06.04.18
Posted in America, Deception, Google, Patents at 2:45 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Google controls everything! According to patent extremists…
Reference: Types of conspiracy theory
Summary: Desperate to find an explanation for patent reforms that are still ongoing, Watchtroll decides that everything is reducible to one single company (Google) and causes every proponent of patent reason to be framed as a “shill” of Google
THE out-of-control patent maximalism of Watchtroll is no laughing matter. These people are actually poisoning the debate. Yesterday Watchtroll attacked politicians who speak about patent trolls (that was Steve Brachmann and Watchtroll) and today Steve Brachmann attacks the EFF, calling it a “shill” of Google. Later, all sorts of abusive people are trying to call me a “Google shill” (as recently as this past weekend) or something along those lines even though I have absolutely zero connections with Google and never had any (I generally even avoid — as a matter of principle — virtually all of that company’s services except Google News because it’s hard to replace). This isn’t entirely new a theme; they’re seeing Google in everything and blaming it for everything in patents, maybe because of Michelle Lee’s past career (before USPTO). A few hours ago Watchtroll cited the Campaign for Accountability (notice the capitalisation), known for many anti-Google actions (e.g. this one), just like Consumer Watchdog. They’re now latching onto anti-Google front groups to satisfy their own ‘conspiracy theories’.
This does not amuse us. That site is creating truly delusional and abusive people who are genuinely convinced that Google is behind everything, even Techrights! It’s like Fox News, Breitbart and InfoWars causing a bunch of violent people to turn against groups that are scapegoated.
“Watchtroll himself (Quinn) is one heck of a bully, helped by his hired writer Brachmann in their personal witch-hunt against people who favour technology and science (over litigation).”And it gets worse. Watchtroll himself is back to judge-bashing and court-bashing, unable to accept that the patent system in the US is being corrected in line with the law, Constitution etc. “The Collapse of U.S. Patent Policy by a Supreme Court preoccupied with Patent Trolls” is this latest headline, which basically precedes the third (by our count) attack on SCOTUS in the past month alone. It is always Watchtroll himself who attacks the judges, questions their motivations, and even demands their firings/resignations. It’s like a mob site and it played a role in mobbing Lee out of her job.
Watchtroll sometimes has guest writers and not all of them are bad. If only they realised what they associate themselves with by writing for Watchtroll. About a week ago it wrote about pneumatic conveyance system patents, taking note of this case which we saw covered almost nowhere else. To quote:
M-I Drilling owns five U.S. patents covering pneumatic conveyance systems, which are utilized in the oil drilling industry to transport drill cuttings from oil rigs to ships as part of the disposal process. M-I LLC is an exclusive licensee of these patents. Brazilian-based DAL is a subsidiary of Minnesota-based Dynamic Air Inc. (DAI).
Pursuant to a contract with Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. (Petrobras), DAL developed and installed pneumatic conveyance systems on two U.S. ships in 2013. M-I subsequently sued DAL in the District of Minnesota for infringement of its patents covering those systems. DAL moved to dismiss, arguing that due process prohibited the district court from exercising specific personal jurisdiction over DAL pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(2). The district court granted DAL’s motion to dismiss, holding that DAL did not purposefully direct its activities toward the United States, because DAL’s activities onboard U.S. ships arose pursuant to its contract with Petrobras, who unilaterally determined where the pneumatic conveyance system would be installed. The court reasoned that it would neither be reasonable nor fair to exercise specific personal jurisdiction over DAL.
This post by Joseph Robinson and Robert Schaffer, who cover many cases there (usually in a more or less objective fashion), is why we still keep an eye on the site. But Watchtroll himself (Quinn) is one heck of a bully, helped by his hired writer Brachmann in their personal witch-hunt against people who favour technology and science (over litigation). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 2:01 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Battistelli is also a writer at IAM, who will soon be their keynote speaker
Source (original): Rospatent
Summary: The latest lies from the EPO are supported by IAM, which just ‘happens’ to be receiving money from the EPO’s PR firm, FTI Consulting
THE MEDIA turns a blind eye to abuses at its own peril. Workers across Europe can see who covers important issues and who simply issues puff pieces and marketing. Case of point, from a few days ago, was this ‘article’ by Ozge Atilgan Karakulak and Selin Sinem Erciyas (Gun + Partners), who occasionally put puff pieces at IAM (part of IAM’s business model). Search for news about the EPO and find stuff like this:
Ever since Turkey became a member to European Patent Convention (EPC), the enforcement or invalidity of the Turkish validation of a European Patent (EP), while proceedings before European Patent Office (EPO) are pending, has been a hot topic.
The owner of a EP is normally concerned with if and how the pending opposition/appeal proceedings before the EPO impacts the enforceability or validity of the national patent validated in Turkey.
The strength of a patent may seem questionable in an enforcement attempt at national level because of pending EPO proceedings, whereas the matter is much more complicated and risky if the patent owner is faced with an invalidation action at national level as well.
Well, invalidations are about to become a lot more common, albeit the EPO already wages a war against the appeal boards, which means that invalidations will be carried out in expensive court battles (i.e. not many, for costs are prohibitive). This mirrors, more or less, the situation in the USPTO with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).
“…invalidations are about to become a lot more common, albeit the EPO already wages a war against the appeal boards, which mean that invalidations will be carried out in expensive court battles (i.e. not many, for costs are prohibitive).”EPO workers openly state that patent quality has declined, but EPO management is notorious for repeating lies over and over again, hoping that repetition will help such lies stick. IAM is the main supplier of such lies. As we noted a number of years ago, IAM was being paid by the PR agency of the EPO for its Unitary Patent propaganda — something which continues to date and irks Spaniards like Francisco Moreno on Twitter. In relation to the Spanish political changes he bemoans IAM’s latest spin, which we responded to about a day ago. Team UPC’s promotion of SPCs (there’s an agenda overlap) was noted here over the weekend and here comes IAM again, admitting that “uncertainty continues over unitary regime” but still promoting the SPC agenda.
But IAM’s EPO lobbying goes further than this and was made rather apparent several hours ago, just as predicted half a day beforehand. It’s about a so-called ‘survey’ of IAM — an annual ritual of theirs. The survey does not even talk about patent quality but other things such as pendency. They are trying to make it ‘come across’ as “reader’s choice” or “independent” — a classic trick or a classic form of deception, constructed with particular outcomes in mind. Joff Wild has just claimed that “Europe soars” in his headline. Here’s the relevant part:
Despite the controversy that has surrounded it in recent years, the EPO continues to garner by far the best approval ratings among the IP5 from IAM’s readers. As in the last two years, it ranked highest in perceptions of patent quality – significantly higher proportions of respondents regard its offering as excellent or very good than for any other office listed, with only a tiny minority regarding the quality as poor – 1% of those in operating companies.
Almost at the exact same time the EPO repeated this and published this puff piece (warning: epo.org link) with the following summary: “The EPO has for the seventh consecutive time been ranked number one among the world’s five largest patent offices by users for the quality of its patents and services in Intellectual Asset Management (IAM) Magazine’s latest annual benchmarking survey.”
“They already corrupt media and academia, so this is loose change which helps obscure the message of actual EPO examiners.”IAM is the propaganda department of the corrupt EPO, with equivalents in North Korea such as the “Working Party for Quality” (yes, they actually call it that). “EPO ranked No. 1 for quality and service in largest-ever @IAM_magazine survey,” they said in Twitter, basing that only on one site that the EPO is paying (even if indirectly). The best lies money can buy? They already corrupt media and academia, so this is loose change which helps obscure the message of actual EPO examiners. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in America, Deception, Patents at 3:47 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Those who lobby for patent trolls actually prefer low patent quality
Summary: IAM suggests further weakening of the US patent system, i.e. reduced certainty for patent litigation and much weaker patents (because from patent chaos they derive money)
SEVERAL hours ago we wrote a long post about the importance of patent quality — something which the EPO certainly forgot (the management did, not the examiners though).
“The Federal Circuit and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) are particularly sceptical of low-quality patents.”US courts have undone a lot of damage in that regard; they nowadays deny many plaintiffs the ‘pleasure’ of suing lots of defendants. The Federal Circuit and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) are particularly sceptical of low-quality patents.
“What good are a lot of patents if they don’t actually represent novelty and something sufficiently advanced (a scientific advancement) to merit a patent?”It’s not hard to imagine who would be hurt by this: the litigation ‘industry’. IAM’s 90th issue — as laughable as it gets — continues sobbing and moaning like it’s all about numbers (patents and lawsuits), not actual value (or quantity over quality). They open up by taking stock of “entities with portfolios of 1,000 or more US patents” and it goes downhill from there. We’ll get to that in a moment.
What good are a lot of patents if they don’t actually represent novelty and something sufficiently advanced (a scientific advancement) to merit a patent? Do we want patent systems with over a million patent filings per day (like in China’s SIPO)? Quite a few software patents are still being granted by the USPTO based on this morning’s listing from New Hampshire, e.g. the one to Cisco:
Cisco Technology, San Jose, California, has been assigned a patent (No. 9,979,704, initially filed Dec. 17, 2014) developed by five co-inventors for “end-to-end security for virtual private service chains.”
Well, by the sound of it this pertains to software, but it’s hard to know for sure without independently and thoroughly auditing each and every patent. Notice how close they’re getting to the 10 millionth patent now. Worship the numbers? To lawyers, patents are like deaths to a funeral parlor. From suffering comes profit.
A few hours ago Michael Borella (from the patent maximalists’ Patent Docs) repeated the patent microcosm’s party line regarding so-called ‘uncertainty’ in 35 U.S.C. § 101 (as covered in our weekend's post) — the section which is responsible for axing many software patents. To quote Borella:
One of the more substantive questions in the recent interpretation of what encompasses patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is whether facts should play any role in the analysis. The Supreme Court has not been perfectly clear on this issue, and the Federal Circuit appears to have taken both sides at various times. In last week’s denial of en banc review for two cases, the Federal Circuit answered with an emphatic “yes.” Thus, the question seems resolved. For now.
Well, Iancu uses it to lower patent quality and IAM seems very happy (see “Supreme Court shakes up the PTAB, while new USPTO head sends strong pro-patent signals” in the latest issue). When they say “pro-patent signals” they mean patent maximalism and/or poor patent quality. “Meanwhile,” they said, “Andrei Iancu is exhibiting pro-patent inclinations…”
“Notice how close they’re getting to the 10 millionth patent now. Worship the numbers?”Remember that in these circles, such as Watchtroll, one can only be “pro-patent” or “anti-patent” and when they meet someone who isn’t as extreme as them (regarding patents) they just label that someone “anti-patent”. Watchtroll already labels some judges and even Justices “anti-patent”.
What good would Iancu’s policies be if patents got granted only to be later rejected by courts? If anything, it would further reduce certainty/confidence in patents, exacerbating an already-serious problem. It’s very costly, but the costs are associated with fees that lawyers pocket, so it’s really a ‘feature’ to them.
“What good would Iancu’s policies be if patents got granted only to be later rejected by courts?”IAM has also just published this article by Jason Lye, Sam Khoury and Corrine Sukiennik. It’s basically another one of those rants about “quality, strength and predictability of the US patent system…”
Well, granting bad patents actually reduces “predictability”. To make patent lawsuits more predictable the USPTO need to become a lot more strict about what patents it grants.
Under the laughable sound bite “Intangible investor”, Bruce Berman writes that “America’s [US] confused response to increased global competition and IP uncertainty is threatening its innovation leadership…”
“They’re either working for law firms or are funded by them (like IAM, which also gets funded by patent trolls).”He speaks of “IP uncertainty”, but we suppose that by “IP” he meant patents and actually bemoaned how hard they are to enforce (it’s hard to know what he meant because of IAM’s paywall). Either way, the only solution to this is to become less lenient in examination (maybe investigate this 'revolving door' phenomenon).
Elsewhere in this issue there are some pure puff pieces (marketing) that say nothing at all and old news about standard-essential patents (SEPs). Zhang Hui and Richard Li wrote about Iwncomm v Sony and Richard Lloyd advocated this inescapable patent tax in the form of SEPs. Well, patent maximalists like Richard Li and Richard Lloyd (on both sides of the Pacific) don’t really care about the impact of patents on pricing, competition, science etc. They’re either working for law firms or are funded by them (like IAM, which also gets funded by patent trolls). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 2:52 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
The strong relationship between IAM and the management of the EPO (Team Battistelli) was well demonstrated when IAM set up UPC advocacy events
Summary: A new IAM ‘survey’ or ‘benchmark’ is more of the same, so the EPO’s management is going to love it, as usual
IAM’s 90th issue has come out and it’s full of hilarity as usual. It’s basically the “Pravda” of the patent maximalists. We’ve taken some time to quickly review it and shake the head.
IAM’s Tim Au and Adam Houldsworth released this thing (mostly behind paywall) titled “Europe enjoys a patent renaissance, despite Brexit and UPC uncertainty”.
“It’s basically the “Pravda” of the patent maximalists.”So based on less than 900 self-selecting responses (probably patent maximalists) they got themselves another one of those notorious surveys that Battistelli loves citing every year, making ludicrous claims about performance at the EPO. The paywall prevents us from seeing what they say about the EPO, but maybe Battistelli will soon reveal what they have claimed, as usual [1, 2, 3]. Here’s what they say on the US:
The US fightback, revealed in last year’s IAM benchmarking survey, may have come to an end. While 2017’s results revealed a favourable swing in sentiment towards the US patent regime, this year’s responses suggest that gloom may be descending once more – even before the Oil States judgment became known.
What they mean by “gloom” is less litigation (or less successful patent lawsuits), that’s all. The USPTO granted too many patents in error.
“What they mean by “gloom” is less litigation (or less successful patent lawsuits), that’s all. The USPTO granted too many patents in error.”We can imagine, based on the headline, that they will then praise what Battistelli has done (other than dropping some cash onto IAM via his external PR firm). In this same issue IAM also repeats the EPO’s “SMEs” propaganda, citing the EPO itself (the foundation or fountain of all lies) as ‘proof’ or ‘source’. Well, why not just copy-paste press releases from the EPO and Battistelli-commissioned ‘studies’? Instead John P McManus wrote this, linking to the EPO’s Web site and basically rephrasing the EPO:
Challenging the common misconception that patent protection is too complex and costly for small and medium-sized enterprises, recent European Patent Office case studies reveal that such companies are building success through their IP strategies
Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are widely perceived to lack the necessary means to maximise their IP potential. However, the European Patent Office (EPO) has published a series of case studies on a variety of SMEs across Europe which contradicts this (http://epo.org/sme). The companies interviewed spoke candidly about the commercial and financial benefits that intellectual assets contribute to their businesses and the importance of developing IP strategies early to best serve their long-term business interests.
To those who still think that IAM is independent from the EPO, a reality check may be needed. It’s more like an extension of Team Battistelli and it’s really worried that more people will find out about it. Battistelli will soon be a keynote speaker at IAM's event, where he will promote software patents. He even writes articles for IAM. For those who forgot just how much Battistelli loves IAM’s ‘surveys’, here are a couple of reminders (below). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Content is available under CC-BY-SA