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

04.03.18

‘Patent Imperialism’ in the United States and China

Posted in America, Asia, Patents at 2:32 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

They believe that by amassing millions of low-quality patents they will perpetually maintain dominance and glory

Classic Vienna

Summary: Patent maximalism, which is encouraged and always glorified by the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO), threatens to accomplish nothing but associating patents with self-destructive lawsuits that divert economic capacities from research and development to patents and litigation (passage of power and wealth from science and technology to law firms)

Thanks to Cablegate (2010), we already know about ambitions of a global patent system (we wrote quite a lot about this around 2011). But whose globalism? In Cablegate we see ambitions of a USPTO-like or US-leaning system worldwide (the EPO moved closer to that, more so than IP5 on average) and putting WIPO aside, why would anybody want that? What about the hundreds (about 200) nations that don’t dominate the world’s economy? What’s in it for them? What about high-density and large populations like Nigeria, Brazil, India, Indonesia and so on? Should billions of people become indebted to or beholden to some corporations halfway across the world? Does unification of systems or a sort of convergence benefit the public or does that benefit large multinational corporations and billionaires? In practice, due to political dynamics, it’s usually the latter. We already saw how a ‘cartel’ of patent law firms crafted and then attempted to force-feed (ratify) the UPC all across Europe, basically helping patent trolls from other continents blackmail many SMEs across Europe (profitable for patent law firms, representing both plaintiffs and defendants).

“We already saw how a ‘cartel’ of patent law firms crafted and then attempted to force-feed (ratify) the UPC all across Europe, basically helping patent trolls from other continents blackmail many SMEs across Europe (profitable for patent law firms, representing both plaintiffs and defendants).”Anyway, yesterday IAM wrote more of its Chinese jingoism over the patent system of China (because it had fully embraced patent maximalism some years ago). The vast majority of patent lawsuits in China may still be initiated by Chinese firms, some government-connected monopolies in fact, and the targets are often foreign companies they hope to drive out. That’s a very high cost for PRC/CPC/China/Xi to pay just to pretend that it has an innovation surge (measured wrongly by number of monopolies) and counter sanctions/fines in case of trade wars, which seem inevitable now.

IAM, echoing the headline (more or less) in Twitter, basically quotes only the patent microcosm (as usual):

Beijing has a reputation for deep patent expertise in its courts and is a favoured venue for overseas companies. But Lui has found that foreign parties enjoy a high success rate across the whole of the country. In cases that resulted in a verdict, foreign plaintiffs won 29 and lost just 8 – a conversion rate of about 78%.

But 24 other cases were withdrawn. It is hard to get a good read on what these presumed settlements mean. Chinese practitioners say that one reason for the high winning rate of all plaintiffs in China is that it often becomes clear during the course of a case if a plaintiff is unlikely to succeed – technical determinations made by judges’ assistants can be decisive. So we really cannot assume that the larger share of settlements will be on terms favourable to the plaintiff.

At the end, this patent policy of China benefits law firms but not practicing (real) companies. Chinese companies are complaining about this (to the extent they can given the oppressive levels of censorship). Law firms are staging a sort of ‘coup’ there.

Speaking of China, mind this morning’s nonsense from the patent microcosm (Managing IP with some self-promoting law firms). The headline says “Global blockchain patent filing increased three-fold in 2017,” but actually the use of that word tripled (it’s a fairly new term), that is all. That’s just how patent maximalists try to seem ‘cool’ or ‘up to date’, basically by adopting hype waves.

“But never let a good propaganda opportunity get in the way, with ‘sensational’ headlines such as “patent filing increased three-fold in 2017″ (misleading at best).”According to them, in 2016 there were 59 such patents counted in China (top of the table) and in 2017 226. But don’t expect them to be able to read these patents; not only is their quality dubious; they’re likely authored in a language nobody at Managing IP can even pronounce.

But never let a good propaganda opportunity get in the way, with ‘sensational’ headlines such as “patent filing increased three-fold in 2017″ (misleading at best).

We often wonder why WIPO is so eager to embrace low-quality patents from China just to fake so-called ‘growth’ (of monopolies). But we know the answer. WIPO is the mother of all patent maximalism and it derives its very relevance/clout from such astronomic increase in the number of patents (mostly Chinese). I too can create (in theory at least) a patent office, but WIPO would not recognise it. This whole thing is a back-rubbing exercise, just like national delegates at the EPO (typically heads of national patent offices) offering protection to the insane Battistelli. These people are staging a sort of coup, wherein law firms gain at everyone’s expense (companies, the public, governments).

As if things weren’t already mad enough, the US now asserts/claims to have patent authority over New Zealand, whose patent laws vary (there are exclusions regarding software patents for instance). Together with the R Street Institute (a recent trend), the EFF’s Daniel Nazer has just weighed in on WesternGeco LLC v ION Geophysical Corp. under the headline “EFF to Supreme Court: Don’t Turn US Patents Into Worldwide Patents”. To quote:

The general rule in patent law is that each country has its own patent system. If you want damages for sales in the United States, you need a U.S. patent. If you want damages for sales in New Zealand, you need to get a New Zealand patent, and so on. A case currently before the U.S. Supreme Court threatens to disrupt this system by allowing worldwide damages for infringement of U.S. patents. Together with the R Street Institute, EFF has filed an amicus brief [PDF] in the case explaining that extraterritorial damages are inconsistent with the Patent Act and would hurt U.S. innovation.

The case, called WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp., involves damages for overseas patent infringement. Literally. WesternGeco owns a patent that covers a method of conducting marine seismic surveys. ION exported components that, when combined, were used to infringe the patent. Under Section 271(f) of the Patent Act, exporting components of a patented invention for assembly abroad is considered infringement. Accordingly, WesternGeco received damages for the sales of the components. The question in the case is whether WesternGeco should also receive lost profits for the use of the invention overseas (even though that use is not itself infringement under U.S. law).

Remember that the notion that patent numbers should always rise is misguided if not grotesque. All it does is, eventually, might be surge in litigation activity. We know who gains/benefits from it and who loses (or at whose expense those gains are made).

Keep the patent systems rational or risk the concept of patents losing its legitimacy (public support) altogether.

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. Links 22/3/2019: Libinput 1.13 RC2 and Facebook's Latest Security Scandal

    Links for the day



  2. Why the UK Intellectual Property Office (UK-IPO) Cannot Ignore Judges, Whereas the EPO Can (and Does)

    The European Patent Convention (EPC) ceased to matter, judges' interpretation of it no longer matters either; the EPO exploits this to grant hundreds of thousands of dodgy software patents, then trumpet "growth"



  3. The European Patent Office Needs to Put Lives Before Profits

    Patents that pertain to health have always posed an ethical dilemma; the EPO apparently tackled this dilemma by altogether ignoring the rights and needs of patients (in favour of large corporations that benefit financially from poor people's mortality)



  4. “Criminal Organisation”

    Brazil's ex-President, Temer, is arrested (like other former presidents of Brazil); will the EPO's ex-President Battistelli ever be arrested (now that he lacks diplomatic immunity and hides at CEIPI)?



  5. Links 21/3/2019: Wayland 1.17.0, Samba 4.10.0, OpenShot 2.4.4 and Zorin Beta

    Links for the day



  6. Team UPC (Unitary Patent) is a Headless Chicken

    Team UPC's propaganda about the Unified Patent Court (UPC) has become so ridiculous that the pertinent firms do not wish to be identified



  7. António Campinos Makes Up Claims About Patent Quality, Only to be Rebutted by Examiners, Union (Anyone But the 'Puff Pieces' Industry)

    Battistelli's propagandistic style and self-serving 'studies' carry on; the notion of patent quality has been totally discarded and is nowadays lied about as facts get 'manufactured', then disseminated internally and externally



  8. Links 20/3/2019: Google Announces ‘Stadia’, Tails 3.13

    Links for the day



  9. CEN and CENELEC Agreement With the EPO Shows That It's Definitely the European Commission's 'Department'

    With headlines such as “EPO to collaborate on raising SEP awareness” it is clear to see that the Office lacks impartiality and the European Commission cannot pretend that the EPO is “dafür bin ich nicht zuständig” or “da kenne ich mich nicht aus”



  10. Decisions Made Inside the European Patent Organisation (EPO) Lack Credibility Because Examiners and Judges Lack Independence

    The lawless, merciless, Mafia-like culture left by Battistelli continues to haunt judges and examiners; how can one ever trust the Office (or the Organisation at large) to deliver true justice in adherence or compliance with the EPC?



  11. Team UPC Buries Its Credibility Deeper in the Grave

    The three Frenchmen at the top do not mention the UPC anymore; but those who promote it for a living (because they gambled on leveraging it for litigation galore) aren't giving up and in the process they perpetuate falsehoods



  12. The EPO Has Sadly Taken a Side and It's the Patent Trolls' Side

    Abandoning the whole rationale behind patents, the Office now led for almost a year by António Campinos prioritises neither science nor technology; it's all about granting as many patents (European monopolies) as possible for legal activity (applications, litigation and so on)



  13. Where the USPTO Stands on the Subject of Abstract Software Patents

    Not much is changing as we approach Easter and software patents are still fool's gold in the United States, no matter if they get granted or not



  14. Links 19/3/2019: Jetson/JetBot, Linux 5.0.3, Kodi Foundation Joins The Linux Foundation, and Firefox 66

    Links for the day



  15. Links 18/3/2019: Solus 4, Linux 5.1 RC1, Mesa 18.3.5, OSI Individual Member Election Won by Microsoft

    Links for the day



  16. Microsoft and Its Patent Trolls Continue Their Patent War, Including the War on Linux

    Microsoft is still preying on GNU/Linux using patents, notably software patents; it wants billions of dollars served on a silver platter in spite of claims that it reached a “truce” by joining the Open Invention Network and joining the LOT Network



  17. Director Iancu Generally Viewed as a Lapdog of Patent Trolls

    As Director of the Office, Mr. Iancu, a Trump appointee, not only fails to curb patent trolls; he actively defends them and he lowers barriers in order to better equip them with bogus patents that courts would reject (if the targets of extortion could afford a day in court)



  18. Links 17/3/2019: Google Console and IBM-Red Hat Merger Delay?

    Links for the day



  19. To Team UPC the Unified Patent Court (UPC) Has Become a Joke and the European Patent Office (EPO) Never Mentions It Anymore

    The EPO's frantic rally to the very bottom of patent quality may be celebrated by obedient media and patent law firms; to people who actually produce innovative things, however, this should be a worrisome trend and thankfully courts are getting in the way of this nefarious agenda; one of these courts is the FCC in Germany



  20. Links 16/3/2019: Knoppix Release and SUSE Independence

    Links for the day



  21. Stopping António Campinos and His Software Patents Agenda (Not Legal in Europe) Would Require Independent Courts

    Software patents continue to be granted (new tricks, loopholes and buzzwords) and judges who can put an end to that are being actively assaulted by those who aren't supposed to have any authority whatsoever over them (for decisions to be impartially delivered)



  22. The Linux Foundation Needs to Speak Out Against Microsoft's Ongoing (Continued) Patent Shakedown of OEMs That Ship Linux

    Zemlin actively thanks Microsoft while taking Microsoft money; he meanwhile ignores how Microsoft viciously attacks Linux using patents, revealing the degree to which his foundation, the “Linux Foundation” (not about Linux anymore, better described as Zemlin’s PAC), has been compromised



  23. Links 15/3/2019: Linux 5.0.2, Sublime Text 3.2

    Links for the day



  24. The EPO and the USPTO Are Granting Fake Patents on Software, Knowing That Courts Would Reject These

    Office management encourages applicants to send over patent applications that are laughable while depriving examiners the freedom and the time they need to reject these; it means that loads of bogus patents are being granted, enshrined as weapons that trolls can use to extort small companies outside the courtroom



  25. CommunityBridge is a Cynical Microsoft-Funded Effort to Show Zemlin Works for 'Community', Not Microsoft

    After disbanding community participation in the Board (but there are Microsoft staff on the Board now) the "Linux Foundation" (or Zemlin PAC) continues to take Microsoft money and polishes or launders that as "community"



  26. Links 14/3/2019: GNOME 3.32 and Mesa 19.0.0 Released

    Links for the day



  27. EPO 'Results' Are, As Usual, Not Measured Correctly

    The supranational monopoly, a monopoly-granting authority, is being used by António Campinos to grant an insane amount of monopolies whose merit is dubious and whose impact on Europe will be a net negative



  28. Good News Everyone! UPC Ready to Go... in 2015!

    Benoît Battistelli is no longer in Office and his fantasy (patent lawyers' fantasy) is as elusive as ever; Team UPC is trying to associate opposition to UPC with the far right (AfD) once again



  29. Links 13/3/2019: Plasma 5.15.3,Chrome 73 and Many LF Press Releases

    Links for the day



  30. In the Age of Trumpism EFF Needs to Repeatedly Remind Director Iancu That He is Not a Judge and He Cannot Ignore the Courts

    The nonchalance and carelessness seen in Iancu's decision to just cherry-pick decisions/outcomes (basically ignoring caselaw) concerns technologists, who rightly view him as a 'mole' of the litigation 'industry' (which he came from)


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