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

06.03.18

IBM and Its Terrible Software Patents, Which Are Disguised as ‘AI’, ‘Cloud’, and More Recently ‘Blockchain’

Posted in America, IBM, Patents at 10:35 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Watchtroll (Quinn) has just published a portrait of his (bottom)

Watchtroll himself (Quinn) angry

Summary: The blockchain hype which facilitates the patenting of many algorithms is being noticed; but what might the courts decide on such questionable patents, which even PTAB is likely to invalidate pretty quickly?

THE EPO favours particular software patenting buzzwords which the USPTO adopted as well. “Blockchain” is one of those, albeit blockchains are mostly hype, much more so than a buzzword per se (there’s a clear technical concept behind blockchains but almost everything with a database can be spun as “blockchain” — same for algorithms as “AI”).

“…blockchains are mostly hype, much more so than a buzzword per se (there’s a clear technical concept behind blockchains but almost everything with a database can be spun as “blockchain” — same for algorithms as “AI”).”Over the past couple of years we’ve composed several dozens of posts about patents that are labeled “blockchain/s” (here’s an overview from January). We thought it would be a passing fad or a temporary bubble; but it still hasn’t burst, not entirely anyway. It certainly will when some of these patents are assessed and rejected, repeatedly even, by lower and higher courts in Europe and the US. For the time being, many of these patents are just ‘harvested’ or ‘stockpiled’, often by notorious patent trolls and giant corporations looking to guard themselves from emerging trends/competition. They don’t want to risk having these patents considered by courts. Earlier this weekend this cryptocurrency-themed Web site wrote about “Blockchain IP [sic] Protection”. Those sites just keep hyping “blockchain/s” and this one said: “Formerly identified as IPCHAIN Database, Vaultitude is an Intellectual Property (IP) management and protection platform that implements blockchain technology. Through its new standards of IP management and protection, the platform provides innovators, artists, inventors, scientists, and companies with an effective tool containing different core features.”

The lawyers’ ‘community’ (or ‘industry’) has long obsessed over “blockchain/s” for two reasons; first, it saw it as an opportunity to ride a wave to patent software and second, in our humble assessment, it has been led to believe that distributed databases — a concept few of these lawyers even understand — would somehow (magically) revolutionise their field/profession. The latter isn’t a justifiable belief and the former is a temporal reality; wait until it blows in their face — or rather — in their clients’ face. Imagine investing millions if not billions in some worthless patents.

“…wait until it blows in their face — or rather — in their clients’ face. Imagine investing millions if not billions in some worthless patents.”As should be widely known by now, IBM is still pursuing worthless, useless software patents. IBM loses its mind over it and now spends a fortune lobbying for software patents (IBM has become a lot worse than Microsoft in that regard). IBM wants us to think that “blockchain/s” patents are worth pursuing while its front group OIN does the same. A few days ago at Bitcoin Exchange Guide we found coverage titled “IBM Continues Distributed Ledger Future Securing 2 Crypto Patents” (don’t worry, these are worthless software patents).

Assuming IBM can use such patents in bulk against some small companies, IBM might be able to dodge a court battle (i.e. no scrutiny for these software patents). To quote:

Blockchain integrity and security is something that is always constantly talked about and hotly discussed. Recently, the technological giant IBM has acquired two crucial and influential patents that will change the marketplace of cryptocurrency security.

[...]

This ultimately allows for a more citable and understandable definition of a checkpoint. Moving forward, many companies will look to this as a key building block for companies wishing to utilize and create blockchain technology. When IBM goes to make any product in the future they will likely rely on this patent because it is at the core of just about all blockchain technology.

It’s pretty obvious that these are software patents. Who is IBM kidding? Hasn’t it been ‘lectured’ by PTAB enough already?

As one PTAB critic (patent attorney) noted the other day: “IBM loses another patent application to 101 at the PTAB: https://anticipat.com/pdf/2018-05-14_12615476_178455.pdf …?”

“It’s pretty obvious that these are software patents. Who is IBM kidding? Hasn’t it been ‘lectured’ by PTAB enough already?”There’s also this nugget of information: “Of 16 IBM Cases with 101 Rejections Decided by the PTAB from May 2017-May 2018, 14 Examiner 101 Rejections Were Affirmed and 2 Examiner 101 Rejections Were Reversed.”

So many of IBM’s patents — not just the “blockchain/s” — are likely worthless. They’re just waiting to be voided (if PTAB gets petitioned to do so).

IBM really hates Alice. IBM nowadays writes rants for Watchtroll — a pretty extremist site — in which it is ranting about PTAB, Section 101 and so on. IBM has, in effect, become a patent radical. Here’s the latest Alice rant from Watchtroll. Sanjeev Mahanta wrote the following just 2 days ago:

In mid-2016 the Federal Circuit issued two decisions, Enfish v. Microsoft (“Enfish”) and Rapid Litigations v. Cellzdirect (“Cellzdirect”), in which it provided additional information and clarification on the inquiry for identifying an abstract idea (Enfish) and a law of nature (Cellzdirect). In these decisions, the court found claims patent eligible based on the determination that they were not directed to a judicial exception in step one of the Mayo/Alice two-step subject matter eligibility test. Analysis under step two was therefore not necessary. The court observed that the formulation by the U.S. Supreme Court of a two-stage inquiry – involving first determining whether the claims at issue are “directed to” a patent ineligible concept – implied that the “directed to” inquiry was a substantive inquiry, and not limited to simply asking if the claims involved a patent-ineligible concept. Enfish at 10. As the Federal Circuit continues to refine the standard for subject matter eligibility, it is of interest to see how these decisions are influencing the outcome of patent eligibility disputes. Vanda Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. West-Ward Pharmaceuticals (“Vanda”), decided April 13th, 2018, provides an interesting example in this regard.

[...]

Judge Prost next compared the claims to the claims in Mayo to determine how much weight should be given to the recitation of specific dosages of iloperidone. Recall that in Mayo, the claims were directed to a method of optimizing therapeutic efficacy for treatment of an immune-mediated gastrointestinal disorder. Id. at 2-3. The method required (a) administering a drug providing 6-thioguanine to a subject having the disorder; and (b) determining the level of 6-thioguanine in the subject. The claim further recited that the level of 6-thioguanine less than about 230 pmol per 8×108 red blood cells indicated a need to increase the amount of the drug subsequently administered to the subject and the level of 6-thioguanine greater than about 400 pmol per 8×108 red blood cells indicated a need to decrease the amount of the drug subsequently administered to the subject.

Watchtroll himself (Quinn) would not be as softly-worded as the above (Mahanta is actually a scientist, unlike Quinn), but watch what Watchtroll wrote about 35 U.S.C. § 101 (Alice) in relation to the recent SAP case (a case which we covered at the time). Watchtroll wrote [via] (and notice the bizarre choice of picture) that “SAP had filed a declaratory judgment action in 2016 alleging, among other things, that the patent claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,349,291, owned by InvesetPic, were are invalid because their subject matter is ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Ultimately, the district court determined that the patent claims in question were directed to an abstract idea and lacked an inventive concept necessary to save the invention under 35 U.S.C. § 101.”

“All this “blockchain” nonsense isn’t patent-eligible. It’s abstract; those are software patents.”Mind the nature of this patent. Did they not anticipate such an outcome? Days ago, linking to the Bloomberg "blockchain" hype, this one person wrote: “Staying positive but this is a race to nowhere. Our Courts are hostile and unpredictable to pure software type inventions like blockchain. If you get lucky at the @USPTO the patent can quickly be shot down by a District court judge.”

Well, get used to it. All this “blockchain” nonsense isn’t patent-eligible. It’s abstract; those are software patents.

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. Weaponising Russophobia Against One's Critics

    Response to smears and various whispering campaigns whose sole purpose is to deplete the support base for particular causes and people; these sorts of things have gotten out of control in recent years



  2. When the EPO is Run by Politicians It's Expected to Be Aggressive and Corrupt Like Purely Political Establishments

    António 'Photo Op' Campinos will have marked his one-year anniversary in July; he has failed to demonstrate morality, respect for the law, understanding of the sciences, leadership by example and even the most basic honesty (he lies a lot)



  3. Links 16/6/2019: Tmax OS and New Features for KDE.org

    Links for the day



  4. Stuffed/Stacked Panels Sent Back Packing After One-Sided Patent Hearings That Will Convince Nobody, Just Preach to the Choir

    Almost a week ago the 'world tour' of patent lobbyists in US Senate finally ended; it was an utterly ridiculous case study in panel stacking and bribery (attempts to buy laws)



  5. 2019 H1: American Software Patents Are as Worthless as They Were Last Year and Still Susceptible to Invalidation

    With a fortnight left before the second half of the year it seems evident that software patents aren't coming back; the courts have not changed their position at all



  6. As European Patent Office Management Covers up Collapse in Patent Quality Don't Expect UPC to Ever Kick Off

    It would be madness to allow EPO-granted patents to become 'unitary' (bypassing sovereignty of nations that actually still value patent quality); it seems clear that rogue EPO management has, in effect, not only doomed UPC ambitions but also European Patents (or their perceived legitimacy, presumption of validity)



  7. António Campinos -- Unlike His Father -- Engages in Imperialism (Using Invalid Patents)

    Despite some similarities to his father (not positive similarities), António Campinos is actively engaged in imperialistic agenda that defies even European law; the EPO not only illegally grants patents but also urges other patent offices to do the same



  8. António Campinos Takes EPO Waste and Corruption to Unprecedented Levels and Scale

    The “B” word (billions) is thrown around at Europe’s second-largest institution because a mischievous former EUIPO chief (not Archambeau) is ‘partying’ with about half of the EPO’s all-time savings, which are supposed to be reserved for pensions and other vital programmes, not presidential palaces and gambling



  9. Links 15/6/2019: Astra Linux in Russia, FreeBSD 11.3 RC

    Links for the day



  10. Code of Conduct Explained: Partial Transcript - August 10th, 2018 - Episode 80, The Truth About Southeast Linuxfest

    "Ask Noah" and the debate on how a 'Code of Conduct' is forcibly imposed on events



  11. Links 14/6/2019: Xfce-Related Releases, PHP 7.4.0 Alpha

    Links for the day



  12. The EPO is a Patent Troll's Wet Dream

    The makers of software and games in Europe will have to spend a lot of money just keeping patent trolls off their backs — a fact that seems to never bother EPO management because it profits from it



  13. EPO Spreading Patent Extremists' Ideology to the Whole World, Now to South Korea

    The EPO’s footprint around the world's patent systems is an exceptionally dangerous one; The EPO amplifies the most zealous voices of the patents and litigation ‘industry’ while totally ignoring the views and interests of the European public, rendering the EPO an ‘agent of corporate occupation’



  14. Guest Post: Notes on Free Speech, and a Line in the Sand

    We received this anonymous letter and have published it as a follow-up to "Reader's Claim That Rules Similar to the Code of Conduct (CoC) Were 'Imposed' on LibrePlanet and the FSF"



  15. Links 13/6/2019: CERN Dumps Microsoft, GIMP 2.10.12 Released

    Links for the day



  16. Links 12/6/2019: Mesa 19.1.0, KDE neon 5.16, Endless OS 3.6.0 and BackBox Linux 6

    Links for the day



  17. Leaked Financial 'Study' Document Shows EPO Management and Mercer Engaging in an Elaborate “Hoax”

    How the European Patent Office (EPO) lies to its own staff to harm that staff; thankfully, the staff isn't easily fooled and this whole affair will merely obliterate any remnants of "benefit of the doubt" the President thus far enjoyed



  18. Measuring Patent Quality and Employer Quality in Europe

    Comparing the once-famous and respected EPO to today's joke of an office, which grants loads of bogus patents on just about anything including fruit and mathematics



  19. Granting More Fundamentally Wrong Patents Will Mean Reduced Certainty, Not Increased Certainty

    Law firms that are accustomed to making money from low-quality and abstract patents try to overcome barriers by bribing politicians; this will backfire because they show sheer disregard for the patent system's integrity and merely lower the legal certainty associated with granted (by greedy offices) patents



  20. Links 11/6/2019: Wine 4.10, Plasma 5.16

    Links for the day



  21. Chapter 10: Moving Forward -- Getting the Best Results From Open Source With Your Monopoly

    “the gradual shift in public consciousness from their branding towards our own, is the next best thing to owning them outright.”



  22. Chapter 9: Ownership Through Branding -- Change the Names, and Change the World

    The goal for those fighting against Open source, against the true openness (let's call it the yet unexploited opportunities) of Open source, has to be first to figuratively own the Linux brand, then literally own or destroy the brand, then to move the public awareness of the Linux brand to something like Azure, or whatever IBM is going to do with Red Hat.



  23. Links 10/6/2019: VLC 3.0.7, KDE Future Plans

    Links for the day



  24. Patent Quality Continues to Slip in Europe and We Know Who Will Profit From That (and Distract From It)

    The corporate media and large companies don't speak about it (like Red Hat did before entering a relationship with IBM), but Europe is being littered and saturated with a lot of bogus software patents -- abstract patents that European courts would almost certainly throw out; this utter failure of the media to do journalism gets exploited by the "big litigation" lobby and EPO management that's granting loads of invalid European Patents (whose invalidation goes underreported or unreported in the media)



  25. Corporate Front Groups Like OIN and the Linux Foundation Need to Combat Software Patents If They Really Care About Linux

    The absurdity of having groups that claim to defend Linux but in practice defend software patents, if not actively then passively (by refusing to comment on this matter)



  26. Links 9/6/2019: Arrest of Microsoft Peter, Linux 5.2 RC4, Ubuntu Touch Update

    Links for the day



  27. Chapter 8: A Foot in the Door -- How to Train Sympathetic Developers and Infiltrate Other Projects

    How to train sympathetic developers and infiltrate other projects



  28. Chapter 7: Patent War -- Use Low-Quality Patents to Prove That All Software Rips Off Your Company

    Patents in the United States last for 20 years from the time of filing. Prior to 1994, the patent term was 17 years from when the patent was issued.



  29. The Linux Foundation in 2019: Over 100 Million Dollars in Income, But Cannot Maintain Linux.com?

    Today’s Linux Foundation gets about 0.1 billion dollars per year (as explained in our previous post), so why can’t it spend about 0.1% of that money on people who write for and maintain a site that actually promotes GNU/Linux?



  30. Microsoft and Proprietary Software Vendors a Financial Boon for the Linux Foundation, But at What Cost?

    The Linux Foundation is thriving financially, but the sources of income are diversified to the point where the Linux Foundation is actually funded by foes of Linux, defeating the very purpose or direction of such a nonprofit foundation (led by self-serving millionaires who don't use GNU/Linux)


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