02.12.19
Innovating the Idea That Software Patents (Monopolies on Algorithms) Are Covering ‘Artificial’ ‘Intelligence’ (AI and ML as Loopholes)
Summary: Patent law firms around the world love this new trick, which is framing software that makes decisions as “AI” (magically rendering it patent-eligible only in offices but not in courts, which the EPO hopes to replace/override anyway)
RECENTLY, including earlier today, we wrote about the ‘AI’ nonsense. Both the European Patent Office (EPO) and the USPTO use this nonsensical term, albeit it seems like the EPO started it. More recently WIPO too followed, along with the UN (that it’s a part or extension of).
“…this “AI” hype had started just before António Campinos became President of the EPO.”What on Earth is going on? Some hours ago IP Watch published this piece, behind paywall, about yet more of the same. Corrupt WIPO is promoting software patents (illegal almost everywhere) under the guise of “AI” and Catherine Saez played along by writing: “Artificial intelligence is with us to stay, and you can expect solutions to great challenges, but governments should be prepared to invest in education and research to keep up with the two global leaders of the field: the United States and China. This is in essence what several speakers said recently at an event held at the World Intellectual Property Organization.”
We might also add that much of this “AI” hype had started just before António Campinos became President of the EPO. It started at the end of Battistelli’s reign of corruption. Not that Campinos ended this corruption…
“It started at the end of Battistelli’s reign of corruption.”An article by Anton Blijlevens and Brook Dyer of AJ Park has also just been published under the title “European Patent Office Releases Guidelines On AI Patentability”.
For those who don’t know, AJ Park has long lobbied for software patents [1, 2, 3] in Australia and in New Zealand; well, now it’s pleased that EPO management calls software patents “AI” to cheat the system, warp the whole discussion and then grant fake European Patents. Blijlevens and Dyer wrote:
In November last year, the European Patent Office (EPO) released guidelines relating to the examination of patent applications for artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) based inventions. These guidelines, G-II 3.3.1, provide clarification on how patent applications for inventions relating to AI and ML will be handled by the EPO.
The patentability of AI and ML based inventions has received interest of late, partially due to media hype and the growing expectations and concerns surrounding AI and ML technologies. In May last year, the EPO hosted an international conference to discuss the challenges of patenting AI and ML inventions. Last June, the heads of the patent offices of China, Japan, Korea, Europe, and the United States (the IP5) jointly noted that the impact of AI and ML on the patent system was one of their top strategic priorities.
The newly released EPO guidelines address the issue of the patentability of AI and ML based inventions. The guidelines provide that inventions relating to AI and ML are based on ‘computational models and algorithms for classification, clustering, regression and dimensionality reduction, such as neural networks, genetic algorithms, support vector machines, k-means, kernel regression and discriminant analysis.’
These are all algorithms and I wrote about most of these, worked with them (programming) and explained these 15 years ago in university. It’s not novel and it’s clearly abstract; it’s mathematics. These aren’t novel or emerging because they have been around for a very long time. The theory behind them has been explored for decades and there’s plenty of literature (mostly equations). So just because people now apply “ML” to do X, Y and Z we’re supposed to think it’s unprecedented and “innovative”? There may not be prior art in patents because patents on mathematics are generally not permitted.
“The site they link to is a patent maximalists’ site that helped the EPO promote UPC and habitually spoke to corrupt Battistelli.”Some hours ago the EPO wrote: “Recent survey of IP professionals shows EPO is the best IP office for patenting AI technologies. Thank you for your trust in us!” (links to this recent page which we mentioned last week)
Trust? Whose? Patent maximalists’ maybe. The site they link to is a patent maximalists’ site that helped the EPO promote UPC and habitually spoke to corrupt Battistelli.
According to this site, the EPO is best for software patents (if framed as “AI”); so brags the EPO, which also habitually links to its media partner, IAM. They’re like propaganda mills of the EPO, based in London and closely connected to law firms in London.
“Judge Corcoran’s last bit of work dealt with such a patent application, which he rejected.”The EPO then wrote: “Business and commercialisation experts in the field of #MedTech should attend this event in Lund, Sweden: http://bit.ly/CII_medtech”
“CII_medtech” leads to a page titled “Computer-implemented inventions in Medtech with focus on value of patents for SMEs” (warning: epo.org link).
By “CII” the EPO means software patents (not allowed), but painted as “life-saving” (‘Med’ Tech) and “for SMEs” (the ‘small guy’). Incredible spin right there. Judge Corcoran's last bit of work dealt with such a patent application, which he rejected.
“Never mind if blockchains are software. So the EPO shamelessly promotes software patents which are not allowed.”The EPO then went on to writing: “#Blockchain and #patents? Hear what experts have to say on these two topics that are of relevance to your work…”
Last time the EPO brought “experts” to speak about blockchains these were patent trolls from the US. Never mind if blockchains are software. So the EPO shamelessly promotes software patents which are not allowed. The Office is blatant about this. It doesn’t even hide it.
Perhaps the EPO was all along gambling on bypassing the courts and replacing national judges with dependent (on the EPO) ones. How anarchic would that be? EPO managers or Team Campinos would suddenly be in charge of everything. Maybe Battistelli would then become chief of the UPC.
Max Walters of the patent microcosm’s press apparatus meanwhile spreads the typical misinformation and promotion of the awful UPC (his bosses want the UPC). Earlier today he published this alarmist piece that says this about the UPC:
Elsewhere the IP guidance reiterates concern regarding the UK’s participation in the planned Unified Patent Court (UPC). It warns: ‘It is unclear whether the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) would regard the participation of a non-EU member state in a UPC system with the power to refer matters to the CJEU as lawful, and in particular whether participation in the unitary patent part of the UPC is possible.’
The ability of solicitors to represent clients in the court would also be in doubt, the Society warns.
Whether the UPC comes into being at all is up in the air pending the completion of a constitutional challenge in Germany, one of the countries that must ratify the UPC agreement.
We are watching closely what Stephan Harbarth does next [1, 2] because it seems plausible that Team UPC is once again (as before in the Bundestag) relying on mischief in the FCC (throwing out the constitutional challenge in Germany based on financial ideology of a UPC ‘true believer’ with vested interests in the outcome). █
Content is available under CC-BY-SA