Reference: Dog-whistle politics

Summary: The introduction of software patents by means of buzzwords and hype officially starts today; the patent microcosm is pleased and is eager to use that to market its services to hopefuls and opportunists across the world (even patent trolls)

THINGS are looking rather promising for proponents of software patents in Europe, such as António Campinos and the man who gave him the job, corrupt Battistelli.

"What on Earth does today's EPO aspire to become? What does it model itself after?"The EPO boasts -- yet again -- that it works or caters for Texas (event not far from the Eastern District, which uses USPTO-granted abstract patents to attract patent trolls). What on Earth does today's EPO aspire to become? What does it model itself after?

We kindly ask EPO insiders to debate these issues and air concerns because if Europe starts to resemble Texas (or the 'new Texas'), then we're all in trouble, including EPO examiners. The EPO isn't a "candy store" for patents; it wasn't supposed to be anyway. Patents should be a special case, reserved to particular domains and dispensed conservatively, not as a matter of abundance.

Having watched with concern the past 2 days' news, we've come across Potter Clarkson LLP's Saiful Khan (litigation 'industry') welcoming the EPO's decision to violate the EPC and European directives against software patents. It's mostly behind paywall and under the headline "AI gets welcome EPO guidelines debut" (AI being a dog whistle for software patents).

The latest version of the European Patent Office’s Guidelines for Examination, valid from 1 November 2018, contains, for the first time, direct…

Jennifer Maisel and Eric Blatt also wrote about the EPO's decision to violate the EPC (software patents are not considered acceptable -- not really -- and being 'inclusive' towards these means abandoning patent quality). To quote their article:

Innovators in artificial intelligence and machine learning technologies should take note of the European Patent Office’s recently published guidelines for artificial intelligence and machine learning, effective Nov. 1, 2018

That's today.

Copyright law is enough for software developers; software patents are an abomination and those who promote them actively attack the trade of programming and by extension science/technology. Here's what IAM, the patent trolls' lobby, wrote about software patents under the guise of "AI": "Last panel of the day - @Google’s Aaron Abood, @Arm’s Robert Calico, @intel’s Helen Li and Kenneth Lustig from @realwearinc discuss the IP challenges when protecting AI..."

By "protecting AI" they mean patenting software; it's pretty obvious given the context, on which we'll expand this coming weekend. Cooley LLP too seems happy that the EPO under corrupt management openly welcomes software patents; applicants have long relied on buzzwords (words/terms like "ICT", "technical effect", "4IR, "IoT" "AI" and so on) to do it. Now there are new rules:

For the first time, the European Patent Office (EPO) has issued guidance on the patentability of artificial intelligence and machine learning technologies. The guidance will become valid on 1 November 2018.

In order to receive a European patent for an invention, the invention needs to be novel, inventive and susceptible of industrial application. As part of meeting these requirements, the claimed subject-matter needs to have a technical character as a whole. The new guidance helps to assess whether inventions relating to artificial intelligence have the necessary technical character.

[...]

The EPO's new guidance makes it clear that the use of artificial intelligence and/or machine learning technologies themselves is not enough to provide the technical character that the EPO looks for in order to grant a patent. However, a technical application of artificial intelligence and/or machine learning is likely to be considered to have a technical character if the application results in a solution to a technical problem. As is usual with European patent practice, it is necessary to include in the claims the technical features that solve the technical problem.

So welcome to the new guidance or guidelines, whose net effect is lower patent quality. Perhaps Battistelli will open champagne for that; just perhaps. ⬆