02.17.19
Posted in Action, America, Europe, GNU/Linux, Microsoft, Novell, Patents at 7:05 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Or why we’ve dropped most coverage about US patents and patent cases
Summary: An old priority of ours, eliminating software patents in the United States, is no longer quite so relevant because such patents are perishing in US courts, with or without outside intervention such as activism
THIS site is turning 13 later this year. It started by focusing on Novell, but then it increasingly focused on Microsoft and GNU/Linux (related to Novell). Around 2010 we turned almost all our attention to software patents — a natural extension of our coverage regarding Novell’s patent deal. The common theme has all along been preserving the freedom of Free software although software patents pose a great threat also to proprietary software developers. So we’re generally for the interests of programmers, no matter if their code is publicly shared or not. Software development oughtn’t necessitate an army of lawyers and should not involve reading hundreds of thousands of patents. It’s beyond impractical and such patents aren’t even necessary, unlike copyright law.
“…we’re generally for the interests of programmers, no matter if their code is publicly shared or not.”Invaluable information about internal European Patent Office (EPO) affairs came through to us in 2014, perhaps based on our track record covering abuses at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and to a lesser degree the EPO (we hadn’t criticised the EPO much before that, except when it came to software patents in Europe). Seeing that António Campinos is not changing anything for the better, and moreover seeing that the SCOTUS precedence (notably Alice) secured 35 U.S.C. § 101 — something that the USPTO cannot change and CAFC as well as ITC must respect — a couple of months ago I decided to mostly drop USPTO coverage, which occupied entire weekends (all my time), turning again to GNU/Linux and Microsoft with the newly-availed time. Seeing that the UPC is rapidly dying (running out of time), several months ago we began also focusing, yet again, on software patents in Europe — a subject increasingly covered by Florian Müller as well. We used to be vocal critics of his writings, but things have changed since. He no longer takes money from Microsoft.
The EFF has, in our view, become somewhat alarmist lately. It says there's a comeback of software patents in the US and belatedly bemoans Iancu (we did so when the warning signs became apparent, based on what he had done and said in prior years). This morning we saw some articles from the patent microcosm (days-old posts) claiming that Iancu tries to pressure courts/judges/politicians to help him bring back software patents, but he lacks the authority to do this. He merely discredits the Office, that’s all. We’re still monitoring the matter and will leap back on the saddle if the danger materialises. It has not happened, at least not yet. Based on the latest figures from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and the PTAB-hostile Anticipat (against inter partes reviews (IPRs)), decisions involving 35 U.S.C. § 101 still rise in number. Various tweets from patent maximalists are still obsessing over PTAB overturning examiners’ decisions, usually against software patents and only in rare cases (notable exceptions) the other way around. So there’s definitely no turnaround and the silence in many blogs speaks volumes. Some of them openly express pessimism and defeatism. Let it be so. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
02.13.17
Posted in Action, Europe, Patents at 6:20 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: The start of a campaign to end the UPC fantasy once and for all, if not only in the United Kingdom then in the whole of Europe (which depends on London)
We are hereby launching a campaign and petition to accompany this motion in the British Parliament. It is important that many people in the UK sign the petition to express their views. It’s a petition designed to stop the Unitary Patent in Europe (not just the UK), using political means for the most part. We suppose that our regular readers already know what the UPC is for/about. We got some British politicians to help us with this and FFII deserves much of the credit for setting up the petition itself.
What follows below is a summary of the latest developments. It’s an assorted collection of news to help our readers familiarise themselves with the status quo and who’s doing what exactly.
UPC Means Software Patents and Patent Trolls
“We got some British politicians to help us with this and FFII deserves much of the credit for setting up the petition itself.”Earlier this month in FOSDEM (Belgium) a talk was given about the UPC. This “omits invalidity of software patents in Europe,” told us a reader, having looked into it in greater depth. As we have repeatedly pointed out over the years, occasionally quoting luminaries in their area, UPC has a lot to do with software patents. It also helps patent trolls from other countries/continents. It’s just one among many reasons to stop the UPC.
UPC Gravy Train
“Movement in Portugal to reverse the accession to the Unitary Patent,” according to Benjamin Henrion, is being reported in Portuguese media (report published over the weekend), adding to UPC barriers in Poland, Germany, Spain, the UK, and more. Don’t believe the hype and don’t be misled by Team UPC, which keeps focusing only on the positives to give the impression that the UPC is inevitable, unstoppable, and even desirable. Here is Team UPC latching onto Italy again, then saying: “France ratified the UPC Agreement in 2014. Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, France, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden and Finland have ratified as well. The UK is expected to ratify in March, although after the Brexit vote this remains a sensitive issue, because of the role of the CJEU in the Unitary Patent system. Yesterday a popular newspaper in the UK wrote a ‘secret plan to tie Britain to EU after Brexit is being kept ‘under the radar’’.”
A week earlier this Team UPC blog said: “Even if a way is found to keep the United Kingdom in the Unitary Patent system after the Brexit, it is hard to believe London can keep its seat of the central division of the Unified Patent Court. This is argued in an interview with Kluwer IP Law by Cesare Galli, president of the Italian law firm IP Law Galli and IP Law professor at the University of Parma. He thinks Milan as central court seat could be a fallback solution.”
“It also helps patent trolls from other countries/continents.”They’re already assuming the the UK might altogether reject the UPC and prepare for this rejection.
Yes, the wheels are in motion here. Henrion wants to “call for one day of strike of all IT workers in the UK.”
The patent microcosm in London might not be happy to see that IT workers are on the very opposite end. The patent microcosm in London has repeatedly lied to British businesses, including SMEs, about the UPC. Here is MIP, a mouthpiece for this microcosm, interjecting the obligatory UPC lobbying into a women’s event (it has tweeted some UPC promotion from there as well). If facts are on their side, what are they so afraid of?
Francisco Moreno, an opponent of the UPC, wrote that “the ECJ should not influence UK law” (No se puede fumar mientras se reza) “the UPC will not apply UK law” (Se puede rezar mientras se fuma)” after (on February 9th) Team UPC showed its cards. It wants to ratify in March, even if it’s against everything that our government stands for. This has been cooked quite covertly for a while, aided by front groups like CIPA. Now it’s the final countdown.
The Express reported on this UPC motion a few days ago.
“It wants to ratify in March, even if it’s against everything that our government stands for.”Suffice to say, the mouthpieces of Team UPC were upset by all this publicity. IAM for example moaned that “Daily Express describes UPC as secret plan to keep UK tied to the EU. Be warned anti-EU right in UK now on this.”
“Motion to do not ratify UPC in the UK is tabled,” Henrion later noted. Then MIP heckled a little with “EDM in UK Parliament “that [UPC] Protocol … should not be ratified”, tabled yesterday, currently has 1 signature…”
If they think there’s only one signature, they’re in for a surprise.
“British MP thinks #UPC has “potential to drive a huge stake into the heart of Brexit”,” another person wrote. “I said it could viewed this way in #FAZ last summer.”
“If they think there’s only one signature, they’re in for a surprise.”Now is the time to inform more people about it. And that shall happen for sure. IAM, like MIP, also arrogantly mocked Carswell. “So far,” it wrote, “Carswell is the only signatory. But the motion shows that the UPC is clearly on the Parliamentary anti-European right’s radar.”
It also wrote that “UKIP MP Douglas Carswell has proposed an early day motion in House of Commons that the UK should not ratify the UPC.”
Also from IAM: “UK government has pandered strongly to anti-EU right-wing MPs since Brexit vote. If they make enough of a UPC fuss ministers may do so again…”
Remember that IAM was supported by the EPO and funded by the EPO's PR firm to promote the UPC, even in the United States. I asked IAM, “how much did FTI Consulting pay you guys? Was it only for that pro-UPC event in Trumpland?”
“They’re not really publishers as they’re willing to take a shilling (money) from rich people and organisations in order to do their bidding. They’re now part of or an extension of Team UPC, which wants secrecy or selective coverage of what it does.”They never even responded. They knew what they had done and they would rather not talk about it. As for MIP, we already explained all those UPC lobbying events it helped organise. These are the enemies of Britain’s interests and the friends of Battistelli, a few law firms in London, and patent bullies like Microsoft. They’re not really publishers as they’re willing to take a shilling (money) from rich people and organisations in order to do their bidding. They’re now part of or an extension of Team UPC, which wants secrecy or selective coverage of what it does. It wants people to not be aware that this whole “unitary patent” nonsense is based on Big Lies and is not Constitutional either.
How do we know that they attempt to be clandestine about it? Even IAM admits it with: “Whoops – Simmons & Simmons partner Kevin Mooney quoted in Express anti-UPC piece as saying he hopes Express does not find out about the UPC!”
So there we go. They know that an informed public would never accept the UPC. Never! One person (possibly an EPO worker) asked the UPC boosters: “Do you think the problems are as serious as http://www.stjerna.de/gp-gutachten/ does?”
EPO Role
An EPO insiders told IAM: “Ignorance at it’s best! […] How about replacing the word uncertainty with unlawfully?”
“They know that an informed public would never accept the UPC.”We still haven’t heard back from IAM. They’re growingly aware that people, including some subscribers, know what they’re up to and who they really serve.
“After some “difficulties” with the terms,” said the aforementioned possible EPO worker, “Carl Josefsson has now signed his contract and will start work as pres boa on 1/3.”
Josefsson, as we noted here before, is deeply embedded in UPC stuff. Does that mean anything for the above? Which strings does the EPO pull and where from?
“Do Not Ratify UPC”
The “Do not ratify UPC” motion was tabled in the British Parliament; now we just need strength in numbers. Team UPC just has hundreds or maybe a few thousands of supporters, whereas we have millions in the UK alone (although many of them need to be properly informed to be made aware of this). With articles such as this in the British media we now see Team UPC rearing its ugly head. It even mocks the article itself. “Apparently the #UPC is a secret plan to tie Britain to EU after Brexit, kept ‘under the radar’,” one member of the patent microcosm wrote dismissively. Actually, putting the headline aside (sensationalism), the content of the article is true.
“Team UPC just has hundreds or maybe a few thousands of supporters, whereas we have millions in the UK alone (although many of them need to be properly informed to be made aware of this).”The ratification of the UPC is not compatible with Brexit. Days ago in London, Dr. Luke McDonagh — like other doctors who know the UPC (Dr. Ingve Björn Stjerna for instance) — spoke about the subject. He isn’t lobbying for profit, unlike Team UPC. Someone who attended his talk wrote [1, 2, 3]: “Yesterday’s panel discussion at City, Univ of London on Brexit and the #UnitaryPatent with @DrLukeMcDonagh underlines two insights [...] decision to ratify UPC agreement as its an ‘int’l court not EU institution’ suggests ignorance of full complex implications under EU law [...] #UnitaryPatent court for the UK has more to do with protecting legal services than nurturing innovative economy”
The UPC is simply untenable in the UK (and in other countries too, but for other reasons), especially after Brexit (even before). It’s simply a sort of coup by the patent ‘industry’ (lawyers who want more patent feuds/war) and those who promote it are never technical professionals. Wonder why? Here is a person who attempts to build a career around the UPC ‘explaining’ the UPC and “chair[ing] a conference ‘Finalizing the Unitary Patent Package: Challenges and Ways Forward’ in Brussels @CiTiP_KULeuven” (it’s not hard to imagine who attended this lobbying event).
“Alternative Facts”
CIPA, according to this, is still lobbying for the UPC even though its government cannot ratify. “IPcopy recently attended two events,” it said, “that discussed updates to the Unitary patent and Unified Patent Court: CIPA’s “The UPC: Where we are and Why” and the Westminster Legal Policy Forum’s “The future for the UK’s patent framework”.”
“The UPC is simply untenable in the UK (and in other countries too, but for other reasons), especially after Brexit (even before).”UPC events/conferences are ALWAYS, in our experience, just lobbying designed to breed fake news, mischief, and manipulation. Theatre of “alternative facts” is what it is. Legal ‘theatre’ one might call it. Henrion went to the Unitary Patent conference in Brussels (where he lives) to see what goes on there. He then reported some of his findings in Twitter.
Here is “CEIPI Xavier Seuba telling us,” Henrion wrote, “that technical judges don’t know civil law, don’t have a law degree, recycled patent attorneys #upc #bias”
Here is “Pierre Veron saying UPC rules of procedure are written by unelected parliaments #upc #undemocratic #illegal #germany #constitution”
“They’re just trying to work around the law.”Just look at who’s promoting the UPC. Here is Bristows working on the German front and writing: “Germany’s draft legislation authorising ratification of the Agreement on the Unified Patent Court (UPC) is listed on the agenda (here) for next week’s sitting (15-17 February) of the Bundestag (German parliament). As reported here, this draft legislation, submitted to the Bundesrat (Federal Council) on 9 December 2016, is identical to a previous draft.”
Aided by Battistelli’s protectors and his thugs (details in this old article about Maas), Team UPC hopes to accomplish the impossible. They’re just trying to work around the law. The whole UPC sphere was quiet last month, but only publicly. They have been greasing up Jo Johnson. Team UPC folks have not given up. They just went undercover like TPP hopefuls (trying to repackage and reframe things, e.g. with TISA).
Jo Johnson Being Lobbied
Here is IP Magazine (an extension of the patent microcosm) writing that “Jo Johnson is ‘committed to ratifying’ the #UPC says @The_IPO representative speaking @WLPFEvents…”
It didn’t quote a source, but some link to a PDF. As far as we are aware, Johnson didn’t say it like that. Lobbying with alternative facts again? Here is what we do know about the paper:
The UK Conservative government appears to be avoiding any mention of the Court of Justice of the EU’s (CJEU) role in the upcoming Unified Patent Court (UPC).
An explanatory memorandum to the protocol on privileges and immunities of the UPC was submitted by UK IP minister Jo Johnson to accompany a 20 January command paper to British Parliament ahead of ratification.
Here is a law firm writing about it: “An explanatory Memorandum on the #UPC ratification process is now available, written by new IP Minister @JoJohnsonMP”
“Lobbying with alternative facts again?”Going back to the event, the EPO was there too. A chronic liar, e.g. on UPC , was there to speak for her master, Battistelli (her master’s voice). Quoting the tweet: “Call for “transitional arrangements” for #UP and #UPC when UK leave EU by Margot Frohlinger @epo speaking @WLPFEvents”
We wrote a great deal about her and she has no credibility on this subject. Just about as delusional of Battistelli, who keeps promising the UPC, always in vain.
Admission That UPC is for “IP Legal Firms” and “Business Case for Unitary Patent and UPC Was Always Weak”
Lies are already being relayed. SMEs would suffer a lot from a UPC-like regime, probably the most. They said so, but Team UPC likes to speak ‘on their behalf’ (and against their interests)
“Main beneficiaries will be big pharma and litigation firms, not most patentees.”
–Tufty the CatHere is Tufty the Cat saying that “IP Legal Firms to benefit by £200M p.a. from #UPC but UK firms *may* save £2M p.a. through reduced duplication. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/584443/EM_EU_1.2017.pdf …”
That’s what it’s all about. It’s about law firms, not firms that actually produce anything.
“Business case for unitary patent and #UPC was always weak,” Tufty admits. “Main beneficiaries will be big pharma and litigation firms, not most patentees.”
That’s an admission from an insider! Heist by the patent microcosm is what it all boils down to and at whose expense? Scientists and engineers. Britain’s backbone. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
09.01.16
Posted in Action, America, Debian, Europe, Patents at 3:56 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Valve of Steam OS (Debian GNU/Linux) fame
Summary: The latest target of BT’s patent bullying (shakedowns and lawsuits) is the company that has turned into somewhat of a Debian proponent (albeit with DRM)
BT is a patent aggressor whose activities in the court we haven't heard of in a while (it even targeted Android). BT shows no sign of relenting. This unpopular strategy carries on and the latest suggests that “British Telecommunications (BT) have filed a lawsuit against Valve claiming patent infringement. The action was brought “based on Valve’s continued willful infringement” of four patents (I’ll go into what they are in a moment) and was filed in Delaware on 28 July.”
“It resorts to patent aggression to make up for commercial issues, just like IBM (it too became a patent bully).”Notice the choice of Delaware. The British and US media wrote quite a lot about this lawsuit [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21]. So far we have found 22 articles about this lawsuit alone (that’s a lot for patent news) and it looks rather obvious that BT is just getting desperate. It resorts to patent aggression to make up for commercial issues, just like IBM (it too became a patent bully). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Content is available under CC-BY-SA