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

What Else is New


  1. The European Patent Office Remains a Crooked Patent Office That Harms Staff and Abolishes the Rule of Law

    The EPO remains a sordid mess, but those who follow mainstream media might not know anything about it because it's not covered anywhere in 2019



  2. USPTO and EPO Faking Growth by Granting Patents on Everything in Nature, But Campaigners Strike Back

    The patent microcosm is eating the world; everything under the Sun must be patented, they insist, even life itself (so they can 'pirate' the Commons and then charge us a tax for 'access' or 'license' to it)



  3. IBM Happy That Patent Quality at EPO Collapsed and It's Easy to Get Software Patents

    The EPO keeps granting illegal European Patents and the media almost never mentions this illegality because it's in too amicable a relationship (typically financial) with the EPO



  4. The Linux Foundation's Staff Uses Windows and Microsoft. Now the Foundation Outsources the Coding and Hosting, Too (to Microsoft of Course).

    The disturbing turns of the self-described "Linux" Foundation, which seems to be promoting proprietary software and even Microsoft rather than Linux and Free/Open Source software while the role or capacity of Torvalds is being gradually diminished



  5. Links 25/6/2019: Raspberry Pi 4, Ubuntu's Change of Mind, Wayland’s Weston 6.0.1

    Links for the day



  6. Patent Extremism: Stacking the Panels, the Surveys, the Hearings, the Debates

    Projection tactics would have the public believe that those who oppose corruption are simply radicals; patent polarity has come to the point where if one isn't a "true believer" in blackmail (patent trolls) or opposes bribery, then one is simply a "fringe" and akin to terrorists



  7. Links 24/6/2019: Linux 5.2 RC6, Skrooge 2.20.0, ZFS vs. OpenZFS

    Links for the day



  8. The EPO Needs a President Who Obeys the Law, Not One Who Obeys Battistelli

    Succession based on nepotism at Europe's second-largest institution served to shown how inherently broken things had become and why cover-up of injustices is nowadays paramount (not fixing the flaws/ills but merely perpetuating them)



  9. With Water (Treatment) Already Patented It Won't Take Long for Patents (and Patent Royalties) on Air

    A 'paper economy' is what Europe turns into if the current trajectory is followed (led by lawyers, not producers)



  10. Bill Gates Said He Was on a “Jihad” Against GNU/Linux, But GNU/Linux Users/Developers Engaged in Self-Defense Are Foul-Mouthed 'Microsoft Haters'?

    Microsoft, which routinely commits very serious crimes, tries to come across as some sort of philanthropy whereas those who share their work with the public (for greater good) are described as erratic, rude and unworthy of respect from corporations (outcasts basically, deprived of income source)



  11. What Patents the EPO Has Just Awarded (With a Special Reward), Not Just Granted

    The EPO's practice of elevating some patents over the other patents (European Patents) is perhaps more of a societal liability than the EPO cares to realise



  12. Required Reading: Mental State of Team Battistelli/Campinos

    On the heels of yesterday's article about Team Battistelli/Campinos, here are some recommended/required papers on the problem which likely plagues the Office



  13. Links 23/6/2019: Wine 4.11, FreeBSD 11.3 RC2

    Links for the day



  14. Microsoft Apparently Did a Patrick Durusau on Wim Coekaerts to Broaden Its Control Over GNU/Linux

    Microsoft tactics for defection and takeover of the competition (without coming across as hostile) aren't new tactics; internal documents from Microsoft explain how to achieve this



  15. EPO Directors Would be Wise to Rebel Against Team Campinos While They Still Have the Job

    As the EPO continues its bold journey towards dictatorship (where presidencies are passed between friends and ‘circles’ are former colleagues or close confidants) Techrights urges those who have power to speak out — e.g. EPO judges and Directors — to do something before it’s too late



  16. American Front Group Open Invention Network (Riding the Linux Brand) is a Proponent of Software Patents in Europe

    The impact of American multinationals in Europe is difficult to deny; in fact, we're observing the same old lobbying/lobbies still working hard albeit more covertly (typically using front groups)



  17. Say 'Hey Hi' to Software Patents

    Using the “AI” (“HEY HI”) hype the ‘community’ of patent maximalists hopes that every little (and possibly very old) algorithm will suddenly sound amazing and innovative — to the point where it becomes unthinkable to deny a patent monopoly on it



  18. A Personal Note From Ted MacReilly (How Microsoft Works Against GNU/Linux)

    A tongue-in-cheek write-up highlighting the ways Microsoft insiders think and how they strategise against GNU/Linux and Free/libre software



  19. The Linux Foundation's New Vice Chair, Wim Coekaerts, Worked for Microsoft

    The Linux Foundation is boosting the Microsoft boosters and calls that "community"



  20. Links 21/6/2019: GNOME 3.33.3, 32-Bit Support Further Neglected, DragonFlyBSD 5.6.1 Released

    Links for the day



  21. Leaked: Harassment of EPO Directors by Team Campinos

    “New BIT organisation and staff changes,” a novel kind of newspeak, means that Directors are being severely punished without due process at all (“hidden disciplinary measure without disciplinary proceedings”)



  22. Patent Professionals in Europe Have Devolved Into a Marketing Industry

    Lies, buzzwords and hype waves is all that the patent bubble in Europe boils down to these days; loads of bogus patents get granted only for European judges to smack these down (if one can afford the court battle)



  23. Almost Six Months After Iancu Said He Would Make Software Patents Great Again Nothing Has Actually Changed

    We're just a fortnight away from the ludicrous plan of Iancu celebrating 6 months (without accomplishing anything)



  24. Links 20/6/2019: Kubernetes 1.15, Alpine 3.10.0 and Librem 5 June Software Update

    Links for the day



  25. Ignore the EPO's Dumb Festival and Focus on the Abuses Against the Workforce and Its Quality of Work

    Don’t lose sight of the appalling behaviour of the management of the EPO; the last thing it wants is press coverage about its gross abuses and corruption — an aspect it spent literally millions of euros to bury (gaming the news cycle)



  26. Microsoft Attempting to Destroy the Careers of Its Critics, Including Free Software Proponents

    Microsoft isn't changing and has not changed; the tactics described above are still being used, even by its "Open Source" (or "Open at Microsoft") people, who did this to me



  27. Links 19/6/2019: Linux Mint Vs Vista 10, Qt 5.13 Released

    Links for the day



  28. The Linux Foundation's Business Model

    The Linux Foundation's plan, illustrated



  29. Links 18/6/2019: i386 Abandoned by Canonical and a New osquery 'Community'

    Links for the day



  30. Indifference or Even Hostility Towards Patent Quality Results in Grave Injustice

    The patent extravaganza in Europe harms small businesses the most (they complain about it), but administrative staff at patent offices only cares about the views of prolific applicants rather than the interests of citizens in respective countries


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