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

06.04.19

ACLU Enters the Patent Debate to Highlight Ethical Dangers Associated With Proposed Changes to 35 U.S.C. § 101 and More

Posted in America, Patents at 2:13 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Who owns nature? Nobody.

Night in nature

Summary: More voices of reason (and ethics) enter the debate about a notorious bill designed to serve patent law firms, which in effect subsidised this bill so as to increase their profits (more frivolous litigation)

THIS year we no longer cover USPTO affairs like we did in past years. Most of the material on the topic goes directly into our daily links. At the start of the year we said we would observe the situation with regards to 35 U.S.C. § 101 and various court decisions. We’d only become more vocal again if the Federal Circuit changed course or the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) was abolished (the inter partes review (IPR) procedure was repeatedly defended by SCOTUS, so it’s unlikely to go away).

What’s at stake here isn’t just software patents, which are still being granted even in Europe because the European Patent Office (EPO) does not obey the law or the EPC (António Campinos has made that even worse!). What’s also at stake here is patenting of life/nature. There’s Alice, Mayo and beyond (although these two formed the core or the base of existing top-level caselaw). It’s generally about patent scope. How far can it be stretched?

“It’s generally about patent scope.”Earlier today we saw this puff piece titled “BARD1 Life Sciences’ European Patent No 2606358 Validated In France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Switzerland And UK”. It’s not exactly news that the EPO makes cancer treatment a monopoly [1, 2, 3], which in turn prices various procedures way out of reach, causing poor cancer patients to needlessly die — an ethical dilemma if not breach of human rights. In their own words: “The company has advised that this patent family (PCT/IB2011/053635) is protecting the sequence of various BARD1 isoforms specific to lung and colorectal cancer. The granted EP260663 claims are directed towards lung cancer.”

When we write about software patents we rarely deal with “life and death” situations; this is why many public interest groups revolve around patents on life/nature rather than software patents, which is understandable. It has gotten so bad that patent trolls can now kill a lot of patients for profit. Yes, in the age of PTAB cutbacks and Iancu’s facts-free regime (trolls are still a very major problem which Trump’s circus clown is arrogantly dismissing/denying) it can be very profitable to attack the poor, holding them hostage. “19 of the 24 patent suits filed Friday were filed by #patenttrolls, according to RPX Corp. That’s 79%,” said United for Patent Reform earlier this week. Imagine how bad it would be if 35 U.S.C. § 101 did not exist or got watered down.

Last night I stumbled upon this post from ACLU. I read all of their posts (over RSS) and we link to virtually all of their articles in our daily links, so I was very surprised to find them writing about patents, which is unusual. They ask the public to help them stop patenting of life itself. Even ACLU, which typically focuses on civil liberties and minorities, has become fed up with patent extremists. Here’s a portion of what it wrote:

Draft Legislation Will Try to Undo Supreme Court Precedent Forbidding Patenting of Human Genes

This morning the ACLU, along with 169 other civil rights, medical, scientific, patient advocacy, and women’s health organizations, including the Mayo Clinic, Breast Cancer Action, Lung Cancer Research Foundation, the Huntington’s Disease Society of America, the Women’s March, University of Washington, and many others sent a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Intellectual Property strongly opposing a draft bill that would allow companies to patent our genes. Yes. You read that right.

The draft bill is deeply concerning because if it becomes law, it would allow private companies to hold patents granting them 20-year monopolies over genes, their links to disease, other products of nature and abstract ideas. Patent-holders could control who can provide testing for genetic mutations associated with diseases like cancer, muscular dystrophy, Alzheimer’s disease, heart disease, and other rare and common diseases, driving up prices for testing and jeopardizing patients. They could also control which researchers could examine and study the gene, stifling the free exchange of information and impeding the progress of developing treatments.

Beginning early this year, Senators Tillis and Coons, held closed-door roundtables with industry representatives and others interested in changing the law to discuss radically rewriting Section 101 of the Patent Act, which currently prohibits patents on laws of nature, products of nature, and abstract ideas. Now, the Senators, along with Reps. Johnson, Collins, and Stivers, have released the draft bill, which removes this prohibition and erases all related prior court precedent. Senators Tillis and Coons will be holding three hearings this month, starting tomorrow, calling 45 witnesses to discuss changes to Section 101. Disturbingly, of the 30 witnesses testifying so far, very few organizations will speak on behalf of patients (the ACLU will be one of the exceptions) and the broader scientific community, .

Let’s back up a bit. Genes are fundamental to who we are. They can determine our hair color, our height, whether we have seasonal allergies. Mutations in them also are associated with disease. For example, mutations in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes are correlated with a 50-80% higher risk of breast cancer and a 20-50% higher risk of ovarian cancer, as well as elevated risks of pancreatic and prostate cancers. People with certain personal or family histories of cancer may wish to be tested so they can assess their options.

Now, consider this. What if only one lab can do the testing, because it has patented the genes?

Soon thereafter Watchtroll was, as expected, attacking ACLU (“Sherry Knowles Responds to ACLU’s Urgent Phone Briefing and Letter Opposing Reform to Section 101″). Watchtroll was characteristically cheering for patent aggression in “Restoring IP Rights After the Destructive, Unjust Antitrust Rendering in FTC v. Qualcomm” and in a newer article Watchtroll says that “those who oppose reforms to Section 101 are briefing staffers on the Hill today in an attempt to conflate the 101 and drug pricing/ gene patenting debates.”

Nope, these issues are all very much related! No conflating here at all. Software patents are affected, but it’s not limited to those. There are serious ethical consequences.

Kevin E. Noonan then “(Predictably) Opposed” ACLU for opposing patents on life in “ACLU (Predictably) Opposes Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Proposal”. These charlatans and frauds make a living by lobbying for monopoly on life itself (as if they invented nature). He speaks of “Patentable Subject Matter” in terms that are misleading and false, just like most law firms. To quote: “It is perhaps not surprising that several medical groups, as well as other organizations with little regard for the patent system, and their legal accomplice, the American Civil Liberties Union, would oppose the recent efforts to amend the subject matter eligibility section of the statute (35 U.S.C. § 101) to correct the imbalances caused by recent U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence on the matter. After all, one of the pillars of the current standard for (in)eligibility was the Court’s decision in AMP v. Myriad Genetics, championed by the ACLU beginning with the District Court case challenging “gene patenting” (an effort, not inconsequentially, that has taken the place of Nazis marching through the predominantly Jewish suburb of Skokie, IL in the group’s fundraising efforts). This opposition has taken the form of a letter to Senators Coons (D-DE) and Tillis (R-NC) as well as Representatives Collins, Johnson, and Stivers setting forth these groups’ views.”

Stay classy, Mr. Noonan. Comparing the ACLU to Nazis simply because they’re free speech (First Amendment) absolutists?

“After software patents,” Benjamin Henrion then wrote, “they also want gene patents. Good luck to get the “patent maximalist” bill through!”

“They already have such patents,” I’ve told him, “but courts often toss these out (Mayo, Myriad etc.)”

“Majority of software developers oppose software patents,” he told Coons. “By ignoring this, you will attract fire. Your proposed bill is just a copy/paste from IPO, the patent lobby.”

Institutional corruption is what happens here. Watch who's funding (bribing) Coons. Might as well just let the corporations themselves write the law instead of resorting to indirection by bribery.

The Senate hearing is (or are) of course a total farce, as we explained here several times before. Kochs inside the panels. Mossoff and others (quite a few of them around) are treated as experts. Even the lobbyist David Kappos is at a hearing, along with think tanks. What a farce. What a public display of corruption (policies bought using lies). Notice how David Kappos is connected to these Koch ‘scholars’ in a way just explained Josh Landau (CCIA). Yesterday he wrote:

This week marks the start of three separate hearings on a draft § 101 bill introduced by Senators Tillis (R-NC) and Coons (D-DE). The draft bill—analyzed last week by Patent Progress—is fundamentally flawed. Fortunately, it’s only a draft bill, and there’s still time for it to be modified to make it less harmful to innovation.

Unfortunately, based on the announced witness list for the first hearing, that might not happen.

[...]

Three professors and two representatives from think tanks. Unfortunately, we again have an academic representative who has most salient research on the topic is based on fatally flawed data and poor interpretations.

Prof. Adam Mossoff, of the GMU Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property, wrote a paper a few years ago. That paper claimed to have identified 1,700 applications—from a set of 17,000 applications—that were denied in the U.S. because of § 101 but allowed in other jurisdictions. Setting aside whether the foreign jurisdiction patents were truly equivalent, which is not guaranteed, there’s a few problems with his conclusions.

In particular, many of the applications Mossoff identified didn’t actually illustrate what he claimed they did—that the U.S. patent system, based on § 101, was preventing these applications from being patented. Examining a set of 14 applications called out as exemplary in his paper, only one was abandoned solely because of § 101. But three of those applications overcame a § 101 rejection and were abandoned, either because the prior art prevented patentability or in favor of a continuation. And the remainder had significant rejections, either based on the prior art or based on lack of written description or enablement. Reviewing a larger set of 100 applications in the dataset of 17,000 applications supposedly abandoned because of § 101, the trend holds. 19% had overcome their § 101 rejection when abandoned and 11% never received a patentable subject matter rejection under § 101. Only 14% were clearly abandoned due to § 101.

Some of Mossoff’s errors may derive from the dataset he was provided. (The data was provided by Bob Sachs and David Kappos, who you might remember from the discussion above.) That dataset claims to be of 17,000 applications which were rejected under § 101 and then abandoned. That description implies that the abandonment was based on § 101—but that’s far from the case. Examining the dataset, 529 (3%) of the 17,000 had been allowed at the time they were abandoned—hardly § 101’s fault. And 2,106 (13%) had no § 101 rejection remaining when they were abandoned. And of the remainder, a number had non-subject matter § 101 rejections, such as being rejected for claiming a perpetual motion machine or a cold fusion device. Only 1,685 (11%) were clearly abandoned due to § 101 rejections.

With source data as flawed as this, it shouldn’t be any surprise that Mossoff reached incorrect conclusions. But incorrect or misleading data isn’t the kind of thing Congress should use to decide what is and isn’t patent eligible.

Coverage hereon will deal with what they actually say or said. No doubt soon to be amplified by Watchtroll and others…

Henrion asked: “Anyone recording the US staged panels on restoring software patents via the “patent maximalist” bill?”

Maybe they’d rather shut the public out. If only the public saw what kind of people are treated as “experts” there; it’s a hornets’ nest of lobbyists, not a legitimate public debate with public interests at heart.

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. Links 22/9/2019: LLVM 9.0.0 and FreeBSD 12.1 Beta

    Links for the day



  2. Links 21/9/2019: Plasma 5.17 Beta in Kubuntu, Cockpit 203

    Links for the day



  3. IBM Cannot Become a True Friend of Free Software Because of Its Current Patent Policy

    IBM needs to quit bullying people/companies with software patents; that would help towards appeasement of IBM critics and sceptics



  4. When Patent 'Professionals' Sound Like Children Who Learned to Parrot Some Intentionally-Misleading Buzzwords, Myths and Lies

    With buzzwords like "AI" and misleading terms like "IP" the litigation zealots are trying to convince themselves (and the public) that software is a physical thing and a "property" which needs "protecting" from "theft"; it doesn't seem to bother these people that copyright law already covers software<



  5. The European Parliament Needs to Become More Outspoken About EPO Abuses

    There are few encouraging signs in Europe right now because the EPO's disregard for patent law (striving to just grant as many patents as possible) earned it much-needed backlash from the European Parliament



  6. Links 19/9/2019: German Federal Ministry of the Interior Wants FOSS, Top Snaps Named

    Links for the day



  7. Buying the Voices of 'Linux' People to Repeat Microsoft's Talking Points While Removing Our Icons and Leaders (Calling Them Sexist)

    The dirty games leveraged by several companies including Microsoft target charismatic people who are essential for morale and leadership; these tactics aren't particularly novel



  8. When the EPO Sees Itself as Above European Law, Grants Patents in Defiance of the EPC (Its Founding Document) and Violates Staff's Labour Rights/Protections (International Law)

    The absurd state of affairs at the EPO has reached the point where laws at every level are being violated and even judges are being threatened or vainly ignored; the EU is belatedly trying to tackle these issues, which have actually cost its credibility a great deal and threaten the perception of Rule of Law at multiple levels



  9. Links 19/9/2019: Samba 4.11.0 and Kubernetes 1.16

    Links for the day



  10. Update on Koch v EPO: Internal Appeals Committee (IAC) Composition Still Likely Illegal

    An important EPO case, concerning a dismissed staff representative, shows what ILO-AT and the EPO's Internal Appeals Committee boil down to



  11. Links 18/9/2019: Fedora Linux 31 Beta, PCLinuxOS 2019.09 Update

    Links for the day



  12. Links 17/9/2019: CentOS 7.7 and Funtoo Linux 1.4 Released

    Links for the day



  13. EPO is Not European

    Internationalists and patent trolls are those who stand to benefit from the 'globalisation' of low-quality and law-breaking patents such as patents on algorithms, nature and life itself; the EPO isn't equipped to serve its original goals anymore



  14. The EPO's Central Staff Committee and SUEPO (Staff Union) Respond to “Fascist Bills” Supported by EPO President António Campinos

    Raw material pertaining to the latest Campinos "scandal"; what Campinos said, what the Central Staff Committee (CSC) said, and what SUEPO said



  15. Storm Brewing in the European Patent Office After a Hot Summer

    Things aren't rosy in EPOnia (to say the least); in fact, things have been getting a lot worse lately, but the public wouldn't know judging by what media tells the public (almost nothing)



  16. Why I Once Called for Richard Stallman to Step Down

    Guest post from the developer who recently authored "Getting Stallman Wrong Means Getting The 21st Century Wrong"



  17. As Richard Stallman Resigns Let's Consider Why GNU/Linux Without Stallman and Torvalds Would be a Victory to Microsoft

    Stallman has been ejected after a lot of intentionally misleading press coverage; this is a dark day for Software Freedom



  18. Links 16/9/2019: GNU Linux-libre 5.3, GNU World Order 13×38, Vista 10 Breaks Itself Again

    Links for the day



  19. Links 16/9/2019: Qt Quick on Vulkan, Metal, and Direct3D; BlackWeb 1.2 Reviewed

    Links for the day



  20. Richard Stallman's Controversial Views Are Nothing New and They Distract From Bill Gates' Vastly Worse Role

    It's easier to attack Richard Stallman (RMS) using politics (than using his views on software) and media focus on Stallman's personal views on sexuality bears some resemblance to the push against Linus Torvalds, which leans largely on the false perception that he is sexist, rude and intolerant



  21. Links 16/9/2019: Linux 5.3, EasyOS Releases, Media Backlash Against RMS

    Links for the day



  22. Openwashing Report on Open Networking Foundation (ONF): When Open Source Means Collaboration Among Giant Spying Companies

    Massive telecommunications oligopolies (telecoms) are being described as ethical and responsible by means of openwashing; they even have their own front groups for that obscene mischaracterisation and ONF is one of those



  23. 'Open Source' You Cannot Run Without Renting or 'Licensing' Windows From Microsoft

    When so-called ‘open source’ programs strictly require Vista 10 (or similar) to run, how open are they really and does that not redefine the nature of Open Source while betraying everything Free/libre software stands for?



  24. All About Control: Microsoft is Not Open Source But an Open Source Censor/Spy and GitHub/LinkedIn/Skype Are Its Proprietary Censorship/Surveillance Tools

    All the big companies which Microsoft bought in recent years are proprietary software and all of the company’s big products remain proprietary software; all that “Open Source” is to Microsoft is “something to control and censor“



  25. The Sad State of GNU/Linux News Sites

    The ‘media coup’ of corporate giants (that claim to be 'friends') means that history of GNU/Linux is being distorted and lied about; it also explains prevalent lies such as "Microsoft loves Linux" and denial of GNU/Free software



  26. EPO President Along With Bristows, Managing IP and Other Team UPC Boosters Are Lobbying for Software Patents in Clear and Direct Violation of the EPC

    A calm interpretation of the latest wave of lobbying from litigation professionals, i.e. people who profit when there are lots of patent disputes and even expensive lawsuits which may be totally frivolous (for example, based upon fake patents that aren't EPC-compliant)



  27. Links 15/9/2019: Radeon ROCm 2.7.2, KDE Frameworks 5.62.0, PineTime and Bison 3.4.2

    Links for the day



  28. Illegal/Invalid Patents (IPs) Have Become the 'Norm' in Europe

    Normalisation of invalid patents (granted by the EPO in defiance of the EPC) is a serious problem, but patent law firms continue to exploit that while this whole 'patent bubble' lasts (apparently the number of applications will continue to decrease because the perceived value of European Patents diminishes)



  29. Patent Maximalists, Orbiting the European Patent Office, Work to 'Globalise' a System of Monopolies on Everything

    Monopolies on just about everything are being granted in defiance of the EPC and there are those looking to make this violation ‘unitary’, even worldwide if not just EU-wide



  30. Unitary Patent (UPC) Promotion by Team Battistelli 'Metastasising' in Private Law Firms

    The EPO's Albert Keyack (Team Battistelli) is now in Team UPC as Vice President of Kilburn & Strode LLP; he already fills the media with lies about the UPC, as one can expect


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