Managing Intellectual Property (or Managing 'IP') is not a hoax site but a farce of a site. Yesterday, for instance, it spoke about "IP harvesting" -- being a site of litigation fanatics, who call lowering of patent quality to get more patents "patent gains" (same article, link omitted). What a bunch of jokesters. Weeks ago they made a bunch of highly misleading articles about UPC (what some would call classic "fake news"), they constantly whitewash the European Patent Office (EPO) -- both under Benoît Battistelli and António Campinos -- and they lobby for software patents in Europe on the payroll of litigation companies. Being sympathetic to patent trolls, who law firms profit from (at both ends, defendants and plaintiffs), is part of the 'parcel'...

"Being sympathetic to patent trolls, who law firms profit from (at both ends, defendants and plaintiffs), is part of the 'parcel'..."Yesterday we noticed advocacy of software patents from China (PRC). "Sponsored by" (paid spam) the author, the article by Quan Kang focuses on China but mentions Europe also (link here, but it's a paid-for ad disguised as 'article'). The author clearly understands nothing about the topic; maybe that's a "plus", as it makes the lying more excusable (or not a lie at all, merely "misunderstanding"). When speaking about "AI-related inventions" (the headline), the author speaks of algorithms spun as "HEY HI" (AI) for pseudo novelty's sake -- the same thing Campinos is constantly doing. "The first type," it says, "i.e. inventions by means of AI, is permitted in China currently. Inventions created by AI independently are not allowed yet. There are no clear standards on how to examine the second kind of invention. The principle of the CNIPA on this point is essentially the same as that of the European Patent Office (EPO)."

That's conflating the subject of the article with something completely different, which is computer-generated patents (basically something broad to that effect). "According to Section 6.3, Chapter 9, Part II of the Examination Guidelines," it says, "for AI-related inventions, technical features and algorithmic features or business rule and method features that support each other and interact with the technical features in their function, must be clearly defined in the claims. Specifically, besides the technical features and algorithm features or business rule and method features, the interaction and interactive process of the features must be clearly defined in the claims."

"They're basically just facilitating -- with new loopholes and buzzwords -- patents on software."Notice the words "algorithmic" and "algorithm" Here again: "1) The abstractive algorithm and its specific technique, in which the definition of at least one input parameter and its output results should be associated with specific data in the art."

And on it goes...

They're basically just facilitating -- with new loopholes and buzzwords -- patents on software. Got an "AI" patent? "HEY HI! Come on in!" ⬆