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 22/9/2021: Google 'Upstream First' in Linux and New Maui Report

    Links for the day



  2. Links 22/9/2021: Mesa 21.2.2, GNOME 41 Released

    Links for the day



  3. Socially- or Corporate- or Centrally-Controlled Surveillance, Censorship and Throttling is Not Media

    The 'social control media' situation is getting out of hand; in YouTube, for example, there's a broad revolt against strict editorial control by Google and in Twitter it seems like ordinary users aren't shown so much to people who actually "follow" them



  4. Links 22/9/2021: Panfrost's OpenGL ES 3.1 Conformanc and NovProg 3.2.0

    Links for the day



  5. IRC Proceedings: Tuesday, September 21, 2021

    IRC logs for Tuesday, September 21, 2021



  6. Agents of Monopoly: WIPO is Lobbying for or Reinforcing Microsoft Monopoly by Pushing Its Proprietary Software and Formats

    The World Intellectual Property [sic] Organization — like the EPO (where António Campinos outsourced IT systems to Microsoft) — is choosing the most notorious/corrupt ‘tech’ ‘company’ (cult) instead of open standards and, as the links above show, this is nowadays done inside the United States and outside the United States as well, raising legal questions/ire



  7. Links 21/9/2021: Windowsfx 11, New Chrome, and LF PR Noise

    Links for the day



  8. [Meme] The EPO-EUIPO “Good Brother” Network

    Jobs as bribes at the EPO and EU(IPO) are a lingering problem



  9. Links 21/9/2021: Samba 4.15 and Ubuntu 14.04/16.04 Support for 10 Years

    Links for the day



  10. Richard Stallman's First Public Talk (Delivered in Person) in Years, Now With a Free Format

    Full talk now available. The organisers of the conference have uploaded to YouTube, so we’ve converted everything to a free/libre format (and last night only an excerpt was published here).



  11. [Meme] The Best Quality Propaganda

    The António Campinos-led EPO is still a never-ending propaganda machine; the media isn’t fact-checking or investigating anything, so of course that propaganda goes largely unchallenged and the propagandists (like Joff Wild) profit from it



  12. Preparations for the Next Series and Further Improvements in IPFS and Gemini

    Gemini space (or Geminispace) continues to expand quite rapidly and we're utilising alternatives to the Web in order to improve access to information; at the moment EPO publications are our priority



  13. Links 21/9/2021: Peg-E 1.3.0, CUPS 2.4 Coming Soon

    Links for the day



  14. IRC Proceedings: Monday, September 20, 2021

    IRC logs for Monday, September 20, 2021



  15. Links 20/9/2021: Emmabuntüs Debian Edition 4 1.00, DXVK 1.9.2, and NVIDIA 470.74 Graphics Driver

    Links for the day



  16. Richard Stallman's Talk in Ukraine Two Days Ago (in Person)

    Richard Stallman explains his stance on Invidious (released under the AGPLv3) in his new (in-person) talk



  17. Microsoft and the EPO: A History of Threats and Suppression Against the Free Press

    Bribed and blackmailed media isn't covering EPOnia's corruption anymore; somebody should, but that's not as easy as it may seem on the surface (not even for a distant outsider)



  18. [Meme] The B4 Summit: Baltic Benoît Battistelli in Belarus

    It should not be surprising that when Benoît Battistelli and António Campinos get to 'fix' their own election by the EPO‘s Administrative Council that very same Administrative Council will later rubber-stamp virtually every proposal of theirs, even unlawful proposals



  19. Links 20/9/2021: Telegram Desktop 3.1, Arcan as Operating System Design

    Links for the day



  20. [Meme] Looting Europe and Taking Away From the Office

    The staff of the EPO is being robbed by corrupt officials, who arrogantly assume that they can get away with anything (because they have facilitators all over Europe)



  21. IRC Proceedings: Sunday, September 19, 2021

    IRC logs for Sunday, September 19, 2021



  22. Formally Challenging the EPO and Microsoft for Apparent Efforts to Suppress Reporting With Evidence of Crimes, Including Violations of EPO Data Protection Guidelines

    The largest cross-institutional European den of corruption, the EPO, will be hearing from lawyers and hopefully from public officials too. The criminal behaviour is long overdue for review and the Administrative Council too should be investigated (for repeatedly abetting this behaviour, for personal gain).



  23. Links 20/9/2021: Linux 5.15 RC2 and pgAdmin 4 5.7 Released

    Links for the day



  24. [Meme] Warning - Tree Felling in Progress

    Warming up for our next EPO series



  25. Links 19/9/2021: Sparky 2021.09, Whisker Menu 2.6.0, HarfBuzz 3.0, and gThumb 3.12

    Links for the day



  26. EPO Management is Hiding Under the 'Cloud' While Violating Privacy Laws

    Facing a barrage of scrutiny for outsourcing the EPO's systems to Microsoft, the EPO has just arranged yet another expensive PR stunt, looking to somehow 'normalise' the unacceptable and the likely illegal



  27. Maintenance and Development Updates

    We've been doing a lot of work on the back end (or operations) of Techrights, more so this past month, and we're almost ready to resume the normal publication pace



  28. [Meme] Microsoft Says Its Paying Clients (Like EPO) Don't Violate Privacy Law

    The ever-so-docile EPO will gladly oblige when companies like Microsoft lie about the legality of their industrial espionage operations, masked as “clown” computing (and other buzzwords)



  29. Coming Soon: EPO Series on Lawlessness

    Some time soon we’ll start an important series about the EPO, seeing that the management of the EPO is panicking and trying to put out the fire created by prior ones (more on that shortly)



  30. Links 19/9/2021: Jolla's Sailfish OS 4.2 and FreeBSD Technology Roadmap

    Links for the day


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