05.13.18

Guest Article: Battistelli’s Salary in Saint-Germain-en-Laye Nearly Quadrupled Last Year

Posted in Europe, Patents at 6:56 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Battistelli’s “pourboire” as deputy mayor

Battistelli as deputy mayor
Battistelli’s “home page” as deputy mayor on the website of the municipal council of Saint-Germain-en-Laye: “Il vous reçoit sur rendez-vous” – “He receives you by appointment”

Summary: Further revelations from the archives of the municipal council of Saint-Germain-en-Laye

Another interesting document has come to light during a recent trawl through the archives of the municipal council of Saint-Germain-en-Laye.

Resolution no. 18-A-03 [PDF] entitled “Maintien des indemnités de fonction au maire, aux adjoints au maire et aux conseillers muncipaux délégués” contains details of the official allowances paid to the mayor, deputy mayors and delegated municipal councillors.

“Another interesting document has come to light during a recent trawl through the archives of the municipal council of Saint-Germain-en-Laye.”The amount of remuneration paid to these elected officials is expressed as a percentage of a reference figure which in bureaucratic jargon is known as the “terminal gross index of the local civil service index scale” (“l’indice brut terminal de l’échelle indiciaire FPT”).

According to informed sources the reference figure for 2018 is approximately 4000 Euros per month.

According to resolution no. 18-A-03 the mayor of Saint-Germain, Mr. Arnaud Péricard is entitled to 108% of the reference sum and his deputy mayors are each awarded 35.33 % which would be about 1400 Euros per month whereas delegated councillors (i.e. those with special duties) only get a 8.54 %.

“According to informed sources the reference figure for 2018 is approximately 4000 Euros per month.”What this means is that following Battistelli’s election as deputy mayor in October 2018 his monthly allowance as an elected official has increased almost fourfold compared to his previous position as delegated councillor responsible for theatre where he would only have been entitled to a measly few hundred Euros per month.

It goes without saying that Battistelli’s supplementary income as a deputy mayor in Saint-Germain-en-Laye is “small potatoes” compared to his whopping salary as EPO President which he claims is 300 000 Euros per year “without any bonuses” – although this cannot be independently verified because very few people apart from Jesper Kongstad have ever seen his contract which to this very day remains shrouded in mystery and speculation. [PDF]

But his allowance as deputy mayor undoubtedly counts as handy “pocket money” and a nice little perquisite or, as they might say in France, a “pourboire” which should cover the cost of a few bottles of expensive wine for which the reputedly bibulous Battistelli is said to have a strong “penchant”.

Old wine

Unfortunately his deputy mayor’s allowance probably won’t stretch far enough to cover more expensive vintages like the 1989 Chateau Mouton-Rothschild Pauillac which has been known to retail for over £6000 a case.

Old wine

However with a bit of luck someone might discover a few creative accounting tricks which will allow the EPO to be invoiced for that kind of extravagance when Battistelli is entertaining his “friends” from the Administrative Council and networking with the movers and shakers of the IP world

Alice/Section 101 is Fine Because Copyrights Already Cover Software and Patents Are Inadequate for Code

Posted in IBM, Law, Patents at 1:48 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

But IBM, Watchtroll et al continue to set up lobbying events against Section 101 (not to mention jurist-bashing tactics)

Patent Lawyers' Tears

Summary: The world has moved away from (or beyond) software patenting and companies/firms that rely on such patents try to sabotage progress, sometimes by bashing courts

THE world generally rejects software patents. Sure, the EPO and USPTO make it possible to overcome restrictions using buzzwords and semantic tricks; but courts and appeal boards (BoA/PTAB) aren’t quite falling for it.

“…Bangladesh should reject software patents like the rest of the world (bar China) does.”Hours ago we saw this new article from the Dhaka Tribune. It’s titled “Minister urges for immediate measures to reform IP laws for ICT” (the term “ICT” is one of those notorious buzzwords that the EPO likes to use). But Bangladesh should reject software patents like the rest of the world (bar China) does. Here’s the core paragraph:

Thanking Tina Jabeen for her passionate efforts to secure proper sustenance for the budding startups in the country, Mustafa Jabbar took a trip down the memory lane to elaborate the upward transition of the ICT sector in Bangladesh. “Back in our time there was no procedure to register a software, but when there is a will, there’s way and I kept applying for the patent of my product despite repeated rejections. When I applied for the patent in 1992, there was not a single person in the responsible department who could examine the product,” he told the audience about his struggle to patent the iconic software Bijoy. “Fortunately for me, an official came to my rescue and took the responsibility to inspect. It was in 2004 when I reapplied and it took four full years for me to finally get the patent. However, things have drastically changed and the procedures are way simpler now,” he added.

This almost perpetuates the false assumption that one patent covers an entire program, potentially conflating copyrights with patents. He speaks of a “procedure to register a software” as if patent applications are a registration process.

“He speaks of a “procedure to register a software” as if patent applications are a registration process.”Mythology about patents has become widespread. Patent maximalists like to ‘name-drop’ “innovation”, “protection” and so on. They typically admit that they never even wrote a computer program. They don’t understand programming.

The other day, writing about Tesla's latest legal ordeal, Josh Landau (CCIA) said that “Nikola got it all wrong.”

The “Cult Of Patents” has basically created an untenable situation where stuff covered by copyrights is now being patented too: designs!

To quote Landau:

Last week, Nikola sued Tesla over advanced technology trucks. But it isn’t about the technology. It’s not AC vs. DC or Edison vs. Tesla. It isn’t even about electric vehicles (or hydrogen-electric trucks, Nikola’s chosen technology).

It’s about the shapes of windshields and doors. It’s about design patents.

And Nikola got it all wrong.

[...]

Different curvatures, a gentler rounding at the bottom right corner and a sharper one at the top. The Tesla windshield also exhibits a significantly larger difference between tallest and shortest portions, extending much further down the nose of the truck.

And that’s just the infringement argument. If you want to claim that your wrap windshield patent covers all wrap windshields, I think that Italian automaker Lancia (among many, many others) might have had something to say about that around 40 years ago.

How does one get a patent on mere curves? What would Bézier say? Why are windshield patented? Who’s responsible for such a patent grant?

Unfortunately, among patent maximalists at least, this is considered to be “normal”. They don’t care about patent quality and if they actually do care, it is because they hate patent quality. They actively combat improvement in quality.

“They don’t care about patent quality and if they actually do care, it is because they hate patent quality. They actively combat improvement in quality.”Consider Watchtroll’s tweet from a few days ago: “Matt Troyer from Anaqua predicts Patent No. 10,000,000 will issue on June 18, 2018, and it will be issued to Qualcomm on Application 13/666670.”

This “Cult Of Patents” (Watchtroll/Anaqua in this case) is obsessing over mere numbers rather than substance. They’re diluting and reducing the value of pertinent patents — a dime a dozen at this pace!

The corresponding article is titled “Predicting Patent Number 10,000,000″ and it was composed by Matt Troyer from Anaqua, basically a bunch patent maximlists who profit from an abundance of patents (that’s what their product is for). The greater the number of patents, the more messy the repository of US patents will become. So they sell “solutions”. Now they obsess over the 10,000,000 mark (as laughable as it is; there aren’t 10,000,000 inventions). As readers may recall, they did this some months back and we wrote several rebuttals to their nonsense. It’s not as though the sheer quantity is what’s worth celebrating; they should speak about quality.

“This “Cult Of Patents” (Watchtroll/Anaqua in this case) is obsessing over mere numbers rather than substance. They’re diluting and reducing the value of pertinent patents — a dime a dozen at this pace!”It has, in the meantime, emerged that IBM implicitly attacks the US Supreme Court for doing the right thing about patents (namely improving patent quality) and it also uses former USPTO and IBM staff to lobby on it. We see that the Koch-funded think tankers, people who are paid to attack PTAB, are really boosting David Kappos this month. It’s about IIPCC (US IP & Innovation Policy). Kevin Madigan wrote: “Former @uspto Director Dave Kappos: the US #patent system has been degraded by standard setting organizations that are stacked against innovators [] Qualcomm’s Laurie Self: with the onset of 5G, the patent system must help protect the massive amount of investment in R&D that has revolutionized cellular technology…”

Well, guess who’s behind this event: the former employer of Kappos (IBM), Qualcomm and so on. This whole event is like another think tank — mere scaremongering from IBM, Kappos and others. Watchtroll has just boosted it. Watchtroll plays a major role in this propaganda. They’re perpetuating the lie about “uncertainty” (“uncertainty created by the Supreme Court”) and just prior to it Watchtroll had this article from Manny Schecter (IBM) in which he again attacked Section 101 and the Supreme Court. IBM continues to associate with and write for judge-bashing maniacs who promote patent Armageddon. This, to us, shows that IBM not only promotes software patents but deserves bankruptcy. It’s an enemy of software developers.

“Well, guess who’s behind this event: the former employer of Kappos (IBM), Qualcomm and so on. This whole event is like another think tank — mere scaremongering from IBM, Kappos and others.”Schecter’s concluding words: “And now, as we embark into the unknown with nearly limitless computing power in the fields of quantum computing, artificial intelligence, cyber security, medical diagnostics, and biotechnology, and in fields that have not even been thought of yet, do we really want to continue with a weakened patent system that throughout our history played such a key role in promoting “the Progress of Science and useful Arts” to bring us to this technologically-advanced state?”

It didn’t take long for Watchtroll’s Gene Quinn to attack the courts again. The following day he published an article titled “Is the Supreme Court anti-patent?”

This is the latest court-bashing or judge-bashing article from Watchtroll. That’s all they have left. Attack the person/s. Just because of Alice.

Speaking of Alice, it was mentioned on the same day as Schecter’s article:

What kinds of trends are you seeing in patent law? The one that’s kind of a little bit of an old story right now is the Supreme Court’s 2014 Alice decision, which says you cannot patent an abstract concept.

That includes software/algorithms.

“This is the latest court-bashing or judge-bashing article from Watchtroll. That’s all they have left. Attack the person/s. Just because of Alice.”Meanwhile, in another public forum (think tank), IAM reported/quoted: “MacKenzie – i might be in a minority but i like where Alice [101] is right now. if you have to read a claim 10 times and you still have no idea what it’s claiming then that’s bad…”

When one has a crooked boss like Battistelli (at the EPO) this means that the examiner gets all confused, grants a patent anyway. Later this weekend we’ll show some of the latest buzzwords and tricks being employed. Scholars Michael Frakes and Melissa Wasserman recently wrote about this phenomenon in relation to the USPTO.

Debunking the Usual Omission of GNU

Posted in GNU/Linux at 12:56 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Pack of gnu in the wild

Summary: Debunking the Usual Omission of GNU — a reader’s debunking of a new article from Linux Journal

THIS guest post from “figosdev” is case insensitive — a choice of style. But it’s the arguments that count.


I know, it’s never going to change.
And it doesn’t really have to.
A tired rebuttal to a tired old farce.
Because why not?
If this gets more time, might as well respond…

Debunking yet another tired “let’s just call it Linux” article that makes a lot out of agreeing with itself

 

Some may remember that the Linux naming convention was a controversy that raged from the late 1990s until about the end of the first decade of the 21st century. Back then, if you called it “Linux”, the GNU/Linux crowd was sure to start a flame war with accusations that the GNU Project wasn’t being given due credit for its contribution to the OS. And if you called it “GNU/Linux”, accusations were made about political correctness, although operating systems are pretty much apolitical by nature as far as I can tell.

a controversy that raged from the late 1990s until about the end of the first decade of the 21st century.

the controversy was probably mostly people saying “you should call it gnu/linux, because we have called it gnu for years and you added a kernel and called the whole thing ‘linux’”

the GNU/Linux crowd was sure to start a flame war with accusations that the GNU Project wasn’t being given due credit

if it was a company with a monopoly, they probably just would have filed a lawsuit. but instead they had an ongoing debate. lets make this debate sound as unreasonable as possible, because then we win by ad hom.

The brouhaha got started in the mid-1990s when Richard Stallman, among other things the founder of the Free Software Movement who penned the General Public License, began insisting on using the term “GNU/Linux” in recognition of the importance of the GNU Project to the OS. GNU was started by Stallman as an effort to build a free-in-every-way operating system based on the still-not-ready-for-prime-time Hurd microkernel.

GNU was started by Stallman as an effort to build a free-in-every-way operating system based on the still-not-ready-for-prime-time Hurd microkernel.

 

the emphasis on the hurd kernel is entirely on the part of the linux crowd. the purpose of the gnu project is and was to make users free. linux doesnt care about that, but its a very good kernel, so stallman suggested sharing credit. and he kept suggesting it– for years, as linux grew and continued to accept all the credit.

According to this take, Linux was merely the kernel, and GNU software was the sauce that made Linux work.

to the gnu project, hurd is just a kernel. and linux is just a kernel. it makes no sense to gnu developers to use the entire project and name it after the kernel–

the cpu is a very core part of the computer, but if you took a laptop designed to make the user free and changed the intel processor to an amd one, you wouldnt call the laptop “an amd” would you? that would be silly. if you said you got an amd people would say “what did you put it in?” “oh, its a dell.” because an amd just does nothing without the rest of the laptop.

Noting that the issue seems to have died down in recent years, and mindful of Shakespeare’s observation on roses, names and smells, I wondered if anyone really cares anymore what Linux is called. So, I put the issue to a number of movers and shakers in Linux and open-source circles by asking the simple question, “Is it GNU/Linux or just plain Linux?”

oh come on, you did not… this article is a rehash of so many like that open source fanboys do from year to year to year. you didnt really wonder at all.

So, I put the issue to a number of movers and shakers in Linux and open-source circles

 

ha! you asked “linux circles” if you call it linux? we already know what “open-source” calls it. your bias is built right into your sources. this is a farce.

“This has been one of the more ridiculous debates in the FOSS realm, far outdistancing the Emacs-vi rift”, said Larry Cafiero, a longtime Linux advocate and FOSS writer who pulls publicity duties at the Southern California Linux Expo. “It’s akin to the Chevrolet-Chevy moniker. Technically the car produced by GM is a Chevrolet, but rarely does anyone trot out all three syllables. It’s a Chevy. Same with the shorthand for GNU/Linux being Linux. The shorthand version—the Chevy version—is Linux. If you insist in calling it a Chevrolet, it’s GNU/Linux.”

This has been one of the more ridiculous debates in the FOSS realm

 

yes, its ridiculous because not only does open source insist on eclipsing free software, it wants to do it in every possible way– from co-opting a social movement to changing the name of everything, to denying credit for anything accomplished over the past 15 years (“well that was then, but…”) even to pretending that the debate is over “and we won!” (but thats how the article leaves it. we arent there yet.)

Next up was Steven J. Vaughan Nichols, who’s “been covering Unix since before Linux was a grad student”. He didn’t mince any words.

yes, hes a complete shill for zdnet.

“Enough already”, he said. “RMS tried, and failed, to create an operating system: Hurd. He and the Free Software Foundation’s endless attempts to plaster his GNU name to the work of Linus Torvalds and the other Linux kernel developers is disingenuous and an insult to their work. RMS gets credit for EMACS, GPL, and GCC. Linux? No.”

Enough already”, he said. “RMS tried, and failed, to create an operating system:

 

wow. i used to think he was sort of in-the-middle as shills went.

steve: take windows– an entire “operating system,” and replace ntkernel, and call it yours. let me know what you still own when theyre done.

 

RMS gets credit for EMACS, GPL, and GCC. Linux? No.”

steve, what the heck does this even mean???

youre the ones suggesting it be called linux/linux. youre talking like stallman wants to call it gnu/gnu.

 

He and the Free Software Foundation’s endless attempts to plaster his GNU name to the work of Linus Torvalds and the other Linux kernel

uh, no? torvalds plastered the linux name onto the gnu operating system. heres how you know– the gnu operating system already existed.

and from what you said, youd think that the gnu team took linux and added it to the gnu os and called the linux kernel “gnu.” but again, they call what other people took and added linux to– and call it gnu/linux.

someone is plastering a name onto everything, but the name theyre plastering is onto it is linux.

if we can call everything linux, theres no reason that calling it “gnu/linux” is specious.

To be fair, the use of GNU-related monikers didn’t start with Stallman. An early distribution, Yggdrasil, used the term “Linux/GNU/X” in 1992, and shortly thereafter the terms “GNU/Linux” and “GNU+Linux” began showing up in Usenet and mailing-list discussions. Debian, which early on was sponsored by the Free Software Foundation, starting using the term “GNU/Linux” in 1994, which it continues to use to this day. Stallman began publicly advocating its use in 1996.

yes, to be fair.

id like gnu/steve (his argument was we are trying to plaster gnu onto everything, so this isnt any different) or as steve is known in the linux world: “linux” (the l-man, steve the kernel, linsteve 2.0) to go tell debian developers “plastering the GNU name to the work of Linus Torvalds and the other Linux kernel developers is disingenuous and an insult to their work!” and find out how that goes. go ahead, l-man, do it…

But Stallman’s advocacy always put a bad taste in some people’s mouths.

yes, but to be fair, there are people who react negatively to just about any idea.

“For me it’s always, always, always, always Linux,” said Alan Zeichick, an analyst at Camden Associates who frequently speaks, consults and writes about open-source projects for the enterprise. “One hundred percent. Never GNU/Linux. I follow industry norms.”

Well, somebody has to defend orthodoxy.

For me it’s always, always, always, always Linux,” said Alan Zeichick, an analyst at Camden Associates

 

ive heard about gnu and linux about a million times in over a decade. as of today ive heard of alan zeichick once, and camden associates (what do they even do?) once. im just going to call them linux, its the more popular term.

 

“I follow industry norms.”

so you use windows and apple mostly– ok.

Gaël Duval, founder of the once uber-popular Mandrake/Mandriva distro who’s now developing eelo, a privacy-respecting Android clone, pointed out that insisting on GNU/Linux might open the door wider than originally intended. “I understand people who support the idea to call it GNU/Linux”, he said. “On the other hand, I do not see why in this case we wouldn’t use “GNU/X11/KDE/Gnome/Whatever/Linux” for desktop systems, because graphical environments and apps are very significant in such systems.

insisting on GNU/Linux might open the door wider than originally intended. “I understand people who support the idea to call it GNU/Linux”, he said.

 

– yes, to keep the original project from being eclipsed. technically gnu eclipses unix, but a. it cant legally be called unix and b. thats what the u cleverly stands for: “gnus not unix.”

i would be perfectly happy with the name linug instead of gnu/linux, and it could stand for “linug is never undermining gnu.” i truly believe stallman would accept this.

“Personally, I’m comfortable with both Linux and GNU/Linux”, he added, “but I use simply Linux, because adding complexity in communication and marketing is generally not efficient.”

adding complexity in communication and marketing is generally not efficient.”

the message that you really want to convey after all, is that linus torvalds wrote an entire operating system.

Richi Jennings, an independent industry analyst who pens a weekly security column on TechBeacon, expressed a similar sentiment. “Look, it’s totally fair to give the GNU project its due”, he said. “On the other hand, if that fairness needs to be expressed in a naming convention, why stop at GNU? Why not also recognize BSD, XINU, PBM, OpenSSL, Samba and countless other FLOSS projects that need to be included to form a workable distro?

Why not also recognize BSD, XINU, PBM, OpenSSL, Samba and countless other FLOSS projects that need to be included to form a workable distro?

because this is a completely specious argument by their own percentage standards. even with the bsd part… though that was the best example.

note the percentage argument is entirely a thing that the linux crowd made up, and it misses the point a bit like everything else theyve said to justify co-opting free software.

“The bottom line is that ‘Linux’ is what the vast majority of people call it. So that’s what it should be called, because that’s how language works.”

The bottom line is that ‘Linux’ is what the vast majority of people call it. So that’s what it should be called,

 

by this ridiculous argument, internet explorer should be called “windows” and firefox should be called “facebook.”

Self-professed “ace Linux guru” and Linux writer Carla Schroder said, “I’ve never called it GNU/Linux. GNU coreutils, tar, make, gcc, wget, bash and so on are still fundamental tools for a lot of Linux users. Certain people can’t let any Linux discussion pass without insisting that ‘Linux’ is only the kernel. Linux distros include a majority of non-GNU software, and I’m fine with ‘Linux’ as an umbrella term for the whole works. It’s simple and it’s widely recognized.”

“Certain people can’t let any Linux discussion pass without insisting that ‘Linux’ is only the kernel.”

guess why? because linux is the kernel.

“I’m fine with ‘Linux’ as an umbrella term for the whole works. “

and the whole rewriting history part is fine too.

Tallying the votes, it looks as if the “ayes” have it, and you can call Linux what you want. If anybody gives you any grief, tell them what Schroder told me: “Arguing is fun, but I suggest that contributing financially or in other ways to GNU/Linux/FOSS projects is more helpful.”

Tallying the votes

if polling people and counting the ones who agree with your stance is what you call voting, theres got to be a place near central america you can run for office.

Arguing is fun, but I suggest that contributing financially or in other ways to GNU/Linux/FOSS projects is more helpful.”

i would say that when youre not doing that, a few arguments against rewriting history are possibly worth your time.

also, i think it helps if people call it gnu/linux.

Or, we could argue about whether it’s FOSS or FLOSS.

Or, we could argue about whether it’s FOSS or FLOSS.

its both. have a cookie.

 

there are a few stupid things about this article worth mentioning:

gnu/linux is about precedence, not percentage. that whole percentage red herring is bunk city.

creating an operating system to make users free is a loftier goal than writing a kernel to avoid a hike through the snow, and suggesting “gnu/linux” as a compromise is both generous and smart– since linux insists on taking all the credit.

gnu and also the free software movement were co-opted by linux and open source. even open source initiative co-founder bruce perens admits this, though it wasnt intentional on his part. gnu/linux was proposed as a way to give back some of the credit, after too much was taken away. it was a gracious move, and no matter how many times this “lets just agree on linux” argument is made (year after year after year) the fact is– the gnu/linux name serves a purpose regardless.

if people call it “linux” they are letting you know that they are willing to co-opt a very important work and possibly rewrite history.

if people call it “gnu/linux” they are letting you know that marketing isnt more important to them than due credit– and that they care about your freedom and what the gnu name stands for.

you dont have to care what the gnu name stands for, but it does stand for a bit more than the name “linux” does. the gnu name (while it really is just a name) indicates things to users that “linux” barely implies at times (or in practice.)

whats funny is that by poking at the name “linux,” the project to make users free continues to promote a worthier goal than just a practical piece of software– so what if it does it the way ricky gervais in extras tries to inch his way into the scene. the somewhat disingenuously-eclipsed project to make people free doesnt have to seem like its cool, it only has to do whats right.

while the industry doesnt have to do whats right, it only has to seem like its cool.

and if this kind of bs is what passes for “cool” these days, maybe these people need to get out more.

the one thing i meant to add is, ‘no matter how many times these arguments are trotted out, using the gnu name is still a reliable way to convey that you care about freedom– while calling it linux is an increasingly UNreliable way to do do that.

you have the choice, and it says where your priorities are. theres something about ‘gnu/linux’ thats hard to co-opt– those who would misuse it, would probably never use it. perhaps this is stallmans unintended genius, but i wish id thought of it.

District of Delaware is Becoming Patent Litigation ‘Infestation’ Zone, According to Lex Machina’s Data

Posted in America, Patents at 12:30 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Delaware

Summary: Lex Machina’s figures on patent litigation as interpreted and presented by patents/litigation lovers and maximalists (whose primary target audience profits from mass litigation — a passage of wealth from companies to lawyers)

THE US patent system is more than just a patent office; the USPTO grants patents, but courts can still reject these. Later today we’ll focus on software patent in particular, i.e. the usual.

When it comes to pharmaceutical patents, generally not the sorts of patents we tend to worry too much about (a lot of that boils down to chemistry), IAM’s Adam Houldsworth says that Lex Machina’s numbers shows this:

A burgeoning caseload and the retirement of key specialist judges might adversely affect the performance of the US district court for the District of Delaware in pharma patent litigation, according to Owen Byrd, general counsel and chief evangelist of Lex Machina, which has just produced its 2018 Hatch-Waxman ANDA Litigation Report. The report reveals that 2017 saw a significant increase in filings for patent lawsuits between branded and generic pharmaceutical companies, with the District of Delaware – already the country’s most popular venue for such litigation – pulling away from the pack and recording its highest ever number of filings.

Hatch-Waxman was in the headline of another report on this, courtesy of another site of patent maximalists. To quote:

Hatch-Waxman pharma patent litigation filings last year rose to near-2015 levels. Lex Machina’s new ANDA litigation report also reveals data on judges, plaintiffs, defendants and law frms

Lex Machina’s Hatch-Waxman ANDA Litigation Report 2018 report reveals the number of pharmaceutical patent cases filed in district court rebounded to 417 filings in 2017 from 324 filings in 2016 – coming up on 2015’s high of 475 filings.

As a reminder, later last year patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas fell very sharply after the Supreme Court had issued a judgment on TC Heartland. This meant that a lot of litigation merely shifted venue (to less plaintiff-friendly courts), but overall the number of new patent lawsuits fell as well.

« Previous Page « Previous Page Next entries »

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