls even recently (he had covered other topics too). He often referred to (and cited) EFF posts, but now he’s joining Ranieri and Nazer (there used to be more staff assigned to deal with the patent matters)‏. He’ll be working alongside them rather than writing about them. Mullin is a very knowledgeable person; I spoke to him on the phone last year.

Sportbrain’s patent has been “found invalid,” Unified Patents said some days ago (a day after it was confirmed). We saw that almost immediately because we’re subscribed to the RSS feed. To quote: “On February 6, 2018, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued a final written decision in Unified Patents Inc. v. Harry Heslop & Sportbrain Holdings, LLC, IPR2016-01464 invalidating all challenged claims of U.S. Patent 7,454,002, owned and asserted by Sportbrain Holdings, LLC. The ’002 Patent, which describes a system for monitoring and providing feedback on a user’s physical data, has been asserted 148 cases (17 of which were pending at the time of this decision). Defendants in these cases span across multiple industries and include such companies as Verizon, Fitbit, Microsoft, LG, TomTom, Garmin, Louis Vuitton, ZTE and Apple.”

“Joe Mullin was debunking patent myths and naming trolls even recently (he had covered other topics too).”Apple is named last. Apple very recently settled in patent dispute, shelling out $871,500. It could possibly just fight against that patent until the end, but it chose not to. Less than a million dollars is ‘slush funds’ to Apple. As the article notes, it recently paid far more to settle other patent cases.

PTAB has been doing very well lately and we’ll have a lot to say about it over the weekend. To quote some recent statistics: “On January 31, the PTAB Affirmed Examiners’ 101 Rejections for 9 Cases; Denied Reconsideration of 101 Rejections in 3 Cases and Reversed Examiners’ 101 Rejections in 2 Cases.”

“In the past 2-3 years — and not just owing to Alice — we often get the feeling that we’re finally ‘winning’ (as some might put it) and the US patent system gets reformed to better suit science and technology, not patenters and litigators.”So they deal with quite a few patent applications, not just patents that are either used in litigation or for threats of litigation. This helps limit patent scope. One journalist focused on patent matters said the other day that “Senator Susan Collins told @BloombergLaw the Special Committee on Aging is working to draft a bill to restrict certain types of patents on drugs, such as new formulations, to limit evergreening, reports @BronwynMixter…”

“Fantastic news,” I responded to her. “A push back against patent maximalism, which made the patent system lose its sight on purpose…”

In the past 2-3 years — and not just owing to Alice — we often get the feeling that we’re finally ‘winning’ (as some might put it) and the US patent system gets reformed to better suit science and technology, not patenters and litigators. That’s the desirable thing for a patent system anywhere.

The EFF, in Tackling Software Patent Trolls, Turns to Motivational Health Messaging; Craig Daniels Spills the Beans on Packet Intelligence

Posted in EFF, Patents at 5:26 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Even without the founder, who died a few days ago, the EFF carries on with his battles

John Barlow

Summary: Even after the unfortunate death of John Barlow the EFF continues to expose and fight against patent trolls, whose victims would otherwise remain unnamed and their stories untold

THE USPTO granted plenty of terrible patents over the years. Many of these patents landed on the laps of patent trolls and Motivational Health Messaging is one such patent troll. We wrote about it before. Basically, patent trolls are engaging in blackmail using (typically) bogus patents, so they pick on relatively small companies that have a greater incentive to settle than to fight in court, potentially invaliding the patents. The EFF has one new story about this troll:

Trying to succeed as a startup is hard enough. Getting a frivolous patent infringement demand letter in the mail can make it a whole lot harder. The experience of San Francisco-based Motiv is the latest example of how patent trolls impose painful costs on small startups and stifle innovation.

Motiv is a startup of fewer than 50 employees competing in the wearable technology space. Founded in 2013, the company creates fitness trackers, housed in a ring worn on your finger.

In January, Motiv received a letter alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,069,648 (“the ’648 Patent”). The letter gave Motiv two options: pay $35,000 to license the ’648 Patent, or face the potential of costly litigation.

The ’648 Patent, owned by Motivational Health Messaging LLC (“MHM”), is titled “Systems and methods for delivering activity based suggestive (ABS) messages.” The patent describes sending “motivational messages,” based “on the current or anticipated activity of the user,” to a “personal electronic device.” It provides examples such as sending the message “don’t give up” when the user is running up a hill, or messages like “do not fear” and “God is with you” when a “user enters a dangerous neighborhood.” Simply put, the patent claims to have invented using a computer to send tailored messages based on activity or location.

To a certain degree, there’s a massive racket between patent lawyers (or law firms) and patent trolls because they create ‘business’ for each other. It’s hardly surprising that these law firms and trolls habitually attack the EFF for its work in this domain.

There’s another new troll story making the rounds right now. Craig Daniels explained how Sandvine got targeted by a patent troll called Packet Intelligence LLC. We wrote about it a few times before. Here’s how the story began:

The shot across the bow, the splash in the water that signalled an adversary had appeared on the horizon and was spoiling for a fight, came in February, 2016.

“All of a sudden my phone started ringing,” recalls Dave Caputo, the former CEO of network optimization company Sandvine.

“And it was a bunch of law firms, many of them based in Dallas [saying] that, ‘We would love to represent you in your patent lawsuit.’

“I had no idea what the calls were about and thought, well, something must have happened.”

What had happened was Civil Docket No. 2:16-CV-147, filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, by a three-person company called Packet Intelligence LLC.

Sandvine had been targeted in lawsuit by a patent troll. And those phone calls, which began on Feb. 17, 2016, would herald the beginning of a 21-month legal odyssey for Caputo and his senior executives as they worked to stake a claim to their company’s innocence and avoid paying a US$13.8-million demand for damages, plus ongoing royalties on future sales.

It was an odyssey that would eventually swallow up to US$2 million of Sandvine money in legal fees and additionally emerge as a cautionary tale for otherwise unsuspecting technology companies in Waterloo Region.

These sorts of stories are familiar; it happens many times every single day in the US, causing a lot of harm to companies which actually produce something. Well, hopefully these trolls will die soon. US-based patent trolls are, in general, a dying breed.

In China, GUIs Are Not Patent-Enforceable and GUI Patents Are Not Algorithms, Contrary to New Spin

Posted in America, Asia, Courtroom, Patents at 4:57 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Those aren’t computer programs but layouts

How on Earth are such simple GUIs being patented as though they are inventions?

Summary: The patent microcosm is hoping to convince the public that in Core Wireless Licensing v LG Electronics there was some kind of triumph for software patents (at the Federal Circuit), but this has nothing to do with software (mere presentation) and China is pushing back against such patents, signaling a rethink about whether such patents should exist in the first place

AS odd as that may seem, the USPTO actually grants some patents on GUIs (and a high court defended one such patent last month). So does the EPO, with notable examples like a progress bar, slide to unlock, and even worse things (like one-click shopping).

It’s amazing, isn’t it? How shallow and superficial can some patents be? Do these even count as innovations at all? Not really.

So there’s this new irregular case. It stands out from the crowd. The patent maximalists keep pretending it’s about § 101. It’s not. It’s not about algorithms either. A few days ago one firm wrote:

The Federal Circuit continues to provide much needed guidance (and relief) in interpreting patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. §101. In Core Wireless Licensing v. LG Electronics (Fed. Cir. January 25, 2018), the Federal Circuit affirmed the eligibility of a patent relating to an improved user interface for computing devices. The decision yields arguments and approaches for eligibility of software patents in general.

§ 101 was attempted as a defense, but the patent in question isn’t the Alice type. In China, by contrast, GUI patents have actually suffered a blow. There’s lots of spin about that, as one might expect.

“In China, by contrast, GUI patents have actually suffered a blow. There’s lots of spin about that, as one might expect.”A few days ago, copy-pasting Ran Wang and Xiaoyan Feng of Liu Shen & Associates in Beijing, IAM went with the misleading headline “China’s first court decision on GUI design patent infringement narrows avenues for protecting software” (but no, GUI patents are not software; there’s no algorithm associated with them).

Another such copy (‘prepared’ piece) was cross-posted to preserve the confusion. To quote:

Patent protection for software in China is fairly strong, and as this blog has chronicled over the last few years it has gotten stronger still. But when it comes to the design and look of software, and how users interact with it, a recent Beijing IP Court ruling suggests creators may face an uphill battle in asserting their rights against copycats.

Graphical user interfaces (GUIs) are a relatively new category under China’s design patent regime. But they have been a fast-growing field, as many of the country’s leading lights in tech are software-first companies. In the increasingly competitive smartphone field, operating system and app design are key battlegrounds between domestic players.

We wrote about that last weekend. It’s actually encouraging to see that even though SIPO became somewhat of a garbage dump/landfill of low-quality patents, Chinese courts are sometimes willing to stand in the way.

There might not be a future to GUI patents. Time will tell…

To Understand the Protection Racket Look Not at Microsoft But at Patent Trolls Which It Sponsors

Posted in GNU/Linux, IBM, Microsoft, OIN, Patents at 4:25 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

The ‘enforcers’ are Finjan et al.

RacketSummary: An outline of patent activities which are connected to Microsoft, including the protection racket known as Azure IP Advantage

THE patent strategy which revolves around taxing GNU/Linux carries on at Microsoft. It’s alive and well, it's just 'dressed up' or marketed differently.

Erich Andersen (Corporate Vice President and Chief IP Counsel at Microsoft, based in Redmond) will never say that Microsoft is running a racket. Maybe he’ll even convince himself otherwise. Having recently driven that crazy “AI” hype, Microsoft’s Andersen now says: “During this time when customers are rapidly adopting #AI solutions across industries to solve important problems, Microsoft is helping to protect those investments by offering #AI patents as part of #AzureIPAdvantage…”

“The patent strategy which revolves around taxing GNU/Linux carries on at Microsoft.”Also, linking to IAM, he wrote: “One year after the launch of #AzureIPAdvantage, our commitment to protecting @Azure customers from IP claims remains strong and unmatched in the industry…”

What he does not say, however, is that Azure IP Advantage is a misnomer; it’s actually a protection racket. This week, for example, he also promoted software patents by citing the EPO’s latest stunt, which frames such patents as “Fourth Industrial Revolution”.

“What he does not say, however, is that Azure IP Advantage is a misnomer; it’s actually a protection racket.”“No surprise here,” he wrote, as “patent filings up at the EPO in “Fourth Industrial Revolution technologies”” (that’s software patents, by IAM’s own admission). Those sorts of buzzwords, “AI” included (EPO prefers “ICT” and “CII”), are nowadays routinely used to dodge the negative publicity of software patenting. Suffice to say, software patents are at the very heart of the racket (Azure just runs code), but after Alice their value is questionable at best.

The other day, piggybacking the gender slant, this event promoted software patents, relying on a Microsoft-sponsored patent troll called Finjan for lobbying. Coreena Brinck said that the USPTO “recently handed down a decision where software was found eligible for patentable: Finjan v Blue Coat Systems Inc.”

We wrote several articles about that and it’s not what they claim it to be. This same case was also mentioned on February 5th by Peter Keros. He focused on patents as corporate welfare (what Microsoft is pursuing) when they’re not just a loophole/instrument of tax evasion (very common). To quote:

Damages for patent infringement must be apportioned to the infringing features of an accused product and supported by substantial evidence. Finjan, Inc., v. Blue Coat Systems Inc., No. 2016-2520 (January 10, 2018) (precedential). After considering subject matter eligibility and infringement of the asserted patents, the Federal Circuit reviewed the damages awarded by the jury, reversing awards unsupported by substantial evidence and affirming awards properly apportioned.

Finjan, Inc. v Cisco Systems has also just been brought up in the following context:

The court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willful patent infringement claims for failing to sufficiently allege egregious behavior.

Microsoft-sponsored patent trolls keep harassing Microsoft’s competitors in court, fueling the above-mentioned protection racket. They want companies to either enter Azure or enter exclusive ‘clubs’ like AST. “AST members including IBM, Microsoft and Google,” IAM said the other day, “spend $2.5 million in latest IP3 patent buying programme,” noting:

AST has announced the results of its latest IP3 initiative which saw 15 of the defensive patent platform’s members participate, including Google, IBM, Microsoft and Ford.

In total they spent almost $2.5 million to buy 70 active assets in 19 portfolios with prices per lot ranging from $25,000 to $390,000; and an average selling price per family of $128,000. There was an average of 3.6 assets per family (up from 1.84 last year) with the largest lot that was acquired including 21 US patent filings (a lot could comprise multiple families).

IBM, Microsoft and other patent villains are basically at peace with each other because they all have a lot of patents; but what about smaller companies? Those are the companies that IBM and Microsoft go after, but not always directly. Several years ago Microsoft passed many of Nokia’s patents to this patent troll (MOSAID) and based on this new press release (via) Microsoft and Nokia keep feeding other patent trolls using key patents (like they did MOSAID). To quote:

This offering follows on the heels of the Telecommunications Portfolio I offering made in August of 2017 via AQUA Licensing. The previous portfolio consisted of 4,260 patent families. To date, buyers have been identified for a significant portion of the initial offering.

The new Telecommunications Portfolio II offering comprises 557 patent families, developed by Alcatel-Lucent / Bell Labs, Nokia Technologies and Nokia Networks.

These patents can thus be used to go after AWS clients or Microsoft rivals in the device space. Not everyone can afford membership in AST or RPX or whatever new pools they keep setting up. To avoid the perception that IBM is going to attack GNU/Linux with patents, the Open Invention Network (OIN) was set up more than a decade ago. Never mind if IBM sells patents to trolls like Finjan and OIN, by its own admission, cannot do anything against trolls.

The latest OIN addition is Hitachi, as announced in this press release a few days ago.

Open Invention Network (OIN), the largest patent non-aggression community in history, and Hitachi, Ltd. (TSE:6501) (Hitachi) announced today that Hitachi has joined as a community member. As an innovation partner for the IoT era through the advanced Social Innovation Business that leverage OT (operational technology) and IT, Hitachi is demonstrating its commitment to open source software as an enabler of innovation across a wide spectrum of industries.

“Hitachi was an early and enthusiastic supporter of open source. It helps businesses modernize their industrial applications with technologies that rely heavily on Linux and embedded Linux, like the Internet of Things (IoT),” said Keith Bergelt, CEO of OIN. “Given its substantial patent holdings, we are pleased that Hitachi has recognized the importance of participating in OIN as part of its IP strategy.”

They (OIN) may sound Linux-friendly, but they don’t fight software patents. It’s like an IBM (amongst others’) instrument/tool/front group. Here is what Linux Journal wrote about this:

Hitachi has joined the Open Invention Network, “the largest patent non-aggression community in history”. According to Norihiro Suzuki, Vice President and Executive Officer, CTO of Hitachi, “Open source technology, especially Linux, drives innovation in areas that are critical to the customers that we serve, including technologies such as servers, storage, cloud, converged applications, big data and IoT. By joining Open Invention Network, we are demonstrating our continued commitment to open source technology, and supporting it with patent non-aggression in Linux.” See the press release for more information.

“Microsoft does not love Linux. In fact, Microsoft hates Linux. It just doesn’t want people to see it, so attacks on GNU/Linux typically come through consultancies such as Accenture and patent trolls like Finjan.”OIN will not be able to protect clients of Microsoft’s rivals (or Microsoft’s rivals themselves) when some troll like Finjan or MOSAID (now known as Conversant) runs after them, so it’s a pretty toothless defender. Generally speaking, we expect many more lawsuits like the above. As Microsoft rarely sues directly (anymore) we’re left to analyse the passage of patents, passage of staff (like in Acacia) and the overall strategy.

Microsoft does not love Linux. In fact, Microsoft hates Linux. It just doesn’t want people to see it, so attacks on GNU/Linux typically come through consultancies such as Accenture and patent trolls like Finjan.

‘Women in IP’: When the Gender Card is Used to Distract From Patent Policy

Posted in America, Patents at 3:20 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Focus on wealth, not gender

Royal flush

Summary: As various patent blogs turn to writing about (legitimate) issues of opportunities, the main subject people ought to be talking about is who benefits from patents in economic terms

THE EPO and the USPTO both use what’s sometimes known as the “gender card” (it’s not really a loaded term, but it has a negative connotation within some circle, just like “social justice warrior”, “virtue-signaling” and so on). They use it for marketing purposes. We have given examples over the years. This post isn’t about the groups that get associated with this debate (we’re not interested in that sort of debate); we just want to point out that sometimes, as in the case of a study from some months ago, genders and ethnic minorities get exploited to relay particular talking points, e.g. claims that propose false correlations, overlooking the connection between personal wealth and patents, instead focusing on race and gender.

“There is some news today about patent scope, notably patents on life. We would like to remain focused on such matters and not enter the potentially divisive realms of discrimination, intolerance and so on.”The question of gender is often brought up — at times unnecessarily — also in the software world, typically when the debate shifts from engineering to matters of ethics. That’s not because of a perception of engineering/gender (or even potential/opportunity) gap but a variety of other reasons. There’s a very long discussion at IP Kat about it (started earlier this week when “Merpel” wrote about diversity). Watchtroll also mentioned that a couple of days ago, citing this article about female lawyers. To quote:

A framed photo of trial consultant Tara Trask with a gaggle of lawyers and clients she advised on a patent case hangs in her office. The team smiles proudly outside a Texas courthouse, following a hard-fought win.

Two years later, when Trask set out to research the diversity of the intellectual property trial teams she’d worked with, something she hadn’t noticed in that photo jumped out: she was the only woman in a group of 13 white men.

In a sample of 50 attorneys in seven intellectual property trials she consulted on from January to August 2017, Trask found most were tried and led by white male attorneys. The majority were patent cases.

Women are underrepresented in many domains, not just law. And there are many reasons for why that happens. It’s not a good thing. Having said that, what troubles us at times is how the gender/race issue gets interjected to manipulate completely and patently unrelated debates, such as the above-mentioned distraction from the correlation between wealth and patenting (not related to either race or gender). There is some news today [1,2] about patent scope, notably patents on life. We would like to remain focused on such matters and not enter the potentially divisive realms of discrimination, intolerance and so on. Sadly, many people do in fact manipulate those things.

Related/contextual items from the news:

  1. Federal Court rules controversial cattle genome patent invalid

    Australia’s cattle industry has scored a win against the US-based owners over a patent application it feared would put the brakes on improvement in Australia’s cattle herd.

    The Federal Court rejected the patent application, saying it was unclear in its scope, that it failed to adequality describe what the invention was, and whether there was an industrial application for it.

    Meat and Livestock Australia spends hundreds of millions of dollars on genetic research in cattle, and feared the patent application threatened Australian farmers’ access to important genomic testing.

  2. Supreme Court pregabalin hearing to have a big impact on UK pharma patent rights

    Next week’s UK Supreme Court hearing on the long-running patent dispute over pregabalin will be watched closely by life sciences innovators.

Fake ‘Articles’, ‘Debates’ and ‘Webinars’ From Lobbyists Including IBM’s David Kappos, IPO and IPLAC

Posted in Deception, IBM, Patents at 2:46 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Related: The Patent Microcosm is Setting Up a Huge Number of Anti-§ 101 Events in an Effort to Thwart Alice and Promote Software Patents

Money stack

Summary: Some of the familiar faces and groups turn up to lobby for patent maximalism, to bash PTAB and so on (serving their sponsors, who are patent bullies and patent law firms)

THE USPTO, which finds itself increasingly ‘supervised’ by PTAB (which affirms or overturns examiners’ decisions), is no longer granting patents as leniently as before.

Patent maximalists are therefore regrouping to “discuss the state of software and business method patent-eligibility in 2018″ in a new so-called ‘webinar’. We have seen many such ‘webinars’ lately. Many are about Alice and their goal is to nuke Alice. But it has not worked. Not yet anyway…

As it turns out, former USPTO Director David Kappos is basically still lobbying for patent maximalism. He writes papers in favour software patents while collecting money from oligarchs and large corporations such as IBM. This software patents lobbyist of IBM actually spent many years working exclusively for IBM and he now uses his USPTO connections in an effort to alter policy. He still lobbies; he has this new article, whose disclosure omits his lobbying activities. It says: “David J. Kappos is a partner at Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP; he previously served as Undersecretary of Commerce and Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, where he led the passage and implementation of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act of 2011. ”

What about his lobbying business? Funny how that’s just conveniently left out. On February 8th (yesterday) there was this “IPO Webinar–Early Reports and New Ideas on Exhaustion,” as one patent maximalist put it.The Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO), which is closely connected to IBM [1, 2], is a patent radicals’ front group, so this “webinar” promised to be pure lobbying. Patent Docs said the following about it: “The Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO) will offer a one-hour webinar entitled “Exhaustion Tamed? Early Reports and New Ideas after Lexmark” on February 8, 2018 from 2:00 to 3:00 pm (ET). Jorge Goldstein of Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox, PLLC; Brian Kacedon of Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP; and William Krovatin of Merck & Co Inc. will discuss strategies and recent court cases..”

Notice who’s there. The patent microcosm. As usual, they are attempting to dominate or monopolise every single ‘debate’. Some of them are Koch-funded. The Kochs have an interest in Oil States — a case to be decided later this year by the highest US court. Watch how IPLAC (patent maximalists in the north of the US) ‘debates’ this case (also yesterday). Stacked panel to ‘discuss’ a key case? You bet:

The Intellectual Property Law Association of Chicago (IPLAC) Young Members Committee will be presenting a panel discussion entitled “There Will Be Blood (and Beer): A Brief Panel Discussion on Oil States Services LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC” on February 8, 2018 from 5:30 to 8:00 pm (CT) at the offices of Foley & Lardner in Chicago, IL. The panel will discuss Oil States Energy Services LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, including the proceedings before the Supreme Court, and offer commentary on the issue of whether inter partes review violates the Constitution by extinguishing private property rights through a non-Article III forum without a jury.

In our previous post we wrote about the UPC lobby doing similar things in Europe. They set up their own exclusive ‘events’ or ‘forums’ or whatever they want to label these; the real purpose is to mislead and lobby officials.

Team UPC is Working Overtime to Impose UPC on Europe, Based on a Pile of Lies

Posted in Europe, Patents at 2:14 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

CIPA meeting with Stephen Jones
Stephen Jones from IP Kat (until recently) with Battistelli last month

Summary: The UPC lobby, which is a powerful pressure group controlled by the people who prepared UPCA for self enrichment, carries on lying to the public and to public officials, hoping that they would bless the UPCA based on misconceptions and in clear defiance of the law

TEAM UPC will never give up on the UPC. Neither will the management of the EPO, where Battistelli’s successor is not expected to be any better (based on what insiders oftentimes claim). AA Thornton & Co, based on this hours-old publication, is the latest to googlebomb the CIPA/EPO statement which we recently wrote about. As we said some days ago, a lot of money is being spent on this PR; they’re basically paying to link to an EPO press release which is clearly misleading. Some of them repeat everything in their corporate Web sites, but that doesn’t seem enough for them. They forcibly push it into every possible avenue/outlet, including Google News. This may be a coordinated lobbying effort, with someone like Sam Gyimah in their sight. We think we know the reason for the timing. Bristows’ Alan Johnson wrote some hours ago: “Following the Privy Council’s meeting, the approved Order must now be ‘moved’ on the floor of the Houses of Parliament to take effect; this is expected to be on Thursday 15 February.”

“As we said some days ago, a lot of money is being spent on this PR; they’re basically paying to link to an EPO press release which is clearly misleading.”But the UK cannot ratify; it’s not compatible with Brexit. This is where the ‘clever’ propaganda comes into play; it mentions UPC between the lines, but it’s actually intended to conflate/mix the UPC with EPO and give lesser informed readers the impression that they’re the same thing. The timing above may be why they keep bombing the media with this stuff. If some politicians research the news right now, they’ll see almost nothing but CIPA and Battistelli. Everything leads to the same lie, carefully constructed to make it seem like the UK is about to enter the UPC with no issues whatsoever.

A few hours ago, under the pseudonym "Kluwer Patent blogger" (almost certainly Bristows), Kluwer Patent Blog — now further shielded from negative comments about the UPC — spread a lot more lies regarding the UPC. “It is self-evident that the Unitary Patent system is good for Europe,” said the opening sentence. Lie. Right from the first sentence.

It’s all about Bristows’ friend, Mr. Ramsay:

Alexander Ramsay, chairman of the Preparatory Committee of the UPC said this at the Unitary Patent Package Conference, 8 and 9 february 2018 in The Hague. Ramsay, who has been on the dossier for ten years, five of them in the PrepCom, hailed the companionship and the ‘extremely dedicated people’ he has been working with.

What conference is this? Ask Kluwer. Christine Robben (“International Product Development” at Kluwer) wrote about it a few days ago: “Kick off of #UnitaryPatentPackage Conference 2018 in The Hague”

“Everything leads to the same lie, carefully constructed to make it seem like the UK is about to enter the UPC with no issues whatsoever.”“Nobody invited who hasn’t something (or a lot) to gain from UPC,” I told her. “Nice coup you got there…”

“The conference was not by invitation and open for registration for anybody,” she replied to me.

“So what they had there was another ‘echo chamber’ event, set up for lobbying purposes.”“I am guessing that speaking positions were not open to everyone and the entrance fees high,” I told her. No response from her since (maybe because she cannot refute that).

So what they had there was another ‘echo chamber’ event, set up for lobbying purposes. They will not get the ‘wrong’ people inside (definitely not as speakers!) and not have the ‘wrong’ views expressed. Pretty much like Kluwer Patent Blog after the new censorship-motivated restrictions…

The EPO’s Working Party on Quality is Battistelli’s Own Ministry of Truth

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 1:47 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Ministries of Nineteen Eighty-Four
Reference: Ministries of Nineteen Eighty-Four

Summary: In an effort to cover up the fact that quality of European Patents (EPs) is declining, which is easily demonsrable, the EPO keeps “banging on” the subject of “quality”, just like it does “SMEs”

THE EPO has reduced the quality of patents, whereas the USPTO — as we shall show this weekend — continues to improve quality.

Battistelli may be corrupt and very thick, but he too can tell that patent quality is declining (EPs are losing their value), so just like an oppressive regime with things like “Ministry of Truth” we now have a “Working Party on Quality”.

“Battistelli may be corrupt and very thick, but he too can tell that patent quality is declining (EPs are losing their value), so just like an oppressive regime with things like “Ministry of Truth” we now have a “Working Party on Quality”.”Welcome to North Korea. Yes, it’s actually called that! “Working Party on Quality”. Rhymes with Communist Party of China (CPC) — not the CPC EPO typically speaks of.

Everybody inside and outside the EPO knows that quality of patents and quality of service nosedives; it is actually measurable, so Battistelli keeps googlebombing subjects like “transparency” and “quality”. Today we saw “Engaging with users on patent quality” (warning: epo.org link) — you see? “Patent quality” right there, starting from the headline and then repeated endlessly in the body (count how many times they repeat the word “quality”). Here’s a passage:

The Standing Advisory Committee before the EPO (SACEPO) Working Party on Quality was created to engage with users and gather feedback on quality at the Office. It forms part of the EPO’s strategy to continuously improve its products, services and communication with users.

Quality, quality, and more quality. Repeat and repeat. It cannot be a lie, can it? Maybe people will actually believe it.

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »

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 Channels: Come and chat with us in real time

New to This Site? Here Are Some Introductory Resources

No

Mono

ODF

Samba logo






We support

End software patents

GPLv3

GNU project

BLAG

EFF bloggers

Comcast is Blocktastic? SavetheInternet.com



Recent Posts