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


Like a Pack of Spoiled Brats, Patent Maximalists and Media That They Control Bash the Oil States Decision and Distract From It

Posted in America, Courtroom, Law, Patents at 12:26 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

The headline from Bloomberg calls judges a ‘Death Squad’

Scales sketchSummary: Justice, rooted in the US Constitution and US law, does not appeal to people who claim to be working in the domain of law; instead they just try to twist things in order to maximise their revenue opportunities, as could be witnessed over the past week

THE patent system is changing. It’s changing for the better in some countries and for the worse in others. One might say that patent law is evolving, another might say devolving. Whatever one believes, we have always (since our inception) believed in a patent system which is based on common sense. So it should, for example, exclude software patents. Software developers simply neither want nor need these. Just ask them. Surveys or polls always show the same thing.

“The general theme is, the anti-PTAB charade carries on. They moan and groan. They throw toys out of the pram!”A week ago the US Supreme Court made some more changes to underlying law/guidance, based on the US Constitution. We wrote 2 articles about it shortly after the decisions came out and then again thrice (yesterday). In our latest post on the subject we showed how SAS Institute v Iancu (originally SAS Institute v Lee, but Lee was bullied out by patent maximalists) was used for distraction from Oil States, which was by far the more/most important decision. We are still seeing these distraction attempts; yesterday at noon, for example, Watchtroll contributors Robert Schaffer and Joseph Robinson (i.e. law firms) pushed the SAS Institute v Iancu envelope once more. There will be a USPTO webcast about it later today. Robert Schaffer and Joseph Robinson went even further; they also wrote about another PTAB case that reached the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) and was concluded nearly two weeks ago (Wi-Fi One, LLC v Broadcom Corp.; “The Court rejected each of these arguments and upheld the Board’s anticipation decision”).

The general theme is, the anti-PTAB charade carries on. They moan and groan. They throw toys out of the pram! A few hours ago Patently-O wrote about 01 Communique Lab. v Citrix Systems (covered here several times before) — a case wherein PTAB rendered invalid a patent on “software implemented private communication portal” (i.e. software patent) and CAFC affirmed, as usual. To quote Patently-O:

01Com’s U.S. Patent No. 6,928,479 is directed toward a software implemented private communication portal. The patentee sued Citrix for infringement back in 2006. Consider that — the lawsuit was filed before eBay limited injunctive relief, before KSR made it easier to invalidate a patent as obvious, before Nautilus raised the standard for indefiniteness, before Alice and Mayo opened the door to eligibility invalidation, and before Congress created the regime of AIA trials. The long delay in this case should also be a thing-of-the-past. Here, the district court stayed proceedings for seven years awaiting the outcome of an inter partes reexamination. The reexam was finally concluded in 2014 with a judgment confirming patentability of the challenged claims. Although unsuccessful before the PTAB, a 2016 jury sided with Citrix finding on infringement — finding none. (Note here that Citrix also unsuccessfully argued invalidity to the court and the jury).

On appeal, the Federal Circuit has affirmed — holding that a new trial is not warranted.

Of course not. There are more important things to deal with. It is no secret that we’re no fans of Patently-O; the site’s main author keeps trying to derail or slow PTAB down. It’s pretty obvious and any attempts to seem/sound objective are ludicrous. Not too long ago Patently-O pushed the myth about patents being “property” and all sorts of other things (they are just temporarily-granted monopolies) and yesterday Patently-O carried on with this nonsense. Yes, Dennis Crouch is back to silly caricatures that bash the Supreme Court’s decisions because the law and the US Constitution do not support patent extremists like Crouch and his ilk. Watch what they’ve done to a template of a patent with Michelle Lee’s name in it. At least this time the caricature had no racist element to it (like “Mexican” or “Chinese”).

“It is no secret that we’re no fans of Patently-O; the site’s main author keeps trying to derail or slow PTAB down. It’s pretty obvious and any attempts to seem/sound objective are ludicrous.”Patently-O and its readers (see the tone of comments) are very upset by the Oil States decision, which nevertheless they expected (in a negative/pessimistic way). As we showed yesterday, Watchtroll wrote no less than 3 rants in just 5 hours after that decision, bashing the courts and the jurists, too. Oil States is something they lose sleep over. They’d rather speak about SAS Institute v Iancu — as they’ve just done — and then let Eric Guttag (law firms again) write headlines like “Are There Silver Linings Amidst the Doom and Gloom?” (also less than a day ago)

We don’t want to entertain these with point-by-point rebuttals, but let’s just say that it’s all pretty revealing. Oil States is agonising to these people, so they’d rather leave it behind and talk only about SAS Institute v Iancu. Several days ago Patently-O dubbed it a “Mixed and Messy Bag of Results” — in a guest article by Brad D. Pedersen (Patent Practice Chair at Patterson Thuente). It’s about SAS Institute v Iancu and it amplifies dissent from Justice Gorsuch, citing the Koch-funded think tanks:

In the parallel SAS Institute decision, Justice Gorsuch authored the 5-4 majority decision strictly construing what the Patent Trial and Appeal Board must rule upon in a Final Written Decision at the end of an IPR trial. In overturning USPTO rulemaking, Justice Gorsuch held that the Board is not authorized to render so-called “partial institution” decisions. Instead, the statute is clear that the Board must address all of the claims that are being challenged by a petition in a Final Written Decision at the end of an IPR trial. Regardless of which camp you are in, this decision is a mixed and messy bag of results.

To call this decision “a mixed and messy bag of results” isn’t entirely honest, but bear in mind this comes from the patent microcosm. They hate PTAB and they do not like seeing that the Justices overwhelmingly back it (7 Justices to 2).

“Watchtroll wrote no less than 3 rants in just 5 hours after that decision, bashing the courts and the jurists, too.”IAM’s patent maximalist Richard Lloyd (the worst of the bunch) said that the “Supreme Court may have taken one part of PTAB reform off the table for now” (or forever).

To quote:

The nine justices of the US Supreme Court certainly kept us waiting for their opinion in Oil States Energy Services v Greene’s Energy Group. As this blog reported last month, of the major patent cases decided by the court since Chief Justice Roberts took over, only Bilski has taken longer to be handed down. That suggested that Oil States, which brought into question the constitutionality of inter partes review, might be closer than is customary for a case concerning patents.

As a reminder, not too long ago Lloyd went to lobby Iancu against PTAB. His constant PTAB-bashing agenda basically reaffirms IAM’s status as “patent trolls’ lobby” and Lloyd has a long history pushing software patents among every other nefarious thing, patent trolls included. He’s a symptom of the problem if not an integral part of it.

Managing IP, which is like a ‘moderate’ version of IAM, wrote about this too. Ellie Mertens, who is based in New York (like many of their active writers), said this:

The US Supreme Court has ruled the IPR process at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board is constitutional, although two justices dissented and the court left IPRs open to due process arguments

The US Supreme Court has found the inter partes review (IPR) process at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to be constitutional in its April 24 Oil States v Greene’s Energy decision.

Fair enough. Contrast this with IAM, which acts like a protestant against the US Supreme Court because the decision does not match the interests of IAM sponsors. Let’s face it; this decision at the highest of all levels makes patent maximalists totally lose their minds. They see no light at the end of the tunnel.

“They hate PTAB and they do not like seeing that the Justices overwhelmingly back it (7 Justices to 2).”The patent maximalists at Patent Docs wrote about the two decisions, separating the pair into two posts, SAS Institute Inc. v Iancu and Oil States Energy Services, LLC. v Greene’s Energy Group, LLC. The coverage from Patent Docs, for a change, seems pretty fair (considering who wrote it).

We have since then seen analyses from law firms like Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, from Weintraub Tobin and several others. Here’s how sites of patent maximalists are covering SAS Institute v Iancu [1, 2]. Here’s an analysis from Jenner & Block LLP (they have put more names in there than could possibly be involved in writing the article: Michael G. Babbitt, Aaron A. Barlow , Timothy J. Barron, Benjamin J. Bradford, Reginald J. Hill, Sara Tonnies Horton, Adam G. Unikowsky and Natacha Y. Lam). Cooley LLP published its take in several sites [1, 2, 3] and so did Brad Y. Chin, Kevin R. Tamm and Yeon Jae Ko (Bracewell LLP) [1, 2]. They try to make a name for themselves, piggybacking these historic decisions, and there’s probably a lot more on the way (for weeks to come).

“Let’s face it; this decision at the highest of all levels makes patent maximalists totally lose their minds. They see no light at the end of the tunnel.”Looking at general press coverage, we are seeing some nice and catchy headlines such as “Supremes Preserve PTO Ammo Against Patent Trolls” and “Supreme Court upholds review procedure tech companies use to thwart ‘patent trolls’” [1, 2]. These headlines are technically correct because the Justices have just dealt a blow to patent trolls specifically (they rely on justice being expensive, thus accused small firms give up without even a trial).

We were rather disgusted by the coverage from Bloomberg, primarily for continuing to repeat the utterly insulting ‘Death Squad’ narrative (they just keep doing it all the time in this ‘professional’ ‘news’ site), in effect comparing judges to Stalin/Hitler even in the headline, echoing propagandistic rhetoric of the patent extremists. Greg Stohr and Susan Decker should work for tabloids, not for Bloomberg. They should be smart enough to know the implication of comparing patent judges/panels to a ‘Death Squad’.

“They should be smart enough to know the implication of comparing patent judges/panels to a ‘Death Squad’.”For better coverage see technical sites. Timothy B. Lee is a veteran in this domain, having covered patent trolls and software patents for ages (almost as long as we have). Web sites of patent reformers are covering the issues from the point of view of technologists rather than lawyers.

Seeing the above article and remarking on it, Jan Wildeboer‏ (Red Hat employee, a technical person who used to campaign against software patents) wrote: “TL;DR [too long, didn't read] with a 7-2 decision #SCOTUS has declared that #Patents are a franchise and NOT property. I am going to party hard! [] That’s a huge blow for the Maximalists in the patent field that insist that the P in IPR (Intellectual Property Rights) means patents are property just like physical property (a house, a piece of land). This decision clearly says no to that.”

“Web sites of patent reformers are covering the issues from the point of view of technologists rather than lawyers.”“Intellectual Privileges then,” Benjamin Henrion (FFII) responded to him, only to be told: “Although I follow quite some “IP” maximalist, I haven’t seen much reactions to this decision. Seems they are not really sure what to make of it?”

No, they just try to distract from it, as we demonstrated yesterday, and technical people are noticing (Florian Müller for example, having written a long blog post to point out this distraction). I told Wildeboer‏ that “no comment” typically means “would rather not say what I think”.

In about 12 hours from now the top judge from PTAB will respond to questions regarding the latest decisions and their impact on PTAB. It’s no secret that the patent maximalists are pressuring Iancu/USPTO pretty hard right now; they don’t yet bully Iancu like they bullied Lee, but maybe they’ll get to that too — eventually (he is too ‘moderate’ for them; they wanted an extremist who calls PTAB judges "death squads" in charge of the USPTO; they’re still grooming him).

“For those who missed it, the USPTO has a problem with appointments by nepotism (e.g. spouses and relatives).”The USPTO sure has its share of issues, but we hope it can understand that its original goal was to serve scientists and technologists, not lawyers and attorneys. The USPTO CIO Watchdog said some days ago: “If the USPTO is serious about hiring a new CIO then the new Director should be wary of the advice of his Senior staff if they are involved in the selection process. Some them have hidden agendas and would select a puppet instead of a leader. Right CFO?”

For those who missed it, the USPTO has a problem with appointments by nepotism (e.g. spouses and relatives). That’s similar to what we observe at the EPO.

Share in other sites/networks: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Reddit
  • email
  • Slashdot

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. IRC Proceedings: Wednesday, October 21, 2020

    IRC logs for Wednesday, October 21, 2020

  2. Living Humbly (With Older Technology or None) is More Compatible With Privacy- and Freedom-Respecting Technological Lifestyle

    Simplicity sometimes trumps so-called 'novelty', especially when it comes to human rights and users' freedom

  3. Reasons Why You (and Everybody Else) Should Join the Fight for Software Freedom

    Society is being closely watched and controlled (more so during/after the latest pandemic) and people must carefully consider the true importance of resisting proprietary technology (controlled remotely by state actors)

  4. Ways and Means to Reduce One's Dependency on Google's Various Monopolies and Near-Monopolies

    Getting rid of Google means a lot more than embracing DumbDumbGo (DDG) or some other sites that spy just like Google; we're taking stock of some options

  5. The European Commission is Still M.I.A. Regarding EPO Corruption (and the EPO's Management Plays Dirty, as Always)

    There's no change in the EU; the EUIPO and EPO enjoy complete and total immunity/impunity, with the Commission being manned by those who are deeply complicit

  6. 10 Reasons Why All This 'Edge for Linux' Coverage is a Total Farce

    The fake hype surrounding "Edge" is an inauthentic hype/buzz campaign made to coincide with anti-Google sentiments spread by Microsoft front/pressure groups

  7. Microsoft's IIS Has Collapsed Again This Past Month (and IIS Will Not and Cannot Survive This Way)

    Netcraft shows that Microsoft's decline further accelerates in the Web servers space; IIS is becoming financially unviable

  8. Links 21/10/2020: Alpine 3.12.1, Tor Browser 10.0.2

    Links for the day

  9. [Meme] US Department of Justice Should Have Taken on Microsoft Again, Not Google

    When lobbying, connections and political sway determine the actions of the American government it's hardly surprising that Bill Gates gets the Trump administration to fight for him (to make him even richer)

  10. [Meme] Banning Words, Gaslighting Volunteers

    What happens when institutions are themselves in violation of a CoC (institutional violation) and massive corporations that fund such institutional violations are defending demonisation of the individual (squashing ‘uncomfortable’ voices, even volunteers’)

  11. IRC Proceedings: Tuesday, October 20, 2020

    IRC logs for Tuesday, October 20, 2020

  12. Links 21/10/2020: $8000 GNU/Linux Desktop, Tails 4.12, Open Infrastructure Foundation and Firefox Release

    Links for the day

  13. Never Feed the Internet Trolls, No Matter How Tempting It Becomes

    The tactics for removing critics of abuse (by framing them as "abusive") have evolved a lot in recent years; the best course of action is to never entertain provocateurs in any way whatsoever (just ignore them, give them no attention which they crave and feed on)

  14. Bill Gates: “I'm Not a Lawyer” (He Dropped Out of College, Where He Studied Law Before and After Breaking the Law Chronically)

    How Microsoft blackmailed other companies into supporting nothing but Microsoft and Windows; Bill Gates repeatedly lied to the interrogators about it, then said "I'm not a lawyer" (IANAL) even though he went to college to become one, just like his father who died last month

  15. Microsoft Has Not Changed Since Being Investigated (and Prosecuted) for Crimes at a Federal Level

    The media keeps telling us a bunch of worthless junk about Gates "saving the world" and Microsoft becoming a "nice" and "gentle" (or "soft") company, but nothing could be further from the truth

  16. Stick a Fork in the Open Source Initiative (OSI). OSI is Dead. Microsoft Bought OSI.

    OSI leadership proudly showing early signs of 'prognosis negative'; the OSI can never and will never recover from this; Microsoft killed it

  17. Links 20/10/2020: OpenZFS 2.0 RC4 and Trisquel GNU/Linux 9.0

    Links for the day

  18. People With God Complex Must Never be Allowed in Positions of Power

    The attack on Linus Torvalds — an attack which at his own expense/peril he fails to recognise/acknowledge — seeks to put both projects that he founded right in Microsoft’s palm

  19. IRC Proceedings: Monday, October 19, 2020

    IRC logs for Monday, October 19, 2020

  20. Corporate Media: GNU/Linux Can Only Succeed If/When Microsoft Dominates Everything Inside It

    The corporate takeover (or handover) of GNU/Linux would not have been possible without complicity of corruptible (bribed) media

  21. Bill Gates Explains How Microsoft and Apple Leverage Software Patents in Their Cross-Licensing Deals (to Perpetuate Duopoly/Shared Monopoly)

    A look back at Apple's and Microsoft's use or misuse of bogus software patents in bargaining (in effect excluding those who have not amassed tens of thousands of patents)

  22. Standards and Choices

    GNU/Linux is a very standards-based platform; having lots of choices (e.g. distros to choose from) isn’t the principal problem — or nowhere near the extent sabotage and illegal tactics by Microsoft have been

  23. IBM's “Emb(RACE)” Campaign is an Insult to History and Historians

    IBM wishes to be seen as some heroic saviour and warrior for black girls; this requires serious if not torturous revisionism to be believed

  24. There Are Too Many Types of Cars...

    "Choice is malicious," say the antagonists

  25. Reversal of Narratives by Internet Trolls (Spinning Reaction to Their Trolling as 'Abuse')

    Organisations that engage in demonisation of people (typically those who expose the abuses of such organisations) somehow evade the standards of Codes of Conduct, as if Codes of Conduct are covertly designed not to protect individuals but to empower those who already have all the powers (or front for powerful people/corporations)

  26. Ongoing (Albeit Secret) Campaign of Patent Extortion Against GNU/Linux Distributions Using Software Patents, Even Expired Ones in Europe

    GNU/Linux distros attacked by software patents, even in Europe where no such patents are supposed to exist (or have any legal bearing)

  27. Links 19/10/2020: Linux 5.9-ck1/MuQSS, Linux Kodachi 7.3

    Links for the day

  28. Java's James Gosling is Wrong. Free Software Advocates Never Suggested or Insinuated That Money-Making Was Ethically Wrong.

    The honorable James Gosling mischaracterises the stance of Free software advocacy, portraying it like it is an issue of money rather than respect for users

  29. Maybe This is What Codes of Conduct Were Made for? Or to Prevent? (Updated)

    When people bemoan the abuse they receive from a so-called 'anti-harassment' team (covering up corporate corruption in a project by ousting people) this is the kind of thing they receive from colleagues or former colleagues

  30. Media Contradicts Itself, Redefines Proprietary Software as 'Open'... for Microsoft

    Proprietary GitHub is being spun as Microsoft going "open" (nothing could be further from the truth) in another EEE-type move with diffusion and confusion

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

Recent Posts