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

10.30.19

Yesterday in EPOPIC Andrei Iancu and António Campinos Shared a Salad of Ridiculous Buzzwords

Posted in America, Deception, Europe, Patents at 12:02 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Abstract patents being justified in the most laughable ways by clueless individuals technically unfit for the job (which they got owing to nepotism/connections)

Do we promote software patents? 'Course not! We call it 'IP and the next Industrial Revolution'

Summary: EPOPIC, this year’s ‘patent circus’ of Romania, featured two actors who pretended to know what they’re talking about, instead delivering a mime show with more buzzwords than substance

THE tradition of buzzwords and other nonsense is not new. It has gone on at the European Patent Office (EPO) for at least a decade. We used to joke about “as such” before Battistelli became President and nowadays we mock António Campinos for all sorts of ridiculous mumbo-jumbo (remember he’s not a technical person!). Our favourite nowadays is “hey hi” (AI) and blockchains — typically masks for software patents being granted in Europe although they’re legally invalid* — all in the name of pseudo-’novelty’ (novelty in buzzwords and hype waves for the most part; great marketing!). We wrote about that as recently as the past weekend (so-called 'machine learning' as something not being reducible to maths/stats?).

“Experienced patent examiners certainly know that those aren’t properties and they’re not rights; neither technically nor legally.”Anyway, when dealing with the EPO in the management sense — especially nowadays — remember you deal with people who got the job because of people they knew rather than what they knew. This is embarrassing for Europe and embarrassing for the whole discipline. As recently as yesterday the patent trolls’ front groups (LES/LESI) were boosted by some account and then retweeted by EPO. Here’s what they said: “The High-Growth Technology Business Conference revolves around the importance of engaging Intellectual Property in your business. on the 5th November we are conducting IP and business track workshops…”

“Intellectual Property…”

“IP…”

All that nonsense. Experienced patent examiners certainly know that those aren’t properties and they’re not rights; neither technically nor legally. But these are the propagandists the EPO nowadays associates with, framing patents as “IP”. Honesty is no more. It’s like copyright giants calling people who share “pirates” (equating the act of sharing with murder).

“It’s like copyright giants calling people who share “pirates” (equating the act of sharing with murder).”Yesterday the EPO boosted U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director Andrei Iancu with his ‘novel’ buzzwords for invalid software patents. In his own words, as per EPO: “Andrei Iancu, Director @USPTO: “AI, Self-driving vehicles, biotech, personalised medicine, 5G communications. There will be technologies we cannot even imagine yet. Our IP system must be robust and flexible enough to accommodate and enable these technologies.”

So what have we got here?

“IP…”

“AI…”

All that usual nonsense.

Then came “the next Industrial Revolution”, as per this tweet: “Next on the #EPOPIC stage: Andrei Iancu, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property & Director of the @USPTO will talk about #IntellectualProperty and the next Industrial Revolution…”

“They share the same nonsensical buzzwords, as we’ve been pointing out for a number of months.”Say what?

“Intellectual Property?”

“Industrial Revolution?”

Then came Campinos with “IP and the next Industrial Revolution”. In the EPO’s own words: “EPO President António Campinos: “I’m delighted that today Andrei Iancu is here, as Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property & Director of the @USPTO, to talk about the subject of ‘IP and the next Industrial Revolution’.””

Notice the pattern. They share the same nonsensical buzzwords, as we’ve been pointing out for a number of months. Can anyone keep a straight face in this freak show? The EPO also used the hashtags #4IR #3Dprinting and #blockchain in here. To quote: “The EPO develops Patent Insight Reports in order to show the value of #patent information, but also to analyse future & emerging technologies #EPOPIC #4IR #3Dprinting #blockchain”

“Got to have “smart” there too. We’re losing count of all these ridiculous acronyms/fluff (there’s also “IoT”, “cloud”, “app” and “ICT”).”They also spoke of: “enable technologies like #blockchain, #smarthome technologies…”

Got to have “smart” there too. We’re losing count of all these ridiculous acronyms/fluff (there’s also “IoT”, “cloud”, “app” and “ICT”).

What ever happened to “CII”? Oh, look, as recently as yesterday Watchtroll‘s editor Eileen McDermott used the lie that is “CII”. In her summary she spoke of “Federal Circuit holding that computer-implemented inventions that do not improve the basic functions of the computer…” (no link because we never link to Watchtroll anymore)

“Campinos has the audacity to speak of transparency? Because wrongly-granted patents can be opposed for a fee (for a limited timespan and no assurance of positive outcome)?”That “CII” nonsense has spread to the US, as did the “AI” hype. Campinos on “hey hi” in yesterday’s tweets: “AI is impacting on the whole IP system, and even forcing us to question foundational concepts, such as the notion of ‘inventorship’, says the EPO President.”

So if a computer can process an application or generate one, then you cannot do your work anymore? That capability has been around for like half a century! Why does this ‘panic’ become so ‘trendy’ all of a sudden? Oh my god! Computer algorithms… can do stuff!

“Anyone can oppose a European patent within a period of nine months,” the EPO wrote, “from the mention of its grant. This kind of transparency can only help achieve converging views on quality & make our #patent system stronger, says EPO President António Campinos.”

Campinos has the audacity to speak of transparency? Because wrongly-granted patents can be opposed for a fee (for a limited timespan and no assurance of positive outcome)?

This has nothing to do with transparency; just like “quality” at the EPO no longer means quality, instead it means speed (pendency).

Going back to Iancu, in the EPO’s own words: “Andrei Iancu Director @USPTO: “ Our IP system creates a pro-competitive cycle. IP creates perceptual innovation at accelerating rates.”

“This has nothing to do with transparency; just like “quality” at the EPO no longer means quality, instead it means speed (pendency).”So says a man from the patent litigation industry, who got his job after he had worked for Donald Trump (nepotism likely). There’s also this: “Society does not know progress without a robust patent system, says Andrei Iancu Director…”

So no progress before patents existed? Incredible statement!
______
* There’s this new example of software patents being rejected in Europe and another new one in the US: (35 U.S.C. § 101 in Simio v Flexsim; more new examples are, as usual, in our Daily Links)

This summer, the District of Utah dismissed Simio’s lawsuit against Flexsim Software, finding that the asserted patent was not patent eligible under Section 101. Simio responded by asking the court to vacate its judgment or, alternatively, allow Simio leave to file an amended complaint based on the Federal Circuit’s Cellspin v. Fitbit decision. Simio argued that new factual allegations in its proposed amended complaint ought to prevent the court from dismissing the case. The court disagreed with Simio.

The court first noted that while it could allow Simio to amend its complaint, an amendment could not “transform the deficient patent claim from one drawn to an ineligible software system to one directed toward an eligible machine.”

The court then addressed Simio’s argument that, pursuant to the Federal Circuit’s recent Cellspin decision, factual allegations in the amended complaint preclude dismissal at the pleading stage. The court again disagreed. “The Federal Circuit made clear that its decision should not be interpreted to mean that any allegation about inventiveness, wholly divorced from the claims or the specification, defeats a motion to dismiss automatically … Simio’s allegations of inventiveness are simply not plausible.”

10.26.19

Guest Post: Social Justice Warriors Are Like Policemen With Guns on the Street

Posted in America, Deception at 12:13 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Article by Jagadees.S

Old policeman

Summary: “They may be studying mechanical engineering at a slave owner-founded company, US military and foreign brutal dictator-funded elite college.”

American police is killing about 1,000 black people every year. Those are innocent unarmed black people. You may be wondering why police is killing these poor people. You may think that American policeman are bad, brutal criminals. Please don’t think like that. American police is brave, it is patriotic. They cannot kill people without any reason. There is reason for these killings. It is the “fear for one’s life.”

“He gets frightened and within seconds fires 40-50 shots at that very scary ‘thing’.”Yes, a policeman often says “I feared for my life.” Who on Earth can execute a suicidal mission apart from the CIA-funded religious fools? So you have to understand the situation of the policeman. He may be peacefully laying on his mother’s lap and drinking breast milk. Immediately a phone from his office rings and asks him to attend a situation. He jumps from his mother’s lap and puts on his uniform, armed to his teeth (and nails). Drives to the place. There he sees a ‘monstrous’ man, right on the street. He gets frightened and within seconds fires 40-50 shots at that very scary ‘thing’. Just like that; only this ‘thing’ has happened. So you cannot blame policemen. They are frightened. (Those who planning to visit the US, please don’t scare them.)

A similar situation has been happening to and affecting our social lives too. We have lot of social justice warriors. I don’t know what exactly makes the criteria for this title. Maybe you have to post something in social control media and feed the monstrous surveillance engine. Then they may give you the title of “SJW”.

“Like the American police, these people are so tender and sensitive.”Anyway, these social justice warriors are like American policemen in the street with military-style assault weapons. They may be studying mechanical engineering at a slave owner-founded company, US military and foreign brutal dictator-funded elite college.

Like the American police, these people are so tender and sensitive. They cannot even bear the sound of tree leaves in the wind. So wind stopped blowing in the US. (If it happens, it will be a hurricane. Thank global warming.) So these people are very sensitive and are always inspecting things around them. As soon as they see something that they don’t like, they get frightened. They start shouting, crying and immediately want to eliminate the unpleasant things that scare them.

“Since the dollar is ruling this world this kind of behavior is spreading to other countries too. So beware if you are grown-ups.”There is no option for that scary thing. All it has to do is to cancel itself. Once that happens these SJWs move on and start waiting for the next scary thing (scary to them).

Since the dollar is ruling this world this kind of behavior is spreading to other countries too. So beware if you are grown-ups.

Note: This has nothing to do the with a girl who asked for Richard Stallman’s resignation. She just became a random spark. If she did not do that, the system would find somebody else for that task. So don’t blame her.

10.20.19

European Patent Office and US Patent and Trademark Office Cranks Discovered Buzzwords, Stopped Worrying, Started Granting Patents They Know to be Fake

Posted in America, Deception, Europe, Patents at 2:53 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

So software is just A.I. or hey hi!

Summary: The world’s patent repositories are being saturated with loads of junk patents or patents that have no legal bearing but can still be leveraged for extortion purposes; the EPO is resorting to lies and artificially-elevated buzzwords to justify granting such fake (yet ruinous) patents

ALL the patent maximalists have left now is numbers. Lots and lots of numbers. Big numbers. A number of what exactly? Patents. Yes, entries on some computer system. One single computer in an ordinary desk can contain all those entries. A supercomputer can generate this much text in less than one second. What good are patents whose quality doesn’t matter? Whose practical utility is questionable? What does this system even strive for? Ask WIPO, whose sole obsession is seeing a rise in numbers, even if much of that rise is attributable to low-quality patents from China — patents that WIPO staff cannot even grasp because few people there can read Mandarin!

“Ask WIPO, whose sole obsession is seeing a rise in numbers, even if much of that rise is attributable to low-quality patents from China — patents that WIPO staff cannot even grasp because few people there can read Mandarin!”WIPO is a symptom of a broader problem because today’s leadership of the European Patent Office (EPO) and Trump’s chosen leadership for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) are truly appalling. Not only Iancu by the way! António Campinos — like Battistelli — totally lacks background in science, yet he has the audacity to meddle in legal cases regarding the fate of software patents in Europe (yes, he has already meddled in an upcoming legal case). Can Mr. Campinos even explain how a computer works? Are his computer skills limited to use of Microsoft Office? Regardless, António Campinos continues to post pointless photo ops while breaking the law every single day. He just proves that he’s no different; he’s another Battistelli. He still ‘rides’ his ‘grace period’.

The latest EPO puff piece mentions Cambodia (warning: epo.org link) with no European Patents at all [1, 2]. It’s about EPO and WIPO, best known to WIPO employees for its abuses against employees. “To strengthen international co-operation on patents,” the EPO wrote, “a delegation from the EPO met with representatives of IP offices from around the world on the fringes of the Assemblies of the Member States of the WIPO in Geneva last week and signed a number of agreements.”

In the carefully-prepared statement which glorifies Campinos (less qualified than most EPO examiners!) the EPO has also just amplified the "hey hi" hype: “EPO representatives also participated in an event organised by WIPO Director General Francis Gurry at which the implications of Artificial Intelligence for the global intellectual property system were discussed.”

“António Campinos continues to post pointless photo ops while breaking the law every single day. He just proves that he’s no different; he’s another Battistelli.”There are two aspects to this buzzword in the context of patents; one is automatically-generated patent applications (using algorithms) and another is patents on algorithms with some “logic” in them (that would be pretty much every algorithm with a conditional statement, i.e. a decision, in it). This is more of that sickening propaganda of the UN/WIPO. They seem to have become so fascinated by if not obsessed with fashionable buzzwords — to the point where they’ve facilitated patents on just about anything. This problem is well recognised inside and outside patent offices, but few seem courageous enough to talk about it, especially in the media which is by far the biggest culprit (mindlessly spreading these buzzwords and superficial hype).

One need not look far to find those complicit in the scourge of misinformation. Days ago at IP Kat Hayleigh Bosher published some nonsense about “Artificial Intelligence”, saying that “Chapter 2 focuses more specifically on the unique factors of AI, elaborating on AI as a legal phenomenon.”

AI, AI, AI, AI, AI, AI, AI, AI, AI, AI, AI, AI…

“This problem is well recognised inside and outside patent office, but few seem courageous enough to talk about it, especially in the media which is by far the biggest culprit (mindlessly spreading these buzzwords and superficial hype).”Just keep repeating that nonsense…

The lawyers are totally exploiting buzzwords and hype to further their litigation agenda

Here’s another new example of patent hype with “hey hi” slant, this time in the Wall Street Journal ( Jared Council’s “Can an AI System Be Given a Patent?”) and a new cartoon (“‘Artificial’ Intelligence”). Over at Law360 they’re disguising bogus, bunk, fake software patents as “hey hi!” (“Self-Driving Vehicles’ Neural Networks Present IP Conundrum”). To quote: “Artificial intelligence has been dubbed the fourth industrial revolution. In part, the development of AI has been spurred by our desire for automation, and there is no better nexus of these two areas than in the automotive industry, where the holy grail of automation is self-driving, or autonomous, vehicles.

“The lawyers are totally exploiting buzzwords and hype to further their litigation agenda ““There are already vehicles available that implement a degree of automation — Tesla Inc. was first to market with its autopilot feature, and many of the more traditional manufacturers are following suit with their own implementations.”

Notice the addition of another buzzword in the first sentence: “fourth industrial revolution.”

The EPO paid European media to spread this nonsense as well; it even made abbreviations for it (4IR, not TFIR). Then it bragged — in inward and outward publications — that the South Korean media copied or rather parroted this propaganda (we covered that at the time). It’s important to take note of the patent offices’ active role in dissemination of such nonsense.

They’re then calling “hey hi” any algorithms with some “logic” in them. They rewrite examination guidelines accordingly, knowing that applicants would get the request for algorithm monopolies OK’ed by the examiners, as per the new guidelines (applicants also get major discounts if they're Microsoft customers with OOXML).

“They’re then calling “hey hi” any algorithms with some “logic” in them.”Notice what’s happening at the USPTO right now. Michael Borella, a proponent of software patents (litigation is his ‘business’), writes about the Office crafting new tricks for getting fake patents or software patents courts would almost certainly throw out. So does Dennis Crouch, a longtime proponent of software patents with ties to Watchtroll. To quote Borella: “Under Dir. Iancu, the USPTO has taken a seemingly broader view of eligibility than the Supreme Court, albeit much narrower than before Bilski, Alice, and Mayo. In January 2019, the PTO published a set of Patent Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG). On October 17, 2019, the PTO released a new set of revisions based upon public comments. “All USPTO personnel are expected to follow the guidance.””

So just like at the EPO he compels examiners to basically break the law or deviate from caselaw; those guidelines are likely not legal. Iancu, the corrupt Trump appointee, 'does a Battistelli' by deviating from the law. Here’s more from Borella and his colleagues:

Early today, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office released an update to its January 2019 Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. Unlike the January Guidance, which represented a significant change in how the USPTO applies § 101 in examination and PTAB proceedings, this October Update is primarily an effort to clarify issues brought up by public comments on the January Guidance. While not exactly much ado about nothing, the October Update provides few changes to USPTO’s stance on § 101.

The USPTO basically breaks the law. Responding to a tweet from Crouch, Benjamin Henrion wrote [1, 2]: “When does someone submit them to court? This is reopening the floodgates of software patents without a mandate. Better copy the European Patent Convention art52 exceptions, including computer programs.”

“Welcome to the post-law patent regime. It no longer even pretends to adhere to law.”“The EPO brags about copying its flagrant violations of the law to other continents,” I responded, “America included…”

So the EPO’s “hey hi” hype has officially spread to the USPTO, as was the practice of basically ignoring courts and ignoring the law. They grant illegal patents.

Speaking of buzzwords like “AI” and “4IR”, how about other hype waves? Just several days ago Frances Wilding and David Lewin (Haseltine Lake Kempner LLP) published in Mondaq (original [PDF]) this “Review Of Blockchain Patenting At The EPO” and to quote:

The two charts show similar paths of increase in the numbers concerned, though the numbers for European patent applications are on a smaller scale. So far a total of just over 400 European patent applications which mention the term “blockchain” anywhere have been published and just over 190 European patent applications which mention the term “blockchain” in the claims have been published. It seems reasonable to expect that further European “blockchain” applications will feed continued growth in published European patent applications even beyond the estimate made for the full year of 2019.

Liars and charlatans are riding hype waves and set up events to hype up these things even further in the context of patents; throw some words like “blockchain” into a patent application and patents on algorithms are magically ‘OK’? Welcome to the post-law patent regime. It no longer even pretends to adhere to law.

10.12.19

Software Patents (or Monopolies on Algorithms) Are Not ‘Property’ and They’re Not Even Legally Valid

Posted in America, Deception, Europe, Patents at 11:02 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Months ago: Patents Are Not Property

AI is everything

Summary: The EPO insists that it’s OK to grant patents on just about everything and propaganda terms are being leveraged to justify this dangerous attitude

THE European Patent Office (EPO) is nowadays a leader in patent propaganda instead of leading on terms/criteria such as quality and reputation.

António Campinos has a track record of lying (since his previous employer) and his appointing authority belongs in prison with Benalla, not some fancy office in CEIPI.

Courts in Europe have repeatedly rejected European software patents. Those patents don’t stand much of a chance in court. Moreover, the EPC aside, they’re forbidden by several other branches, both pan-European and national/domestic (member states). The same is true in the US. Nothing has changed. We’ll share some new examples in our upcoming list of links. There are many cases cited in our daily links, where we nowadays mostly ‘shelve’ US patent news, especially outcomes of cases. So why are such patents still being granted? As Donald Zuhn explains, American patent pendency was reduced. Just like at the EPO, however, this means something bad. The USPTO reduced patent quality and then bragged about speed, never mind if courts throw out so many of these patents. Compliance with the law does not seem to bother these people. Just grant, grant, grant…

How do these offices justify this abuse of authority? Self-commissioned propaganda ‘dressed up’ as so-called ‘studies’…

“Intellectual property is an important economic driver,” the EPO wrote, linking to its latest bundle of lies. “Our latest study shows the impact of industries that make intensive use of IP rights on Europe’s GDP, employment and trade.”

So 2.5 weeks later the EPO is still repeating these lies and adding more misleading words (“IP”). They have been doing so every day in Twitter (except weekends), sometimes more than once per day. “Intellectual property” is an important propaganda term of patent law firms and the likes of them, who falsely equate monopoly with “property” and sometimes even mislabel that monopoly a “right” (as in “IPR”). It’s clear that today’s EPO fronts for law firms, not science or scientists. Also mind this new “EPO IP tools” video, which days ago the EPO promoted as follows: “Put your business idea in context using #intellectualproperty tools.”

What utter nonsense, like “AI” or “artificial intelligence…” (another misnomer)

Who does the EPO try to impress if not law firms? It’s all about litigation, not innovation. The EPO makes that so shallow and so easy to see. Some of our EPO leaks have shown similar things and have unearthed gross favouritism. Blatant and crude corruption.

See comments #2 and #3 here in Kluwer Patent Blog. Once again the EPO helps Microsoft monopoly. Not a Microsoft client? Not a Microsoft customer? Sorry. Excluded from service…

Microsoft is a leading proponent of software patents alongside IBM (hence it’s something Red Hat and Microsoft now have in common). It makes sense for the EPO to offer preferential services to Microsoft.

As we’ve mention like a dozen times before, the EPO keeps hyping up “hey hi” (“AI”), as do IBM and Microsoft. They nowadays mislabel just about anything “hey hi” — anything to do with automation, computers, algorithms and so on. It’s all “hey hi!”

The USPTO too is looking for excuses or loopholes by which to grant illegal, fake, bogus, incompatible-with-the-law software patents that are worthless (patents which courts would reject). It nowadays copies the EPO’s tricks by putting “hey hi” (a buzzword) right there in examiners’ guidelines.

Aaron Gin, longtime pusher of software patents in the US and elsewhere, hops on the “hey hi” bandwagon. Call everything “hey hi!” And just like “cloud” and “smart” it’s instantaneously “new” and “novel”…

This is what the USPTO is doing right now. In its own words (or questions):

1. What are the main elements of an AI-based invention?

[...]

12. Are there any relevant policies or practices from other major patent agencies that may help inform the USPTO’s policies and practices regarding patenting of AI inventions?

So much for ‘consultation’; they know responses will mostly come from the litigation ‘industry’. Why don’t they consult judges instead, knowing that SCOTUS, the Federal Circuit and Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) would likely disapprove, citing 35 U.S.C. § 101 for starters? Because truth and law don’t matter. It’s all about money.

10.09.19

The US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) Once Again Staying Away From 35 U.S.C. § 101 Cases

Posted in America, Courtroom, Law, Patents at 3:57 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

In effect maintaining a de facto ban on software patents (courts quite consistently reject these)

Just ignoring the calls
Justices are just ignoring the calls for reconsideration (since Alice in 2014)

Summary: Nothing irritates patent maximalists (notably patent litigation firms but not exclusively) more than judges who repeatedly stress that patents on mental concepts and processes aren’t or weren’t patent-eligible in the first place

THE PATENT maximalists have gone ‘bloody bonkers’. They’re dangerously deranged as they make racial insults directed at Federal Circuit judges and make serious accusations against Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) judges whose decisions on inter partes reviews (IPRs) they dislike, usually the denial of some bogus software patents.

“Do they seriously think that insulting judges will get these judges on their side?”Watchtroll has come up with a new court- and judge-bashing approach. The latest headline of Burman York (Bud) Mathis III: “It Is Time for Federal Circuit Judges of Good Conscience to Call Out Their Colleagues”

These people are crazy, but they’re calling themselves “Patent Masters™” (this is what Gene Quinn calls his ilk, as recently as yesterday, with the trademark symbol included).

Do they seriously think that insulting judges will get these judges on their side?

SCOTUS remains decided on 35 U.S.C. § 101 and isn’t touching any further cases to that effect; “I had expected those to be filed by this week,” Dennis Crouch wrote yesterday, “they are not yet filed.”

“Carry on you, “Patent Masters™”, attack the judges! Show your true face. Show us what you are.”No cases dealing with § 101 are being admitted, so patent zealots are melting…

At the start of the year (January) the EFF made it sound like software patents were making a "comeback" — a claim that we rejected, seeing the nature of things (having covered it for nearly a decade and a half). Now, as winter is approaching (early October), it seems hard to believe anything to that effect will have happened by year’s end. All we’ll see is so-called “Patent Masters™” attacking and insulting judges.

Carry on you, “Patent Masters™”, attack the judges!

Show your true face. Show us what you are. Look at you!

09.25.19

The EPO and the USPTO Keep Granting Illegal Patents and Mainstream Media Doesn’t Talk About That

Posted in America, Europe, Patents at 7:32 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Seats in church

Summary: The departure from the rule of law in pursuit of abstract patents doesn’t seem to interest the media; it’s as if media owners are perfectly happy to let this injustice carry on

THE failure of the media is profound. It’s only selectively covering issues. It also stopped writing about European Patent Office (EPO) abuses; not because they ended but because the EPO bribed or threatened publishers (there’s evidence to that effect, it’s not an empty accusation).

Yesterday we saw additional coverage about the EPO stepping out of line w.r.t. patent scope; Earlier this week we mentioned Life Sciences Intellectual Property Review's coverage and last week we wrote a couple of articles about it. Mainstream media in Europe and elsewhere continues to mostly ignore this scandal, which is about the EPO granting patents on life and nature in defiance of European law. Do the media owners worry that covering that might tarnish Europe’s reputation? As if the cover-up isn’t in itself damaging? Google News doesn’t pick up anything but ‘small sites’ that cover EPO problems, e.g. “EU Reporter” this week. That’s not because Google itself tries to censor these issues; it’s because corporate media is complicit in a silence. This is an issue we shall continue to bring up. “Parliament says no to patenting plants bred naturally,” said the headline of “EU Reporter”, which then went on to say: “The European Parliament has repeated its opposition to patenting plants obtained through natural processes. But what makes it an issue in the first place? On 19 September, MEPs voted in favour of a resolution stating that plants obtained through conventional breeding processes, such as crossing and selection, must not become patentable. They fear that allowing natural plant varieties to be patented would concentrate plant breeding material in the hands of a few powerful multinational companies. The resulting loss of genetic variety could in turn endanger food security and raise food prices.”

“That’s not because Google itself tries to censor these issues; it’s because corporate media is complicit in a silence.”Why has no “mainstream” site touched this subject? Not even one!

Meanwhile we can see that the American patent office sets up events, webinars etc. to disguise illegal software patents as “HEY HI!” — the same thing the EPO does. To quote a patent maximalists’ blog: “The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is seeking a technical expert to advance the shared understanding of how to best implement the opportunities presented by Artificial Intelligence. The role will provide technical expertise in developing solutions for real-world, large-scale problems using Artificial Intelligence at the USPTO.”

Janal Kalis has just given this new example: “Specifio has obtained US Pat 10417341 for methods for using machine learning to create a patent spec based on human provided claims. I wonder if the patent spec was created using only the software–no human intervention.”

“Why has no “mainstream” site touched this subject? Not even one!”If it is “using only the software,” then it is a software patent. It ought to be denied. But the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) Director is looking to bypass 35 U.S.C. § 101, i.e. the law itself. He’s not a lawmaker and it’s not his job to decide what the law is. António Campinos and Benoît Battistelli are similar to him in that regard; they promote software patents in Europe and defend patents on life/nature in spite of the law forbidding that. European Parliament is too slow to (re)act and there’s insufficient public outcry because the big publishers aren’t mentioning that.

Bogus patents are being granted. Should we not all be very concerned? Each such grant is an injustice. Those are fake patents or software patents that the courts will toss out again and again, citing 35 U.S.C. § 101. But they say “blockchain” and “HEY HI!” (AI) so the patent offices tell us it’s OK. Here’s a new example entitled “Verizon Awarded Patent for Blockchain-Based Virtual SIM Cards” (obviously software).

To quote: “Leading communications and technology company Verizon has been awarded a patent for using virtual subscriber identity modules (vSIMs) for customers’ devices.”

Why would any court uphold such a patent? Verizon would probably never take such a patent into court, knowing that an unfavourable outcome is likely. Maybe Verizon might pass this to a troll some time in the future…

“The EPO went as far as trying to swap all the judges with its own (UPC), but that coup failed miserably.”The courts in the US will thankfully continue to do their job, which is why patent maximalists at Watchtroll keep attacking the legal system. Watchtroll’s Gene Quinn has just published “Blame for the Weakened U.S. Patent System Cannot Be Pinned on the PTAB Alone” (because he now attacks all the courts, all the judges, and everyone who agrees with PTAB). David Cohen has also just published “Standard Essential Patents: Examining and Learning from the European Approach” (EPO approach).

It’s often understated or not stated at all that illegal EPO practices are copied by USPTO and vice versa. They cannot be tackled in isolation. We need international action and coordination among public interest groups. There’s also “Patent Eligibility Under Section 101: Has the United States ‘TRIPPED’ Up?” by Paul Cole. These patent maximalists pretend that the sky is falling because invalid, bogus, bunk patents are nowadays being rejected by judges. The EPO went as far as trying to swap all the judges with its own (UPC), but that coup failed miserably.

09.22.19

Patent Extremism is Not Normal and Not an Innocent Mindset

Posted in America, Deception, Europe, Patents at 7:58 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Europe’s EPO is run by fanatics

Theories of extremism
Reference: Theories of extremism

Summary: Reflection upon the sad state of the European patent system and how media turns a blind eye to it; worldwide, in general, the discussion about patents is being warped by the litigation giants, whose sole goal is to maximise the number of lawsuits/shakedowns (personal gain)

SITES like Watchtroll are no longer cited here; not even in Daily Links. We refuse to link or send traffic to lies; it’s counterproductive. We found some new examples of such lies just before the weekend. They’s still smearing judges and courts, notably the Federal Circuit. They tried to diminish the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), but the Supreme Courts (SCOTUS) defended it, whereupon some in Watchtroll began attacking SCOTUS as well (or pertinent Justices). I’ve never seen anything like this before. I’ve written lots of things about GNU/Linux since I was about 20 and there’s no ‘Microsoft equivalent’ of Watchtroll. It’s a really, really malicious site. The way they speak of judges is, to our understanding or by our fair interpretation, a form of extremism akin to “religion” (patentism). Any time a judge rules in a way they do not favour — as happens more often these days — that makes the judge an “infidel,” unlike they, the “true believers…”

“The same is true for the autocrats from Munich, who half a decade ago decided to block Techrights not because it told lies but because it told the truth, backed by hard and indisputable evidence (often leaked documents).”Generally speaking, the litigation industry can be exceptionally malicious; it’s defending malicious patent trolls and demonising actual scientists who create something, dubbing them “efficient infringers” etc. (even the CCIA complained about this misguided term a few days ago).

To the trolls’ lobby, no doubt, sites like Techrights are “malicious”; they call us all sorts of names, but that lacks substance to rest on. Their argument boils down to, “they criticise what we do, hence bad!”

The same is true for the autocrats from Munich, who half a decade ago decided to block Techrights not because it told lies but because it told the truth, backed by hard and indisputable evidence (often leaked documents).

“Those are illegal patents. And they muzzle, sometimes by sending out lawyers in order to threaten, those who expose the illegal acts.”Don’t forget former EU official António Campinos, who Battistelli put in charge of the European Patent Office (EPO) to continue lots of abuses, censorship (including of Techrights) and promotion of software patents in Europe, not to mention patents on life and nature. Those are illegal patents. And they muzzle, sometimes by sending out lawyers in order to threaten, those who expose the illegal acts.

The EPO’s repeated efforts to intimidate Techrights were certainly counterproductive as they motivated us to dig even deeper. Some sites, such as IP Kat, ran away with their tail between their legs when similar tactics were attempted on them. This makes not only the EPO look awful; it makes the EU look bad (there’s a growing connection). I’m pro-EU, so it saddens me even more.

“This makes not only the EPO look awful; it makes the EU look bad (there’s a growing connection). I’m pro-EU, so it saddens me even more.”Readers should be very concerned that European media isn’t covering EPO scandals; it doesn’t do that anymore. The EPO threatened and bribed major publishers and we know at whose expense (the bribes and the legal bills). Is this something we the European people should tolerate? I think not. The EPO scandals helped highlight abuses at various other bodies and even the media.

“Cristiano Ronaldo sick of fame” (an actual news headline right now) is somehow a hot story. But not the Portuguese autocrat of EPO — the one who keeps breaking the rules and sheltering corruption. Apparently the media isn’t interested in covering corruption, so instead it writes some nonsense about a footballer (they know what people click more on). It’s rather frustrating. I’ve nothing against football (I went to a match with my mother yesterday, seeing Manchester City’s historic 8-0 victory), but what happens at the EPO is a lot more important. Billions of euros are at stake as well as the future of Europe.

One EPO insider has just retweeted: “Justice in #Portugal! A number of high profile individuals investigated for #corruption, #taxevasion & #moneylaundering, including ex PM Sócrates, ex #BES CEO Salgado, acting judge Rangel, remain free. While @RuiPinto_FL, the #whistleblower of #footballleaks, remains in jail.”

Maybe the international media should focus on that instead of Cristiano Ronaldo. Or perhaps it should write about illegal patents on plants and seeds. It’s happening right now in Europe and almost nobody talks about it. Mainstream media isn’t highlighting the absurdity of it!

“Billions of euros are at stake as well as the future of Europe.”We saw a bunch of articles about it, but they always come from small sites like [1, 2]. Shouldn’t the fact that it’s a major European debate rationalise greater and broader media coverage? Does only FIFA (football) get the limelight when there’s a scandal? What this episode helps show is a debased and corrupt EPO that disregards our elected officials. This is also an EU issue because of the prospects — however low — of an EU-wide enforcement framework.

Two days ago Brian Cordery of Bristows (source of endless UPC nonsense) relayed — through Sarah Blair — the lie that “UKIPO’s position [is] that the UPC would be benefit from the UK’s participation.”

No. It cannot even start without the UK.

Here’s the full paragraph: “The UK ratified the Unified Patents Court (“UPC”) and continues to give its full support to it. It is the UKIPO’s position that the UPC would be benefit from the UK’s participation. The UPC is dependent on Germany’s ratification which it is currently pending.” (pending rejection)

Well, “UK ratified” as in some minister ratified. One of many who had this role in recent years, including “former UK IP minister Jo Johnson” as Team UPC has just put it (AIPPI’s event is already stacked with our unelected Pry Minister’s family).

“This is also an EU issue because of the prospects — however low — of an EU-wide enforcement framework.”It’s a real shame that Techrights is one of the last remaining sites to cover EPO abuses. We’re still watching these things closely (as close as possible) and everything we see suggests no improvement at all. Global Legal Chronicle has just mentioned this opposition to potentially bogus European Patents. “Jones Day,” it said, “is representing The Samvardhana Motherson Group and its subsidiaries in bringing opposition proceedings before the European Patent Office (“EPO”) and German Patent and Trademark Office (“GPTO”) relating to camera image processing technologies for drive assistance systems, including augmented reality features and gesture based human machine interfaces.”

This is a very lengthy and potentially expensive process. It’s happening or becoming necessary because the EPO nowadays grants patents far too quickly, in big numbers. In Twitter the EPO lies about such patents, equating them with “property” (which they're not) as if to deny these grants would be “theft”. Here’s the latest example of IP (“Aye Pee”) propaganda, conflating patents with something that does not even exist! The EPO nowadays enjoys the company of U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director Andrei Iancu, who uses the same propaganda terms and buzzwords. He has just spoken to Team UPC for an interview in which he sides with bribed politicians looking to help the litigation ‘industry’ (bribery source) he came from; he also uses the AI (“HEY HI”) buzzword as a synonym for many software patents. No doubt Iancu is the very “swamp” material corrupt Trump said he would “drain”; did anyone seriously believe Trump?

“It’s worth noting that Coons also attempted to do this in 2017 and 2018, i.e. under Trump (who constantly distracts the media from such major scandals by manufacturing his own).”“I applaud members of Congress, particularly Senators Tillis and Coons, for taking on this issue,” Andrei Iancu is quoted as saying, “referring to the work on possible legislation to amend Section 101 of the US Patent Act,” according to the author.

Does this sound familiar? It’s worth noting that Coons also attempted to do this in 2017 and 2018, i.e. under Trump (who constantly distracts the media from such major scandals by manufacturing his own).

09.21.19

When Patent ‘Professionals’ Sound Like Children Who Learned to Parrot Some Intentionally-Misleading Buzzwords, Myths and Lies

Posted in America, Europe, Law, Patents at 12:34 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Pencil/crayons

Summary: 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

HOW can a patent office seriously assert that it is serious about innovation when everyone who meets the officials comes from law firms and rarely has any scientific background? If this system’s inception truly dates back to need to advance science, shouldn’t these officials focus on actual scientists?

This may sound like a shallow observation, but it perfectly describes the pattern we’ve been seeing at the European Patent Office (EPO) under António Campinos and his predecessor Battistelli (neither of whom has any background in the sciences). Seeing how the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) wants to work around 35 U.S.C. § 101, we’re nowadays witnessing a similar trend in America too. A resurgence of software patents in Europe poses risk to US (case)law as well. We hope that American readers understand that. The EPO openly brags about objectives like spreading software patents to the whole world. We’ve covered this before.

Entryism and Cronyism

The litigation ‘industry’ appears to have convinced the world’s patent offices (or infiltrated these offices) to deviate and depart from the law in order to simply increase the pace of granting (patent-granting), disguising old things with a fresher coat of buzzwords and hype; this has been the case in Europe for a number of years and it’s now being imitated by the United States, whose administration comes from the litigation firms themselves. The issue occurs at two levels typically; one is the patent office, the other being the lawmakers (law firms pay them money to alter patent law to the detriment of science).

We’re troubled to see who’s shaping today’s laws in Europe, judging by who submits recommendations to the EPO and whose submissions the EPO amplifies the most. Mitscherlich PartmbB’s Sebastian Roth has just written about “European Opposition Proceedings” (Board of Appeal (EPO) decision T 1087/15) and his colleague Martin Koerberc wrote about “EPO Opposition & Appeal” — something that significantly increased in number in recent years (soared even) due to significant declines in patent quality. The EPO does not seem to mind all this; it profits from it. The adherence to law does not matter much, either. The EPO ignores courts anyway. It’s really, really bad.

Generally speaking, corruption at the EPO is the world’s eighth wonder. Wonderful to see nobody held accountable. Ever. One would assume that accountability exists in Europe (a relatively developed continent, constitutionally speaking), but the EPO is an island and nobody is able to justify its immunity, which is regularly abused. All the EPO wants is lots and lots of patents and no rights for staff. None at all.

There are many facets or aspects to the EPO’s abuses, but here we focus on patent scope rather than labour rights, immunity and so on.

‘Kids’ Learn About the Mighty “HEY HI”

Let’s start with WIPR’s article about AIPPI with its Echo Chamber Congress, where liars and lawyers prop up “HEY HI” (AI) hype in order to promote illegal patents that aren’t valid. “While the number of patent applications relating to artificial intelligence has soared in recent years,” it says, “there is still some confusion around the patentability of the technology, as lawyers discussed at the AIPPI World Congress.”

What they mean by “AI” is just some old algorithms spun as “AI” for the sake of bypassing rigid restrictions. The EPO welcomes such bypassing tactics; it compels examiners to fall for these.

“AI is not patentable,” Benjamin Henrion wrote in response to this, “as software is not patentable, under the EPC and under Alice. Till the patent offices ignore the courts and the law… [] When the French courts will say that AI is nothing more th[a]n an unpatentable computer program.”

This alludes to what happened in the past. The EPO just ignores all caselaw that does not suit patent maximalists. In other word, the EPO arrogantly breaks the law, ignoring even those who highlight the issue. Why is this being tolerated and how long for? Until the Office collapses? Until patent certainty is so low that there’s decrease in ‘demand’? The number of applications for European Patents is already decreasing. The EPO’s management very well knows that, so its response is to power the patent bar further and further. It does so even when it’s blatantly and obviously illegal. It’s like banks that ‘grant’ more and more ‘toxic loans’ just to fake growth. They don’t let themselves be too worried about the imminent or the inevitable collapse. That will be “someone else’s problem,” they must be telling themselves. In the case of banks the public typically foots the bill for all this corruption and greed, whereas in the case of patents the wrongly-accused parties (businesses and individuals) bear the cost.

“Our member states need an Office that can be the advocate of patents in Europe and promote the development of an effective patent system,” the EPO wrote last week. But the EPO is intentionally granting illegal patents that are proven, based on studies, to harm innovation. There is a body of scholarly work that they ignore and at the same time they offer bribes to academics willing to manufacture ‘studies’ which support EPO agenda. This is as unscientific as it gets. It’s something to be expected from oil companies, not a monopoly on Europe-wide patent grants. What makes this ever more obscene is that the EPO ceased to even hide this; it is openly advertising its sponsorship of self-serving ‘studies’. Not even oil companies are foolish enough to do this (one has to dig and inquire a little). Not too long ago the EPO manufactured some ‘greenwashing’ propaganda. which it spread as recently as a couple of days ago*.

Pretending Patents Are ‘Property’

Other than “HEY HI” there’s also the “AYE PEE” (IP) hype. There is no such thing as “AYE PEE”. Lumping together trade secrets, copyright, trademark and patent law assures a misleading and pointless discussion. Society should abandon lawyers’ propaganda terms and use more meaningful vocabulary instead.

The other day the EPO wrote: “Together with national patent offices and the @IPRHelpdesk, we’ll be sharing our expertise on how sound IP management can boost your business at these seminars…”

So-called ‘IP’ management…

The EPO retweeted another thing to that affect and wrote separately about “an opportunity to improve technology commercialisation with open-innovation strategies facilitated by IP.”

Here they go with ‘IP’ again; the EPO does only patents. Strictly so. Unlike UK-IPO, USPTO and so on.

Tosshan Ramgolam published on the same day something entitled “Introduction to the IP Education Series”.

When you say “IP” that already means that you are intentionally dishonest and not interested in education, only propaganda terms like “piracy”.

In the past couple of days the EPO also mentioned “SMEs” quite a lot (even by its own bad standards). Trying hard to distract from the harm caused to them by the EPO? Without a so-called ‘professional representative’ (i.e. very expensive law firm) the SME is lost in the haze**, as we’ve shown before, outspending many of its practical operations. Something like the UPC would make things orders of magnitude worse for SMEs.

Lies Told by Team UPC ‘Kids’

Then, retweeted by EPO was its Vice-President (from UK-IPO) saying: “Great opportunity to meet UK users of the @EPOorg at the @TheCIPA Congress.”

The EPO is in bed with Team UPC, looking to harm SMEs all around the world. CIPA is a predatory body of patent maximalists. Also retweeted by EPO was CIPA’s own tweet: “We’re delighted to welcome Steve Rowan, Vice-President of @EPOorg, to give the morning keynote at #CIPACongress2019″

Totally inappropriate for the EPO to be with Team UPC and CIPA as it’s showing what the EPO basically became — a tool of the litigation zealots.

No wonder the EPO continues to stubbornly advocate patents on just about everything. The relationship between CIPA and UK-IPO is also troubling and at times disturbing. It’s like letting makers of bombs have a say on foreign policy.

Speaking of Team UPC, here’s some new propaganda from the site that does, in fact, act like its think tank (for a number of years). To quote: “Speaking to Managing IP, Tim Moss, CEO of the UKIPO, discusses Brexit planning, the Unified Patent Court and expanding the office’s international reach…”

To better understand where they’re going with this read this other new article full of intentional lies. Those lies were told in this new event as if UPC is “just a matter of time” (i.e. the same old lies) when in fact it is dead and cannot go on without the UK. To quote the relevant part:

The Unified Patent Court (UPC) was discussed as a potential Brexit-related concern. With the UPC’s fate lingering in Germany’s Constitutional Court, audience members speculated on how the timing of the court’s decision might be affected by Brexit.

Responding to an audience member’s concern, Williams said any conversation about whether or not the UK – which has ratified the UPC Agreement – would be part of an operational UPC would depend on when Germany issues a decision.

“In a perfect world you will like us to have the discussion while we are in the EU; logically that is a more pleasant environment. If we exit in October … the conversation is in a more different atmosphere. We are sure of the benefits of the UK to be part of the UPC. My experience says if there is a political will you will find a legal solution.”

Nettleton added that from an industry perspective the UPC would be much stronger with UK involvement.

“It was a surprise to me that I heard the UK would still want to participate in the UPC after Brexit. But then again, after Brexit, nothing can surprise you,” he said.

This is sheer lunacy; notice how they spread the infamous lies. They’re like kids telling a lie, telling others what they want to believe. How can they get away with this?
_______
* As a new example of this, consider a new tweet that said: “Patent applications in the EPO’s databases contain significant amounts of information relating to sustainable technologies. Scientists can make use of this wealth of knowledge in their work on developing new technologies against #climatechange.” In reality, when the EPO grants monopolies on these things fewer people will be legally permitted to tackle climate change. But the EPO won’t let these inconvenient facts get in the way.

** Kluwer Patent Blog, citing a case dated 18 June 2019, says:

A request for re-establishment should be filed within two months of the date of removal of non-compliance. This date may be the date on which the applicant became aware of the missed due date, even if the professional representative did receive the EPO communications mentioning the failure to comply with the deadline.

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »

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 Channels: Come and chat with us in real time

New to This Site? Here Are Some Introductory Resources

No

Mono

ODF

Samba logo






We support

End software patents

GPLv3

GNU project

BLAG

EFF bloggers

Comcast is Blocktastic? SavetheInternet.com



Recent Posts