05.01.18

Gemini version available ♊︎

The Software Patenting Hopefuls Still Hope to Convince Patent Examiners (or the USPTO’s Leadership) to Keep Granting Software Patents Which US Courts Repeatedly Reject

Posted in America, Law, Patents at 8:12 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Any bogus (or ‘toxic’) patent which gets granted because of short-term profit motives can cause millions if not billions in damages (to potentially innocent parties), so think carefully before a grant…

Toxic

Summary: Serving patent trolls for the most part (nefarious actors that dodge the courts by going after defenseless individuals and/or companies), the US patent office still hands out software patents and law firms — in addition to their front groups like IPO, IPLAC and AIPLA — try to urge the US Patent and Trademark Office Director Andrei Iancu to water down § 101

AT risk of repeating ourselves many dozens of times, whereas the USPTO continues to grant software patents, US courts do not tolerate these. It renders many granted software patents obsolete if not worthless. Patent trolls can still utilise these, provided that the party which they extort is poor and unlikely to take matters to courts. They can do this over and over again. They typically lose their patent/s when they pick on a party a little ‘too’ large — one that disputes the legitimacy of the patent/s and gets PTAB/courts to invalidate it/these.

“Will Iancu be a ‘drone’ for these patent maximalists, being a patent maximalist himself (he came from a law firm)? It’s a real danger.”What does this tell us? The courts declining to affirm software patents isn’t enough. US patent examiners should do the same. No software patents should be granted at all in the first place.

Section 101/Alice brought us a step close to that. It’s not too surprising that patent trolls and their lawyers seem to be moaning the most. Actual technology firms seem to be happy with patent reforms and as HTIA (front group for technology firms) has just put it (quoting the EFF): “Alice has threatened the trolling business model so much that it keeps facing threats, in both courts and Congress.”

Section 101/PTAB rants come mostly from lawyers who are close to patent trolls, such as Mr. Gross, who said: “PTAB at it again, conflates roles of claims and specification in rejecting #patent claims under 101: “claims recite abstract conceptual advice as to results to be achieved devoid of TECHNOLOGICAL IMPLEMENTATION DETAILS” https://e-foia.uspto.gov/Foia/RetrievePdf?system=BPAI&flNm=fd2016005871-04-23-2018-1 … details are in SPEC, not CLAIMS” (shouting is normal for him).

There are rants like these every day from him. He’s connected to the Texas-based patent troll Dominion Harbor, whose site he uses to attack the EFF.

Anyway, an EFF-connected news site (reposting articles about patents for the EFF) has just published this timely article titled “USPTO Suggests That AI Algorithms Are Patentable, Leading To A Whole Host Of IP And Ethics Questions” (we wrote about it last month).

Iancu et al are just lawyers, so they don’t quite understand that “AI” is basically just a very old (but recently-revived) buzzword that refers to mere algorithms that achieve ‘cleverness’. To quote TechDirt:

The world is slowly but surely marching towards newer and better forms of artificial intelligence, with some of the world’s most prominent technology companies and governments heavily investing in it. While limited or specialist AI is the current focus of many of these companies, building what is essentially single-trick intelligent systems to address limited problems and tasks, the real prize at the end of this rainbow is an artificial general intelligence. When an AGI could be achieved is still squarely up in the air, but many believe this to be a question of when, not if, such an intelligence is created. Surrounding that are questions of ethics that largely center on whether an AGI would be truly sentient and conscious, and what that would imply about our obligations to such a mechanical being.

[...]

Again, this seems to be a misunderstanding of what an algorithm is. The organization and ordering of a series of math equations is not human invention. It is most certainly human ingenuity, but so was the understanding of the Bernouli Principle, which didn’t likewise result in a patent on the math that makes airplanes fly. Allowing companies and researchers to lock up the mathematical concepts for artificial intelligence, whatever the expected incentivizing benefits, is pretty clearly beyond the original purpose and scope of patent law.

But let’s say the USPTO and other governments ignore that argument. Keep in mind that algorithms that govern the behavior of AI are mirrors of the intelligent processes occurring in human brains. They are that which will make up the “I” for an AI, essentially making it what it is. Once we reach the level of AGI, its reasonable to consider those algorithms to be the equivalent of the brain function and, by some arguments, consciousness of a mechanical or digital being. Were the USPTO to have its way, that consciousness would be patentable. For those that believe we might one day be the creators of some form of digital life or consciousness, that entire concept is absurd, or at least terribly unethical.

It’s nice to see these rebuttals regarding patents on algorithms even in sites like TechDirt (they rarely speak explicitly about software patents). It certainly seems like the patent microcosm still fights hard for a resurgence of such patents. Yesterday for example, Smith Amundsen LLC published something titled “Software Patent Clarity Not (Yet) Found” (the key word here is “Clarity” if not “Yet”).

This is a classic lie from the patent microcosm — a classic lie that accompanies loaded statements and questions. There’s no lack of clarity over software patents — they’re just refusing to accept the facts because that means money. They also use the word “yet” as if to suggest that it’s inevitable that Section 101 will be watered down and they’ll be back to patenting algorithms at ease. From the article:

Last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee held an oversight hearing on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Newly-appointed Director Andrei Iancu provided refreshing dialogue for inventors—especially those in the software industry—indicating that much needed support for software patents is high on his agenda. But where do we stand today?

Software can be patented and is patented fairly frequently. But, software provides a unique challenge to patent applicants in most instances; below is a quick tutorial (or refresher) on what you can expect from the software patent examination process.

[...]

Software architects and developers appreciate the complexity and novelty of their work, but the USPTO isn’t always as understanding.

Notice that last sentence. It’s another classic lie from the patent microcosm (courtesy of Smith Amundsen LLC in this case). They are trying to sell the illusion that software developers want software parents. It’s a lie. It’s a terrible lie and surely they know it.

Another example from yesterday came through Patent Docs. It’s basically patent lawyers and trolls’ front groups trying to bring back software patents under the guise of ‘fixing’ the law. Here’s what they said:

In a letter sent to U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Director Andrei Iancu earlier this month, the Intellectual Property Law Association of Chicago (IPLAC) presented its proposal for a revised version of 35 U.S.C. § 100. IPLAC described its proposal as a harmonized version of revisions to § 101 proposed by the Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO) and American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA), which IPLAC indicated “represent the most straightforward and comprehensive revisions to Section 101.” In crafting a harmonized version of § 101, IPLAC sought “to combine the recommendations from IPO and AIPLA into a single proposal furthers the current dialog regarding possible Section 101 revisions that can address the ambiguity and uncertainty recent Supreme Court precedent has created.”

Will Iancu be a ‘drone’ for these patent maximalists, being a patent maximalist himself (he came from a law firm)? It’s a real danger.

In the meantime, based on another article from yesterday, MasterCard continues to pursue bogus software patents that should not at all be granted because they’re nonsensical, abstract, mere ideas etc. The patent maximalists love the “blockchain” buzz and so do companies like MasterCard, which is part of a trend of patenting financial things under the guise of “blockchain” ([cref 108126 MasterCard is also on the receiving end of nuisance patent lawsuits). Here is what the article said:

MasterCard has filed a patent for a system to speed up the activation of new nodes in a blockchain, in an application published by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) April 26.

The application, which was first filed on October 24, 2016, outlines that the current difficulty facing new nodes – a computer connected to the blockchain network that stores a copy of the blockchain – is that they are required to individually verify a massive amount of data in order to activate. The patent states that new nodes must verify “thousands, millions, or even billions of transaction records […] in a vast number of different blocks” that may have accumulated over time in a given blockchain, generating a significant delay before each new node can begin to participate in the network.

[...]

Overall, the company appears to be vigorously pro-blockchain, yet anti-Bitcoin: in Oct. 2017, the company’s CEO scorned non-government issued cryptocurrencies as “junk.” This March, a senior MasterCard executive reiterated that the company is receptive to central bank-issued digital currencies only.

How could such patents be granted by the USPTO? How could examiners not see that these are software patents and thus ineligible under Section 101? Either way, with or without Iancu, we need to ensure that US patent examiners (aided by PTAB these days) refuse to grant such patents. Put in the wrong hands (as many “blockchain” patents already have been [1, 2]), they would cause financial devastation.

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

Decor ᶃ Gemini Space

Below is a Web proxy. We recommend getting a Gemini client/browser.

Black/white/grey bullet button This post is also available in Gemini over at this address (requires a Gemini client/browser to open).

Decor ✐ Cross-references

Black/white/grey bullet button Pages that cross-reference this one, if any exist, are listed below or will be listed below over time.

Decor ▢ Respond and Discuss

Black/white/grey bullet button If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

DecorWhat Else is New


  1. No Doubt Microsoft Unleashed Another 'Tay', Spreading Bigotry Under the Guise of Hey Hi (AI)

    Reprinted with permission from Ryan



  2. Links 07/02/2023: Fedora 39 Development Plans Outlines

    Links for the day



  3. IRC Proceedings: Monday, February 06, 2023

    IRC logs for Monday, February 06, 2023



  4. Links 06/02/2023: Escuelas Linux 8.0 and Many Political Issues

    Links for the day



  5. Links 06/02/2023: Sparky 6.6 and IPFire 2.27 – Core Update 173

    Links for the day



  6. Taking Back Control or Seizing Autonomy Over the News Cycle (Informing People, Culling the Marketing)





  7. Reality Versus Fiction: EPO Insiders Versus EPO Web Site and UPC 'Churnalists'

    The "official" sources of the European Patent Office (EPO), as well as the sedated "media" that the EPO is bribing for further bias, cannot tell the truth about this very large institution; for proper examination of Europe's largest patent office one must pursue the interpretation by longtime veterans and insiders, who are increasingly upset and abused (they're being pressured to grant patents in violation of the charter of the EPO)



  8. Links 06/02/2023: Linux 6.2 RC7 and Fatal Earthquake

    Links for the day



  9. IRC Proceedings: Sunday, February 05, 2023

    IRC logs for Sunday, February 05, 2023



  10. Links 05/02/2023: Wayland in Bookworm and xvidtune 1.0.4

    Links for the day



  11. Links 05/02/2023: Pakistan Blocks Wikipedia, Musharraf Dies

    Links for the day



  12. IRC Proceedings: Saturday, February 04, 2023

    IRC logs for Saturday, February 04, 2023



  13. Links 04/02/2023: FOSDEM Happening and Ken Thompson in SoCal Linux Expo

    Links for the day



  14. 2023 is the Year Taxpayers' Money Goes to War and Energy Subsidies, Not Tech

    Now that a lot of powerful and omnipresent ‘tech’ (spying and policing) companies are rotting away we have golden opportunities to bring about positive change and maybe even recruit technical people for good causes



  15. Getting Back to Productive Computer Systems Would Benefit Public Health and Not Just Boost Productivity

    “Smartphoneshame” (shaming an unhealthy culture of obsession with “apps”) would potentially bring about a better, more sociable society with fewer mental health crises and higher productivity levels



  16. Links 04/02/2023: This Week in KDE and Many More Tech Layoffs

    Links for the day



  17. Dotcom Boom and Bust, Round 2

    The age of technology giants/monopolies devouring everything or military-funded (i.e. taxpayers-subsidised) surveillance/censorship tentacles, in effect privatised eyes of the state, may be ending; the United States can barely sustain that anymore and raising the debt ceiling won't solve that (buying time isn't the solution)



  18. Society Would Benefit From a Smartphoneshame Movement

    In a society plagued by blackmail, surveillance and frivolous lawsuits it is important to reconsider the notion of “smart” phone ownership; these devices give potentially authoritarian companies and governments far too much power over people (in the EU they want to introduce new legislation that would, in effect, ban Free software if it enables true privacy)



  19. IRC Proceedings: Friday, February 03, 2023

    IRC logs for Friday, February 03, 2023



  20. IRC Proceedings: Thursday, February 02, 2023

    IRC logs for Thursday, February 02, 2023



  21. Links 03/02/2023: Proton 7.0-6 Released, ScummVM 2.7 Testing

    Links for the day



  22. Links 03/02/2023: OpenSSH 9.2 and OBS Studio 29.0.1

    Links for the day



  23. Links 03/02/2023: GNU C Library 2.37

    Links for the day



  24. Sirius Finished

    Yesterday I was sent a letter approving my resignation from Sirius ‘Open Source’, two months after I had already announced that I was resigning with immediate effect; they sent an identical letter to my wife (this time, unlike before, they remembered to also change the names!!)



  25. The Collapse of Sirius in a Nutshell: How to Identify the Symptoms and Decide When to Leave

    Sirius is finished, but it's important to share the lessons learned with other people; there might be other "pretenders" out there and they need to be abandoned



  26. Links 03/02/2023: WINE 8.1 and RapidDisk 9.0.0

    Links for the day



  27. Links 02/02/2023: KDE Gear 22.12.2 and LibreOffice 7.5

    Links for the day



  28. Linux News or Marketing Platform?

    Ads everywhere: Phoronix puts them at the top, bottom, navigation bar, left, and right just to read some Microsoft junk (puff pieces about something that nobody other than Microsoft even uses); in addition there are pop-ups asking for consent to send visitors’ data to hundreds of data brokers



  29. Daily Links at Techrights Turn 15, Time to Give Them an Upgrade

    This year we have several 15-year anniversaries; one of them is Daily Links (it turned 15 earlier this week) and we've been working to improve these batches of links, making them a lot more extensive and somewhat better structured/clustered



  30. Back to Focusing on Unified Patent Court (UPC) Crimes and Illegal Patent Agenda, Including the EPO's

    The EPO's (European Patent Office, Europe's second-largest institution) violations of constitutions, laws and so on merit more coverage, seeing that what's left of the "media" not only fails to cover scandalous things but is actively cheering for criminals (in exchange for money)


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