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

11.04.18

EPO Granting European Patents on Nature and on Thoughts

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 5:43 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: ‘Artificial’ nature and algorithms that make decisions ‘artificially’ become monopolies in defiance of common sense and the law; the aspiration is to facilitate as many lawsuits as possible, not rewarding or promoting science

IT IS very simple to demonstrate, based on quantitative data, that software patents in Europe are promoted under António Campinos a lot more often than under Battistelli. Corrupt management doesn’t understand anything other than numbers (e.g. patents granted) and it measures “quality” in terms of speed — the equivalent of a restaurant assessing the quality of its dishes based on the number served per hour. Dissatisfaction rates are measured by the litigation ‘industry’ (not even stakeholders at large) rather than courts or those on the receiving end of lawsuits rather than patents.

“Dissatisfaction rates are measured by the litigation ‘industry’ (not even stakeholders at large) rather than courts of those on the receiving end of lawsuits rather than patents.”To make matters worse, the EPO is ruining lives by granting patents on life — something which the USPTO too has been doing. The US patent office is nowadays granting patents on life itself and Kevin Noonan, who promotes this nonsense for a living, seems happy. He published “University of California/Berkeley Granted Another CRISPR Patent” several days ago and IPPro Patents’ coverage said that “[t]he US Patent and Trademark Office has granted the University of California a patent covering RNA guides that, when combined with Cas9 protein, can be used in gene editing. [...] In the most recent ruling, the US Court of Appeals concluded that the use of CRISPR-Cas9 in plant and animal cells is separately patentable from University of California, Berkeley, scientists Emmanuelle Charpentier and Jennifer Doudna’s use of CRISPR-Cas9 in any environment.”

“Seed patent growth prompts litigation and licensing fears,” said another new headline, alluding to the EU Biotech Directive and EPC:

European seed companies traditionally did not own many patents. The European Patent Convention and the EU Biotech Directive (98/44) sets out that plant varieties and essentially biological processes for plant production are excluded from patent protection – in stark contrast to other jurisdictions, such as the US.

The laws do not rule out patent protection on plant varieties altogether, but they did have the effect of severely limiting how many inventions seed companies could register in Europe.

These companies have instead relied on plant breeders’ rights (PBRs) for a long time to protect their inventions on the continent. Those rights grants them exclusive control over the propagating and harvesting material of a new plant variety so long as it is new, distinct, uniform and stable, and allow competitors to request and buy protected varieties to further breed and develop them.

But over the past five years, agritech has taken a massive leap forward and new tools have allowed businesses to more easily discover and replicate specific plant traits that may encompass several varieties. These traits and the technology used to find them can be patent protected in Europe.

As recently as weeks ago Campinos liaised with those who promote patents on seeds. Campinos, being anything but a scientist himself, can possibly use lack of understanding as an excuse (as Battistelli did).

“As recently as weeks ago Campinos liaised with those who promote patents on seeds.”Does Campinos know what “AI” is? Does Campinos just use the term because the marketing industry does? In Lexology-syndicated coverage from Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck, PC’s Jennifer B. Maisel and Eric D. Blatt we continue to see law firms piggybacking “AI” in an effort to sell abstract patents. It’s becoming easy as Campinos has just 'legalised' software patents by using buzzwords like "AI". He’s helped by Battistelli-connected sites like IAM, which only days ago wrote tweets like [1, 2]: “Sarboraria – we did a study a few years ago on AI-related patent applications post-Alice and found allowance rates in mid-80% range. Shows that innovators should not be dismissive of patenting for AI related inventions because of [Section] 101 [...] 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…”

Even the hardware industry is nowadays (name-)dropping the term “AI” for marketing purposes. Sometimes they say “Machine Learning”, which is a slightly different thing. They use these terms to market themselves; “European Patent Office Gives Guidance on Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning” from Cooley LLP’s Arthur Laycock and David Wraige (as mentioned here days ago) has been reposted in another site; all they care about is getting clients. World Intellectual Property Review wrote that “AI examination guidelines come into force at EPO” while mentioning “algorithms” explicitly:

Guidelines on the patentability of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning technologies came into force yesterday at the European Patent Office (EPO).

In its annual update of its examination guidelines, the EPO—for the first time—provided guidance for examiners on the fast-growing area of AI and machine learning.

According to the guidance, AI and machine learning are based on computational models and algorithms which are of an abstract mathematical nature, regardless of whether they can be “trained” based on training data.

These are just algorithms!

As Benjamin Hernion noted, “EPO replaces the EPC exclusions with the “technical” character, mentioned 10 times in here to make math and AI patentable https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines/e/g_ii_3_3_1.htm …”

But algorithms are definitely forbidden a patent monopoly. So what is going on here?

“These are just algorithms!”The EPO is meanwhile boasting about yet another event that openly promotes software patents (monopolies on algorithms) in Europe by writing: “You’re invited to join us for a thought-provoking day to discuss the issues involved in the global #patenting of emerging technologies and help define the way forward. For more info and to sign up, click here: http://bit.ly/indoeur”

This links to a page (warning: epo.org link) that says: “This provides opportunities for emerging technologies such as Artificial Intelligence, capable of “Machine Learning” and optimising systems too complex for manually programmed algorithms; and Blockchain, for digital-speed processing of secure transactions.”

The EPO also tweeted about “AI” explicitly just before the weekend: “We have published this summary of our conference on patenting #artificialintelligence. Read it for the main takeaways from the event: http://bit.ly/AIpatents” (they call software patents “AIpatents”).

“So the EPO basically allows patents on thoughts or minds or a thinking process.”When will politicians intervene (if ever)? Last month IP Kat wrote about this nonsense and it has just received this reply from Wim Mooij, who wrote: “Part of the confusion originates from the strange way people treat results of a class of computer algorithms under the classification AI. These “AI” algorithms require inputs and the selection of the inputs determines the results. Before showing the results, there like has been a further selection process. The creative aspects are: conceiving the idea of using these tools, finding a set of meaningful inputs and filtering the results. Surely worthy of copyright protection.”

But these are still algorithms; they’re just being categorised as if that magically makes them OK with the EU Directive, EPC etc. There’s clearly no “device” involved.

The following comment then says:

So the problem as I see it is that a work to which 9(3) applies has no human creator, and yet must still be original. This problem arises even in the not-so-AI computer games cases like Nova. But maybe there is no contradiction, if what is required is for the computer to demonstrate originality. This is in line with some definitions of what AI actually is – “AI seeks to make computers do the sorts of things that minds can do” [1] (things like produce original art in the copyright sense?).

So the EPO basically allows patents on thoughts or minds or a thinking process. As we shall demonstrate at a later stage, the other such term the EPO nowadays misuses is “Blockchain” and patents on software are being granted provided the applicant overuses such terms.

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

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

What Else is New


  1. Science Minister Sam Gyimah and the EPO Are Eager to Attack Science by Bringing Patent Trolls to Europe/European Union and the United Kingdom

    Team UPC has managed to indoctrinate or hijack key positions, causing those whose job is to promote science to actually promote patent trolls and litigation (suppressing science rather than advancing it)



  2. USF Revisits EPO Abuses, Highlighting an Urgent Need for Action

    “Staff Representation Disciplinary Cases” — a message circulated at the end of last week — reveals the persistence of union-busting agenda and injustice at the EPO



  3. Links 14/11/2018: KDevelop 5.3, Omarine 5.3, Canonical Not for Sale

    Links for the day



  4. Second Day of EPOPIC: Yet More Promotion of Software Patents in Europe in Defiance of Courts, EPC, Parliament and Common Sense

    Using bogus interpretations of the EPC — ones that courts have repeatedly rejected — the EPO continues to grant bogus/fake/bunk patents on abstract ideas, then justifies that practice (when the audience comes from the litigation ‘industry’)



  5. Allegations That António Campinos 'Bought' His Presidency and is Still Paying for it

    Rumours persist that after Battistelli had rigged the election in favour of his compatriot nefarious things related to that were still visible



  6. WIPO Corruption and Coverup Mirror EPO Tactics

    Suppression of staff representatives and whistleblowers carries on at WIPO and the EPO; people who speak out about abuses are themselves being treated like abusers



  7. Links 13/11/2018: HPC Domination (Top 500 All GNU/Linux) and OpenStack News

    Links for the day



  8. The USPTO and EPO Pretend to Care About Patent Quality by Mingling With the Terms “Patent” and “Quality”

    The whole "patent quality" propaganda from EPO and USPTO management continues unabated; they strive to maintain the fiction that quality rather than money is their prime motivator



  9. Yannis Skulikaris Promotes Software Patents at EPOPIC, Defending the Questionable Practice Under António Campinos

    The reckless advocacy for abstract patents on mere algorithms from a new and less familiar face; the EPO is definitely eager to grant software patents and it explains to stakeholders how to do it



  10. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is Working for Patent Trolls and Patent Maximalists

    The patent trolls' propagandists are joining forces and pushing for a patent system that is hostile to science, technology, and innovation in general (so as to enable a bunch of aggressive law firms to tax everybody)



  11. Team UPC, Fronting for Patent Trolls From the US, is Calling Facts “Resistance”

    The tactics of Team UPC have gotten so tastelessly bad and its motivation so shallow (extortion in Europe) that one begins to wonder why these people are willing to tarnish everything that's left of their reputation



  12. The Federal Circuit Bar Association (FCBA) Will Spread the Berkheimer Lie While Legal Certainty Associated With Patents Remains Low and Few Lawsuits Filed

    New figures regarding patent litigation in the United States (number of lawsuits) show a decrease by about a tenth in just one year; there's still no sign of software patents making any kind of return/rebound in the United States, contrary to lies told by the litigation 'industry' (those who profit from frivolous lawsuits/threats)



  13. Links 12/11/2018: Linux 4.20 RC2, Denuvo DRM Defeated Again

    Links for the day



  14. Automation of Searches Will Not Solve the Legitimacy Problem Caused by Patents Lust

    The false belief that better searches and so-called 'AI' can miraculously assess patents will simply drive/motivate bad decisions and already steers bad management towards patent maximalism (presumption of examination/validation where none actually exists)



  15. The Federal Circuit and PTAB Are Not Slowing Down; Patent Maximalists Claim It's 'Harassment' to Question a Patent's Validity

    There’s no sign of stopping when it comes to harassment of judges and courts; those who make a living from patent threats and litigation do anything conceivable to stop the ‘bloodbath’ of US patents which were never supposed to have been granted in the first place



  16. Patent Maximalists Will Latch Onto Return Mail v US Postal Service in an Effort to Weaken or Limit Post-Grant Reviews of US Patents

    An upcoming case, dealing with what governments can and cannot do with/to patents (specifically the US government and US patents), interests the litigation 'industry' because it loathes reviews of low-quality and/or controversial patents (these reviews discourage litigation or stop lawsuits early on in the cycle)



  17. Guest Post: EPO Spins Censorship of Staff Representation

    Another concrete example of Campinos' cynical story-telling



  18. Andrei Iancu and Laura Peter Are Two Proponents of Patent Trolls at the Top of the USPTO

    Patent offices do not seem to care about the law, about the courts, about judges and so on; all they care about is money (and litigation costs) and that’s a very major problem



  19. The Patent 'Industry' Wants Incitations and Feuds, Not Innovation and Collaboration

    The litigation giants and their drones keep insisting that they're interested in helping scientists; but sooner or later the real (productive) industry learns to kick them to the curb and work together instead of suing



  20. EPO 'Outsourcing' Rumours

    The EPO advertises jobs in Prague and Lisbon; this leads to speculations less than a year after António Campinos sent EU-IPO jobs to India (for cost reduction)



  21. Links 11/11/2018: Bison 3.2.1 and FreeBSD 12.0 Beta 4

    Links for the day



  22. Pro-Litigation Front Groups Like CIPA and Team UPC Control the EPO, Which Shamelessly Grants Software Patents

    With buzzwords and hype like "insurtech", "fintech", "blockchains" and "AI" the EPO (and to some degree the USPTO as well) looks to allow a very wide range of software patents; the sole goal is to grant millions of low-quality patents, creating unnecessary litigation in Europe



  23. Latest Loophole: To Get Software Patents From the EPO One Can Just Claim That They're 'on a Car'

    The EPO has a new 'study' (accompanied by an extensive media/PR campaign) that paints software as "SDV" if it runs on a car, celebrating growth of such software patents



  24. The Huge Cost of Wrongly-Granted European Patents, Recklessly Granted by the European Patent Office (EPO)

    It took 4 years for many thousands of people to have just one patent of Monsanto/Bayer revoked; what does that say about the impact of erroneous patent awards?



  25. Links 10/11/2018: Mesa 18.3 RC2, ‘Linux on DeX’ Beta and Windows Breaking Itself Again

    Links for the day



  26. Unified Patents Takes Aim at Velos Media SEPs, Passed From Patent Aggressor Qualcomm

    The latest endeavour from Unified Patents takes aim at notorious standard-essential patents (SEPs), which are not compatible with Free/Open Source software and are typically invalid as per 35 U.S.C. § 101 as well



  27. Stacked Panels of Front Groups Against PTAB and in Favour of Patents on Life/Nature

    So-called 'panels' where the opposition is occluded or excluded try to sell the impression that greatness comes from patent maximalism (overpatenting) rather than restriction based on merit and rational scope



  28. With Patent Trolls Like Finjan and Blackbird Tech out There, Microsoft in OIN Does Not Mean Safety

    With many patent trolls out there (Microsoft’s Intellectual Ventures alone has thousands of them) it’s not at all clear how Microsoft can honestly claim to have reached a “truce”; OIN deals with issues which last manifested/publicly revealed themselves a decade ago (Microsoft suing directly, not by proxy)



  29. Links 9/11/2018: Qt 5.12.0 Beta 4, Ubuntu On Samsung Galaxy Devices, Rust 1.30.1

    Links for the day



  30. Microsoft is Supporting Patent Trolls, Still. New Leadership at USPTO Gives Room for Concern.

    New statements from Microsoft's management (Andersen) serve to show that Microsoft hasn't really changed; it's just trying to sell "Azure IP Advantage", hoping that enough patent trolls with their dubious software patents will blackmail GNU/Linux users into adopting Azure for 'protection'


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