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

10.03.18

More Patents Would Mean More Tax Evasion for Large Corporations and More Taxes/Duties on Society

Posted in Europe, Finance, Patents at 4:04 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Money in post

Summary: The EPO’s love-affair with abstract (e.g. software) patents is good news for those to whom quality/enforceability of patents doesn’t matter, only volume (for cross-licensing, shakedown and tax evasion purposes)

THE ‘plague’ which is patent maximalism has truly invaded Europe and a cabal of clueless officials, very few of whom have any background whatsoever in the sciences, would only listen to large law firms, not local businesses that actually produce things. This is a problem. Policy is being shaped to increase the volume of litigation rather than innovation. Evidence-based studies aren’t taken into account; instead it’s all dogma. It’s a ‘brain virus’. The patent microcosm profits from it.

“Examiners at the EPO are smart enough to see what the management is doing. It’s pressuring staff and compelling the examiners to grant software patents or risk getting sacked (a very high risk now that there are slow-motion layoffs).”As readers may very well know, 35 U.S.C. § 101 at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) means that software patents are virtually if not practically verboten (courts would not tolerate these) and software patents in Europe aren’t allowed or at severely restricted — a simple fact that doesn’t seem to bother former banker António Campinos, whose experience in this domain is about as limited as Battistelli’s.

Nowadays the EPO allows patenting of software provided you use buzzwords. So says Marks & Clerk’s Darren Hau (paid-for placement in Lexology), coming from a firm of software patents boosters. Hours ago he wrote:

In its annual update of the “Guidelines for Examination”, the European Patent Office (EPO) has provided further guidance for its examiners in relation to the patentability of inventions relating to mathematical methods and computer programs. This updated guidance is of particular relevance to inventions relating to the fast-growing field of Artificial Intelligence (AI). In part 1 of this article, we provide a summary of the key points from the updated guidelines that are relevant to AI inventions. Part 2 will follow, in which we will provide an in-depth assessment of the impact of the new guidelines on the patentability of AI inventions.

By way of background, the patentability of computer implemented inventions at the EPO has long been governed by the general principle of requiring a non-obvious technical solution to a technical problem, as established by the EPO Boards of Appeal in T0641/00 (COMVIK).

[...]

In summary, a claim to an AI algorithm based upon a mathematical or computational model on its own is likely to be considered non-technical. A simple recitation of a type of artificial intelligence model being employed, such as, a neural network, a support vector machine, or reasoning engine alone in the claims is unlikely to overcome such objections. However, restriction of the claim to a specific technical purpose and/or a specific technical implementation may impart technical character onto the AI algorithm and thus the invention may be considered patentable by the EPO.

Examiners at the EPO are smart enough to see what the management is doing. It’s pressuring staff and compelling the examiners to grant software patents or risk getting sacked (a very high risk now that there are slow-motion layoffs).

“The more patents they get, the more ‘tax returns’ (or exemptions) they can get. Therein lies the recipe for a perfect blunder if not plunder.”Who benefits from these patents? Certainly not Europe. Certainly not programmers, either. But it’s all about law firms and their foreign clients, which include patent trolls from other continents.

Also in the week’s early news there’s this is a reminder that France facilitates tax evasion using patents or what’s euphemistically being called “patent boxes”; this is costing billions to the British economy (lost tax), as revealed quite recently in annual figures, and it benefits rich corporations, not small ones. This new article has the details and from its relevant part:

Let’s be honest: France never was famous for its tax attractiveness. Its patent box regime, though quite modern when first enacted in the 1960’s, grew a bit rusty and rigid as compared to those adopted by our EU partners.

It turned out to be non-compliant with the latest OECD recommendations and, more specifically, with its conclusions under Action 8 of the BEPS action plan.

The latter advocated for the implementation of the so-called “nexus” approach, which correlates the benefit of the reduced tax rate applicable to profits derived from licensing, sublicensing, or selling patents and like assets to R&D expenses borne to create them. Surprisingly, such approach was absent from the French regime.

We, together with other tax practitioners and companies, strongly advocated for a thorough revision of the patent box regime. The current draft, unfortunately, suggests rather prudent changes and amendments.

First (and without much surprise), the draft bill proposes to adopt the nexus approach. Direct references to the OECD talks are made in the preparatory work of the bill. Going forward, the reduced rate will be directly correlated to the amount of R&D expenses borne by French taxpayers.

Luckily this regime will continue to coexist with the French R&D tax credit. In addition, the French government suggests expanding the scope of the regime to profits derived from the license or sale of IT software.

Up to now, these flows touching upon software fell out of the ambit of the French patent box regime (which, as its name suggests, was limited to patents and similar intangible property). Yet, patentable inventions would now be excluded from such regime.

One will regret that this regime was not modernized, notably by lowering the rate. The regime will quite certainly remain at 15%, whereas most EU countries have adopted IP tax regimes subject to 10% rates or lower.

So in the name of “tax attractiveness” they basically give tax cuts to the rich and then dress that up as “patents”, saying that it’s something to do with “R&D” — a lie so commonplace that anyone with a clue would likely giggle rather than nod. The more patents they get, the more ‘tax returns’ (or exemptions) they can get. Therein lies the recipe for a perfect blunder if not plunder.

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. Patents on Abstract Things and on Life (or Patents Which Threaten Lives) Merely Threaten the Very Legitimacy of Patent Offices, Including EPO

    Patent Hubris and maximalism pose a threat or a major risk to the very system that they claim to be championing; by reducing the barrier to entry (i.e. introducing low-quality or socially detrimental patents) they merely embolden ardent critics who demand patent systems as a whole be abolished; the EPO is nowadays a leading example of it



  2. Links 10/12/2018: Linux 4.20 RC6 and Git 2.20

    Links for the day



  3. US Courts Make the United States' Patent System Sane Again

    35 U.S.C. § 101 (Section 101), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and other factors are making the patent system in the US a lot more sane



  4. Today's USPTO Grants a Lot of Fake Patents, Software Patents That Courts Would Invalidate

    The 35 U.S.C. § 101 effect is very much real; patents on abstract/nonphysical ideas get invalidated en masse (in courts/PTAB) and Director Andrei Iancu refuses to pay attention as if he's above the law and court rulings don't apply to him



  5. A Month After Microsoft Claimed Patent 'Truce' Its Patent Trolls Keep Attacking Microsoft's Rivals

    Microsoft's legal department relies on its vultures (to whom it passes money and patents) to sue its rivals; but other than that, Microsoft is a wonderful company!



  6. Good News: US Supreme Court Rejects Efforts to Revisit Alice, Most Software Patents to Remain Worthless

    35 U.S.C. § 101 will likely remain in tact for a long time to come; courts have come to grips with the status quo, as even the Federal Circuit approves the large majority of invalidations by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) panels, initiated by inter partes reviews (IPRs)



  7. Florian Müller's Article About SEPs and the EPO

    Report from the court in Munich, where the EPO is based



  8. EPO Vice-President Željko Topić in New Article About Corruption in Croatia

    The Croatian newspaper 7Dnevno has an outline of what Željko Topić has done in Croatia and in the EPO in Munich; it argues that this seriously erodes Croatia's national brand/identity



  9. The Quality of European Patents Continues to Deteriorate Under António Campinos and Software Patents Are Advocated Every Day

    The EPC in the European Patent Office and 35 U.S.C. § 101 in the USPTO annul most if not all software patents; under António Campinos, however, software patents are being granted in Europe and the USPTO exploits similar tricks



  10. Team UPC is Still Spreading False Rumours in an Effort to Trick Politicians and Pressure Judges

    Abuses at the European Patent Office, political turmoil and an obvious legislative coup by a self-serving occupation that produces nothing have already doomed the Unitary Patent or Unified Patent Court (UPC); so now we deal with complete fabrications from Team UPC as they're struggling to make something out of nothing, anonymously smearing opposition to the UPC and anonymously making stuff up



  11. Patents on Life and Patents That Kill the Poor Would Only Delegitimise the European Patent Office

    After Mayo, Myriad and other SCOTUS cases (the basis of 35 U.S.C. § 101) the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is reluctant to grant patents on life; the European Patent Office (EPO), however, goes in the opposite direction, even in defiance of the European Patent Convention



  12. EPO 'Untapped Potential'

    "Campinos is diligently looking for ways to further increase the Office’s output without increasing the number of examiners," says the EPO-FLIER team



  13. Links 9/12/2018: New Linux Stable Releases (Notably Linux 4.19.8), RC Coming, and Unifont 11.0.03

    Links for the day



  14. Links 8/12/2018: Mesa 18.3.0, Mageia 7 Beta, WordPress 5.0

    Links for the day



  15. The European Patent Organisation is Like a Private Club and Roland Grossenbacher is Back in It

    In the absence of Benoît Battistelli quality control at the EPO is still not effective; patents are being granted like the sole goal is to increase so-called 'production' (or profit), appeals are being subjected to threats from Office management, and external courts (courts that assess patents outside the jurisdiction of the Office/Organisation) are being targeted with a long-sought replacement like the Unified Patent Court, or UPC (Unitary Patent)



  16. Links 7/12/2018: GNU Guix, GuixSD 0.16.0, GCC 7.4, PHP 7.3.0 Released

    Links for the day



  17. The Federal Circuit's Decision on Ancora Technologies v HTC America is the Rare Exception, Not the Norm

    Even though the PTAB does not automatically reject every patent when 35 U.S.C. § 101 gets invoked we're supposed to think that somehow things are changing in favour of patent maximalists; but all they do is obsess over something old (as old as a month ago) and hardly controversial



  18. The European Patent Office Remains a Lawless Place Where Judges Are Afraid of the Banker in Chief

    With the former banker Campinos replacing the politician Battistelli and seeking to have far more powers it would be insane for the German Constitutional Court to ever allow anything remotely like the UPC; sites that are sponsored by Team UPC, however, try to influence outcomes, pushing patent maximalism and diminishing the role of patent judges



  19. Many of the Same People Are Still in Charge of the European Patent Office Even Though They Broke the Law

    "EPO’s art collection honoured with award," the EPO writes, choosing to distract from what actually goes on at the Office and has never been properly dealt with



  20. Links 6/12/2018: FreeNAS 11.2, Mesa 18.3 Later Today, Fedora Elections

    Links for the day



  21. EPO, in Its Patent Trolls-Infested Forum, Admits It is Granting Bogus Software Patents Under the Guise of 'Blockchain'

    Yesterday's embarrassing event of the EPO was a festival of the litigation giants and trolls, who shrewdly disguise patents on algorithms using all sorts of fashionable words that often don't mean anything (or deviate greatly from their original meanings)



  22. The Patent Litigation Bubble is Imploding in the US While the UPC Dies in Europe

    The meta-industry which profits from feuds, disputes, threats and blackmail isn't doing too well; even in Europe, where it worked hard for a number of years to institute a horrible litigation system which favours global plaintiffs (patent trolls, opportunists and monopolists), these things are going up in flames



  23. Links 5/12/2018: Epic Games Store, CrossOver 18.1.0, Important Kubernetes Patch

    Links for the day



  24. Links 4/12/2018: LibrePCB 0.1.0, SQLite 3.26.0, PhysX Code

    Links for the day



  25. EPO Management Keeps Embarrassing Itself, UPC More Dead Than Before, and Nokia Turns Aggressive

    The EPO’s race to the bottom of patent quality continues, it’s now complemented by direct association with patent trolls and law stands in their way (for they repeatedly violate the law)



  26. The Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO) and IBM Are Part of the Software Patents Problem in the United States

    IBM's special role in lobbying for software patents (and against PTAB) needs to be highlighted; even Ethereum’s co-founder isn't happy about IBM's meddling in the blockchain space (with help from Hyperledger/Linux Foundation)



  27. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Not Falling for Attempts to Prevent It From Instituting Challenges

    In the face of patent maximalists' endless efforts to derail patent quality the tribunal keeps calm and carries on smashing bad patents



  28. Links 2/12/2018: Linux 4.20 RC5, Snapcraft 3.0, VirtualBox 6.0 Beta 3

    Links for the day



  29. The Patent Microcosm Hopes That the Federal Circuit Will Get 'Tired' of Rejecting Software Patents

    Trolls-friendly sites aren't tolerating this court's habit of saying "no" to software patents; the Chief Judge meanwhile acknowledges that they're being overrun by a growing number of cases/appeals



  30. 35 U.S.C. § 101 Continues to Crush Software Patents and Even Microsoft Joins 'the Fun'

    The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) and even courts below it continue to throw out software patents or send them back to PTAB and lower courts; there is virtually nothing for patent maximalists to celebrate any longer


CoPilotCo

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

CoPilotCo

Recent Posts