07.18.20

Gemini version available ♊︎

Marks & Clerk Reveals That António Campinos, With Zero Experience in Software, is Lobbying Judges (Who Are Supposed to be Independent But Are Actually Controlled by Him) to Open the Floodgates to Illegal Software Patents

Posted in Europe, Patents at 1:46 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Is it Campinos v BoA G 1/19?

“[The EPO] can’t distinguish between hardware and software so the patents get issued anyway.”

Marshall Phelps, Microsoft

Summary: There seems to be no improvement when it comes to the autonomy of judges at the EPO; the ‘king’ of EPOnia does everything by decree, but it’s more or less disguised as an extensive legal process (see G 2/19)

THE EPO became so bad at or uncaring about patent quality that it became more lenient than even the USPTO (home of software patents) when it comes to granting software patents. Marks & Clerk, a large law firm, said so publicly.

“…we already know that the judges, who certainly lack autonomy, are being pressured by the Office. This clear lack of independence (in principle and in practice) taints the outcome, whatever it may be.”Putting aside yet more fluff/propaganda sourced from the EPO (e.g. “Report [sic] Reveals UK at the Forefront of 3D Printing” from 3D Printing Progress; there’s more in languages other than English*), we’ve just found an article by Lara Sibley (Marks & Clerk), on behalf of software patents boosters. It is about a hearing to which one had to sign up (register) in advance. It was published in Mondaq on Friday (two days after the said hearing). As a reminder, António Campinos is already meddling in the case, pushing for an outcome that favours software patents in Europe, because just like Benoît Battistelli he doesn’t believe these judges have independence and EPC is just some ‘nuisance’ to be bypassed, not something to be respected.

“A pending case (G 1/19) relating to computer implemented simulation has been referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal,” Sibley wrote. “The case is relevant to the patenting of simulations in particular, but is potentially also relevant to the patenting of software more generally.”

This is why it can become an Alice-like test for Europe. Here are bits of the article with our comments added in yellow:

Computer simulations are widely used in the development of new products. Often simulations can have significant real world impact – much of the response to the ongoing coronavirus pandemic for example has been driven by detailed simulations of the impact on transmission rates of differing policy approaches [here we go again; opportunistic exploitation of COVID-19 by patent maximalists; this case predates COVID-19]. As with other software-based innovation however, patent claims directed to methods of simulation, design or modelling generally comprise features which in Europe are considered to fall under the category of mathematical methods [because that’s just what it is; statistics and predictions based upon statistics].

A pending case (G 1/19) relating to computer implemented simulation [“computer implemented” just means software, but they make it sound fancier and physical] has been referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal. The case is relevant to the patenting of simulations in particular, but is potentially also relevant to the patenting of software more generally. A hearing was held for G 1/19 on 15 July 2020. The background to this case, together with an overview of the hearing, is presented below.

[...]

Turning to the details of the case, G 1/19 concerns a computer-implemented method [read: algorithm] of modelling pedestrian crowd movement in an environment that includes the simulating of movement of a plurality of pedestrians through the environment.

The appellant submitted that the invention produced a technical effect in the form of “a more accurate simulation of crowd movement”. As to the technicality of simulating crowd movement, the appellant argued that simulating the movement of pedestrians yielded results which were no different from those obtained by modelling an electron using numerical methods. [Classic software patent]

The Board of Appeal was not convinced that numerically calculating the trajectory of an object as determined by the laws of physics is in itself a technical task producing a technical effect. In the Board of Appeal’s view, a technical effect requires, at a minimum, a direct link with physical reality, such as a change in or a measurement of a physical entity. [Sounds like they’re preconditioned/warm to the view that this is abstract, as per the US (case)law]

However, the EPO Guidelines for Examination refer to an important case (T 1227/05) where the Board of Appeal allowed a claim to a numerical simulation of a noise affected circuit. [Under whose administration?]

[...]

The referred questions 1 to 3 were then considered in order. The submissions concerning Question 1 were the most extensive, with some of these submissions also being referred to during the discussion of the later questions.

As regards Question 1, the meaning of a computer-implemented simulation “as such” was discussed. [Back we go to Brimelow’s “as such”; it is quite meaningless and in India it’s “per se”] The questions i) to v) posed by the Enlarged Board in their communication of 22 June 2020 (and summarised in the section above) were then considered. On question i), the appellant and the representatives of the President both made submissions that the “COMVIK case law” was suitable for the examination of computer-implemented simulations. During the discussion of potential and virtual technical effects in relation to question ii), various hypothetical examples were put forward by the representatives of the President, including that of a virtual wind tunnel, in which a virtual technical effect could solve the same technical problem as a real technical effect. On question iii), the appellant and the representatives of the President also both put forward submissions that a feature relating to a “non-invention” (such as a mental act) can still contribute to technical character in the context of a claim to a solution to a technical problem [Notice meddling by the Office, on behalf of patent maximalists]. Concerning question iv), and consideration of the purpose of the simulation, the appellant raised an intermediate example, lying between the case where a claim specifies simulation of an undefined “technical system” and the case where a claim specifies a very specific technical purpose (for example, simulation of a circuit subject to 1/f noise, as specified in T 1227/05). In relation to question v), it was submitted by the appellant that in the present case, the simulation of human behaviour is used to control a technical system, in particular the simulation can be used to improve the building structure. The representatives of the President also put forward the view that a technical contribution could still be present in certain circumstances, even where the simulation models human behaviour. Simulations used in the field of self-driving cars were put forward as an example here. [Very weak arguments from the President, who never wrote a single computer program in his whole life]

[...]

Once issued, the decision in G 1/19 may have a significant impact not just on patenting of simulations but also on the patenting of software at the EPO more generally, depending on the response and reasoning of the Enlarged Board. Encouragingly, [for this author’s litigation giant] the EPO President’s response to the questions are in favour of maintaining the patentability of simulations without, for example, requiring a direct link with physical reality, and expressed the view that it is sufficient the simulation method reflects, at least in part, technical principles underlying the simulated system or process. However, the Enlarged Board is not bound in any way by the President’s comments and will reach its own conclusions. [Nonsense! You clearly are in denial, perhaps out of convenience, about the Office’s abuse of these judges and there may be consequences for ruling the ‘wrong’ way.]

The outcome will likely be known later this year; we already know that the judges, who certainly lack autonomy, are being pressured by the Office. This clear lack of independence (in principle and in practice) taints the outcome, whatever it may be.
____
* As we noted before, we’d rather not spend too much time obsessing over this misuse of shallow journalists who think their job is to just amplify for PR departments of corporations and organisations (the “easy job”; no fact-checking needed, no real understanding or investigation of the underlying issues). Judging by sentences like “European inventors and businesses accounted for almost half of all AM patent applications filed with the EPO in the period from 2010 to 2018,” among others, we can tell they put no effort into actual journalism. They just reprint ‘prepared’ sentences from the EPO’s PR department.

Share in other sites/networks: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Reddit
  • email

Decor ᶃ Gemini Space

Below is a Web proxy. We recommend getting a Gemini client/browser.

Black/white/grey bullet button This post is also available in Gemini over at this address (requires a Gemini client/browser to open).

Decor ✐ Cross-references

Black/white/grey bullet button Pages that cross-reference this one, if any exist, are listed below or will be listed below over time.

Decor ▢ Respond and Discuss

Black/white/grey bullet button If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

DecorWhat Else is New


  1. Links 20/1/2022: McKinsey Openwashing and Stable Kernels

    Links for the day



  2. IRC Proceedings: Wednesday, January 19, 2022

    IRC logs for Wednesday, January 19, 2022



  3. Links 20/1/2022: Linuxfx 11.1 WxDesktop 11.0.3 and FreeIPMI 1.6.9 Released

    Links for the day



  4. Links 19/1/2022: XWayland 22.1 RC1 and OnlyOffice 7.0 Release

    Links for the day



  5. Links 19/1/2022: ArchLabs 2022.01.18 and KDE's 15-Minute Bug Initiative

    Links for the day



  6. When Twitter Protects Abusers and Abuse (and Twitter's Sponsors)

    Twitter is an out-of-control censorship machine and it should be treated accordingly even by those who merely "read" or "follow" Twitter accounts; Twitter is a filter, not a news/media platform or even means of communication



  7. IRC Proceedings: Tuesday, January 18, 2022

    IRC logs for Tuesday, January 18, 2022



  8. Links 19/1/2022: Wine 7.x Era Begins and Istio 1.12.2 is Out

    Links for the day



  9. Another Video IBM Does Not Want You to Watch

    It seems very much possible that IBM (or someone close to IBM) is trying to purge me from Twitter, so let’s examine what they may be trying to distract from. As we put it 2 years ago, "Watson" is a lot more offensive than those supposedly offensive words IBM is working to purge; think about those hundreds of Red Hat workers who are black and were never told about ethnic purges of blacks facilitated by IBM (their new boss).



  10. What IBM Does Not Want You to Watch

    Let's 'Streisand it'...



  11. Good News, Bad News (and Back to Normal)

    When many services are reliant on the integrity of a single, very tiny MicroSD card you're only moments away from 2 days of intensive labour (recovery, investigation, migration, and further coding); we've learned our lessons and took advantage of this incident to upgrade the operating system, double the storage space, even improve the code slightly (for compatibility with newer systems)



  12. Someone Is Very Desperate to Knock My Account Off Twitter

    Many reports against me — some successful — are putting my free speech (and factual statements) at risk



  13. Links 18/1/2022: Deepin 20.4 and Qubes OS 4.1.0 RC4

    Links for the day



  14. Links 18/1/2022: GNOME 42 Alpha and KStars 3.5.7

    Links for the day



  15. IRC Proceedings: Monday, January 17, 2022

    IRC logs for Monday, January 17, 2022



  16. Links 17/1/2022: More Microsoft-Connected FUD Against Linux as Its Share Continues to Fall

    Links for the day



  17. The GUI Challenge

    The latest article from Andy concerns the Command Line Challenge



  18. Links 17/1/2022: digiKam 7.5.0 and GhostBSD 22.01.12 Released

    Links for the day



  19. IRC Proceedings: Sunday, January 16, 2022

    IRC logs for Sunday, January 16, 2022



  20. Links 17/1/2022: postmarketOS 21.12 Service Pack 1 and Mumble 1.4 Released

    Links for the day



  21. [Meme] Gemini Space (or Geminispace): From 441 Working Capsules to 1,600 Working Capsules in Just 12 Months

    Gemini space now boasts 1,600 working capsules, a massive growth compared to last January, as we noted the other day (1,600 is now official)



  22. [Meme] European Patent Office Space

    The EPO maintains a culture of illegal surveillance, inherited from Benoît Battistelli and taken to a whole new level by António Campinos



  23. Gemini Rings (Like Webrings) and Shared Spaces in Geminspace

    Much like the Web of 20+ years ago, Gemini lets online communities — real communities (not abused tenants, groomed to be ‘monetised’ like in Facebook or Flickr) — form networks, guilds, and rings



  24. Links 16/1/2022: Latte Dock 0.11 and librest 0.9.0

    Links for the day



  25. The Corporate Cabal (and Spy Agencies-Enabled Monopolies) Engages in Raiding of the Free Software Community and Hacker Culture

    In an overt attack on the people who actually did all the work — the geeks who built excellent software to be gradually privatised through the Linux Foundation (a sort of price-fixing and openwashing cartel for shared interests of proprietary software firms) — is receiving more widespread condemnation; even the OSI has been bribed to become a part-time Microsoft outsourcer as organisations are easier to corrupt than communities



  26. EPO's Web Site Constantly Spammed by Lies About Privacy While EPO Breaks the Law and Outsources Data to the United States

    The António Campinos-led EPO works for imperialism, it not only protects the rich; sadly, António’s father isn’t alive anymore and surely he would blast his son for doing what he does to progress his career while lying to staff and European citizens



  27. Links 16/1/2022: Tsunami and Patents

    Links for the day



  28. IRC Proceedings: Saturday, January 15, 2022

    IRC logs for Saturday, January 15, 2022



  29. Links 16/1/2022: Year of the GNU/Linux Desktop and Catch-up With Patent Misinformation

    Links for the day



  30. Patrick Breyer, Unlike Most German Politicians, Highlights the Fact That Unified Patent Court (UPC) and Unitary Patent Are Incompatible With EU Law

    A longtime critic of EPO abuses (under both Benoît Battistelli and António Campinos leadership), as well as a vocal critic of software patents, steps in to point out the very obvious


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