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

02.07.16

SIPO (China’s Patent Office) Taken Over by Patent Maximalists

Posted in America, Asia, Patents at 2:20 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Maximalists are what some call “Extremists”

Chinese happiness
Assuming that more patents (a la USPTO) lead to more happiness

Summary: A look at China’s race to the bottom (decline in quality) when it comes to patents, assuming quite wrongly that quantity is more important than quality and severe penalties for perceived infringement will spur innovation

PATENT maximalists, who are stereotypically (as per the stigma) patent lawyers, try to equate economies with patents. Some equate innovation or progress with patents. The media which they control (author) is often a source of humour or a subject of ridicule. Watch how this EPO-funded blog, for example, urges startups to waste their money on patents right now. Suicide advocacy?

“China plans to take measures to curb the patent infringement over internet,” Benjamin Henrion wrote, “ISPs to take censor the net for patmafia” (patent mafia).

“Patent maximalists, who are stereotypically (as per the stigma) patent lawyers, try to equate economies with patents.”Here is the respective article which says: “Almost four months after the submission of the draft Patent Law Amendment Bill of China proposed by SIPO, which passed through the Bureau Affairs Meeting of SIPO in late August 2015, the Legislative Affairs Office (LAO) of the State Council released this draft on 2 December 2015, for further public consultation. In the meantime, the Bill has been developed as a Preparatory Project in the Legislative Programme 2015 of the State Council from the Research Project in the last year. The above signs indicate that the Amendment Bill can be expected to be finally passed by the National People’s Congress (NPC) in two or three years.

“The Chinese government has paid increasing attention to the importance of intellectual property in recent years. In June 2014, the Standing Committee of the NPC heard the Report on the Implementation of the Patent Law and emphasized that the Patent Law Amendment Bill should focus on enhancing the protection of patent right and on coordination and convergence amongst laws. To that end, the latest draft Bill includes, amongst other things, provisions aiming at strengthening patent enforcement, enhancing protection of design patent, perfecting service invention system, promoting exploitation and utilization of patent, and giving more power to the Patent Reexamination Board.”

“China’s SIPO is making a mistake here; it’s the same as USPTO mistakes, notably the reduction in patent quality so as to eliminate the backlog and just approve almost every application, to the point where the number of granted patents nearly doubles in just a few years.”China, as we noted here some weeks/months ago (on numerous occasions), is lowering patent quality for the sake of quantity. This is widely known a problem. As IP Watch (critic of patent maximalism) put it the other day, “China Continues High Growth In IP Filing, But Is There More To The Story?”

China’s SIPO is making a mistake here; it’s the same as USPTO mistakes, notably the reduction in patent quality so as to eliminate the backlog and just approve almost every application, to the point where the number of granted patents nearly doubles in just a few years. Did innovation magically double in a number of years? If not, then what we clearly have here is a system gone awry.

The Alice Case Continues to Smash Software Patents (This Time OpenTV’s); Will the EPO Ever Pay Attention?

Posted in America, Europe, Patents at 1:54 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

The ‘magic’ of abstract patents is gone

Man pulling strings

Summary: The potency or the grip of software patents in the United States is quickly eroding, but the EPO continues to act as though software patents are legitimate

PATENT lawyers in the United States cannot sigh in relief. Their business prospects are being diminished as the USPTO is pressured to reassess examination guidelines (never mind the cheeky loopholes), in lieu with court rulings on software patents. It’s becoming harder to get software patents and even if one gets granted a patent on software, the likelihood of a court honouring such a patent is slimmer.

Patent lawyers who have long relied on the USPTO issuing patents on software are still disseminating tips for getting around the rules and patent software. The following new example, calling the domain “cybertech” (buzzword for computer security) is all about software and it says (courtesy of greedy patent lawyers): “Cybertech companies regularly struggle with the question of whether to patent core algorithms. If those algorithms are discoverable by anyone who examines your product, patent protection is the way to go. Also, your products contain many sub-features. Consider patenting only those aspects that will drive product sales. While most people think of patents as technical documents, really, they are business tools. A patent is only valuable if crafted in a way that prevents others from interfering with your business objectives. Therefore, it is best to strategically consider your innovations by asking: “How necessary is this feature to my prospective competitor?” You should patent only those features that provide strategic advantage to the company.”

Actually, increasingly, companies find that US courts, including the most pro-software patents courts and districts (like CAFC and Texas), simply deny software patents. Here is the latest example that we found last night (there are many other such examples, some of which we covered before):

OpenTV patents ‘abstract’ under Alice

OpenTV’s data communication patents in the US are invalid under the Alice Corp decision, a district court has ruled in the Swiss TV technology company’s spat with Apple.

The US District Court for the Northern District of California held on 28 January that the patents were abstract under the Supreme Court’s 2014 Alice Corp v CLS Bank ruling and lacked an inventive concept.

The subsidiary of Kudelski Group, OpenTV, filed the lawsuit against Apple in May 2015, arguing that the iOS and OS X operating systems infringed patents for securely communicating data between devices.

Apple sought to prove that the claims of the patents were abstract and filed a motion to dismiss the case.

US patent lawyers (and full-time software patents propaganda source) say “people like Inventors Digest contributor and patent attorney Gene Quinn, and Jay Walker, who has millions of dollars invested in patent software and related businesses, completely disagree with Cuban.” Mr. Cuban turned from investing in a notorious patent troll to fighting against patent trolls and against software patents (explicitly so). He’s definitely not a patent troll. Jay Walker, on the other hand, became little more than a patent troll (we wrote several articles about it) and Gene Quinn we often referred to as “Patent Watchtroll” because he had defended patent trolls, not just software patents. It’s rather revealing that patents lawyers and trolls (or people who profit from trolls) are rather anxious.

The United States undeniably moves away from software patents, so when the EPO promotes software patents in Europe it seriously discredits itself. It last did this on Thursday (i.e. three days ago) in Twitter, linking to what we criticised three days ago. The EPO is truly out of control and it needs to be stopped. Patent scope is just one of many dimensions of abuse.

Estadísticas de Invalidación de Patentes y Costos de Litigación de Patentes (incluso si son falsas) Muestran que la Esfera de Patentes y los Estándares de Examinación son un Probleman, No Sólo en Los Estados Unidos

Posted in America, Europe, Patents at 11:09 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

English/Original

Publicado en America, Europe, Patents at 5:13 am por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz

El Alto Costo (incluso para partes inocentes) del maximalismo de patentes motivado por figuratismo y avaricia

Pig's bank

Sumario: Demasiadas falsas patentes que no deberían haber sido otorgadas en primer lugar y fraudulentes jucios de patentes que terminan en favor del acusado sirve para mostrar el costo externo (o externalidad) cuando set trata de un bajisímo sistema de patentes que se esfuerza en otorgar muchas patentes irrespectivamente de su mérito.

El año pasado escribimos extensivamente acerca de las patentes de software en Europa, incluso en las cortes de Alemania, donde Apple había estado tratando de bloquear Android/Linux (Alemania es clave para mucho de estos juicios). Bueno, de acuerdo a esta interesante pieza de IP Kat, ¨la Corte Federal Alemana de Patentes (parcialmente) invalida 80% de patentes litigadas¨ y aquí hay otros números por patentes de software: ¨Por patentes de software y telecomunicaciones, el ritmo de invalidación es incluso más alto aún 88% (58% TOTALMENTE INVALIDAS, 30% PARCIALMENTE INVALIDAS, 12% MANTENIDAS). A los patentadores les va un poquito mejor en apelaciones, ya que el grado de victorias contra decisiones invalidatorias de patentes es alto (60%) que el grado de ganancias de apelaciones contra decisiones de mantener una patente (40%).¨

“Es de gran importancia cuando las patentes s son declaradas invalidas en las cortes por que ello significa que las oficinas de patentes simplemente han FALLADO EN HACER SU TRABAJO ADECUADAMENTE y como resultado muchas compañías tienen que gastar mucho dinero que NUNCA recuperarán (incluso cuando ellas sean absueltas).”Mucha gente leyó esto y dentro de poco tiempo muchos comentarios allí aludiendo a la OEP. Mucha gente tiene sentimientos encontrados acerca de esto. Es de gran importancia cuando las patentes s son declaradas invalidas en las cortes por que ello significa que las oficinas de patentes simplemente han FALLADO EN HACER SU TRABAJO ADECUADAMENTE y como resultado muchas compañías tienen que gastar mucho dinero que NUNCA recuperarán (incluso cuando ellas sean absueltas). Esto es una seria INJUSTICIA. Sirve también para mostrar el costo real de las oficinas de patentes que asocia el número de patentes con ¨innovación¨ (embarcandose así en una fiebre del oro de patentes).

Como fué revelado el otro día en un blog de maximálistas de patentes, patentes fueron declaradas invalidas en las corte sólo en apelaciones (i.e incluso más costos por cargos legales) porque los examinadores las otorgaron fácilmente (o fueron presionados para otorgarlas por la gerencia, si el ejemplo de la OEP otorgando Philpott fuera generalizado). El mismo blog también hablo acerca de trolls de patentes con patentes de software. Escribimos mucho acerca de la defensa de NewEgg contra tales trolles en los últimos años (NewEggs merece felicitaciones por su política en esta materia). Para citar del blog ¨en apelación el Circuito Fedearal notó -esta vez, que NewEgg estaba en una posición inrazonable -demandando una revisión nueva de las decisiones de la corte del distrito a pesar del precedente de la Corte Suprema al contrario. Sin embargo, el Circuito Federal siguio su práctica habitual requiriendo a cada parte solventar sus propios costos en la apelación.¨

“Las oficinas de patentes necesitan someterse a una examinación.”Así que de nuevo esta en apelación y los costos legales no seran devueltos. El costo de fraudulentos jucios de patentes (patentes inválidas) es pasado al acusado, quien incluso sea probado inocente todavía pierde (un montón de dinero). ¿Qué clase de justicia es esta? La UPC puede potencialmente traer mucho de esto a Europa y dadas las estadísticas (de Alemania) no deberiamos tolerarla. Las oficinas de patentes necesitan someterse a una examinación. Al presente no tenemos en Europa una efectiva supervisión, la cálidad es difícilmente impuesta desde el exterior, excepto desde la Corte Suprema, the EPC (vieja), y así. ¿Porqué son tantas falsas patente otorgadas en primer lugar? La OEP nos amenaza con llevarnos a juicio por la evidencia que hemos mostrado, algo permanece considerado.

Consideren este nuevo análisis de un sitio de abogados de patentes. Es titulado ¨La patente de Mosanto sobre el Melor Resistente a Viruses es Revocada¨ y dice: ¨La patente fue solicitada en la OEP el 21 de diciembre de 2006 y el otorgamiento fue efectivo el 4 de mayo de 2011. La patente ha sido opuesta por inter alia, numerosas NGOs (Agencias Non Gubernamentales).¨

¿Necesita persistente política presión de las NGOs actuar como supervisión para codiciosas oficinas donde hay insaciable aspiración para incrementar el número de patentes, incluso para no éticamente ampliar la esfera de patentes (ejemplo en formas de vida)?

02.04.16

The Siege Continues: Patent Lawyers Want More Patents, Including Software Patents, In Spite of Alice

Posted in America, Patents at 9:03 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Patent peace (or absence of patent conflict) an existential threat to some…

Threat of Peace
Image source: Threat of Peace

Summary: Lawyers who make money from patent disputes make rather apparent their aspirations, which include patent saturation even in domains that are patents-exempt

WE are often reminded of the sharp contrast, separation or distinction between practicing and non-practicing (or parasitic) elements in today’s industry. This isn’t just limited to software. Some people make money from making technology and some try to make money from writing about it, talking about it, or taxing it. The latter group isn’t even capable of making technology. It’s professionally trained to babble and fool judges (or examiners), not to make factual statements (or commands/instructions) so as to make machines accomplish a task.

This week we still see EPO-funded media and other such patents-centric ‘news’ sites writing about “Africa IP” (as if Africa has anything to gain from ‘IP’, which is mostly used to pillage and plunder Africans) and give bogus ‘awards’ to law (litigation) firms that charge many hundreds of dollars per hour (even dentists, private medical specialists and prostitutes would not charge this much). We cannot help but feel that there’s a silent war between those capable of scientific and technological progress and those who just try to exploit those people. Sadly, a lot people inside the former group don’t even realise that there’s this war going on. A lot of the public does not understand why prices are artificially elevated to absurd levels.

“We cannot help but feel that there’s a silent war between those capable of scientific and technological progress and those who just try to exploit those people.”Yesterday we saw even universities getting dragged into this war. Well, “the NPE known as Columbia University” is what Dennis Crouch called the university, perhaps humorously implying it was little more than a troll in this case. To quote Crouch: “Symantec argued that the term “byte sequence feature” includes more than merely machine code instructions, and also extends to other non-compiled elements of an executable attachment. On appeal, the Federal Circuit rejected that argument — finding that the specification indicates that the byte sequence feature “represents the machine code in an executable.” The court also found that the machine-code limitation “most naturally aligns” with the inventor’s description of his invention.”

Notice that it’s unambiguously about software patents. They’re dealing with processing of commands/instructions by a general-purpose machine. Why should this be taken for granted? Who benefits from these patents?

Media of patent lawyers is often (but not always) wrongly assumed to be more accurate because it is authored by the “pros” (law professionals). Well, quid pro quo sure is a “pro”. “Quid pro quo,” as Wikipedia puts it, “means an exchange of goods or services, where one transfer is contingent upon the other. English speakers often use the term to mean “a favour for a favour”; phrases with similar meaning include: “give and take”, “tit for tat”, and “you scratch my back, and I’ll scratch yours”.”

“Media of patent lawyers is often (but not always) wrongly assumed to be more accurate because it is authored by the “pros” (law professionals).”Months ago and even a year ago we showed that patent lawyers still refuse to understand Alice because it's a threat to their livelihood. What they say is simply what’s good for them. Yesterday I stumbled upon the stupidest headline I’ve seen in a long time about Alice. It was published in the National Law Journal and the headline said: “After ‘Alice,’ Are Software Patents the Answer?” (behind paywall, so I cannot read the rest)

Well, no, they’re a problem, not the answer.

It’s so often that we find patent lawyers lecturing other patent lawyers on how to get around rules that exclude many software patents, effectively fooling patent examiners. Here is an example from yesterday [1, 2], including an example from Europe. A false dichotomy is presented in the latter with the headline “Software patents in Germany: Should you file with the EPO or the German Patent Office?”

“Remember when the EPO granted Apple patents which were later ruled (in the courts) invalid?”How about neither? Is that even an option in the eyes of patent lawyers?

Another new article by Dennis Crouch said that SCOTUS would soon deal with more patent cases, just like Alice, which was truly a game changer. to quote Crouch: “With Washington DC snowed-in, action within the Supreme Court has also been somewhat slow. Briefing is now complete in ePlus v. Lawson. In that case, a district court originally held an adjudged infringer in contempt-of-court for refusing to comply with its injunction order. Following the contempt order, the USPTO independently cancelled the patent claims and, at that point, the Federal Circuit vacated both the injunction and the contempt order.”

“At this point, with a few exceptions, it’s nearly impossible to find the patents that your company might infringe and analyze them.”
      –Matt Levy, Patent Counsel at CCIA
According to the aforementioned maximalists: “PTAB Data and Analysis: the IPR count ticked past the 4,000 mark in January, which also saw the first challenge to an Apple patent, the USPTO deeming two decisions precedential, a case showing the dangers of a motion to amend, and an ironic Federal Circuit ruling on an IPR appeal”

Remember when the EPO granted Apple patents which were later ruled (in the courts) invalid? We quite liked this statement from a lawyer who had just admitted: “At this point, with a few exceptions, it’s nearly impossible to find the patents that your company might infringe and analyze them.”

That’s what patent maximalism leads to. But it’s good for patent lawyers. The greater the mess they help generate, the more money they make. It’s time for engineers to regain control and say to patent lawyers where they can go.

The ‘International’ Trade Commission Imposes/Reinforces Software Patents to Establish Another Embargo

Posted in America, Patents at 7:13 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

The misleadingly-named Trade Commission does it again

A container

Summary: The International [sic] Trade Commission is meddling in competition and allowing a US giant, Cisco in this case, to potentially block rivals (no imports from abroad) using software patents

EMBARGOES do not support or motivate innovation. They’re weapons of blackmail. They limit choice in the market (expect price hikes) and create an atmosphere of fear that discourages companies (or their engineers) from implementing all sorts of useful features.

The ITC says Arista Networks violated three Cisco software patents. But software patent are not valid in Europe, many of them are not valid in general (not even in the US), and trends suggest that many software patents are invalid (once presented and assessed before a court). Is US patent law the universal law now? It seems so. See yesterday’s coverage of this patent spat [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20]. We don’t have time to deal with each article individually, but we just wish to point out that in its entire history the ITC rarely (if ever) helped a non-US company block imports of products by a US corporation. The word “international” in “International Trade Commission” is highly misleading. It’s like calling the EPO “European” when most of its favourite clients are not European. The ITC is imperial by intent/design; it’s a US apparatus of power masquerading as international. Microsoft has history banning rival mice using patents and ITC for sanctions. That’s how it started for Microsoft, which has gotten worse (more aggressive with patents) since then. Apple too is trying to gain advantage over mostly Asian companies (Apple’s products too are made in Asia and imported from Asia) through ITC sanctions. All in all, the ITC has a proven track record of helping US mega-corporations embargo/ban foreign rivals. It needs to stop. See the article “International Trade Commission pens patent love letter to Cisco” and the article “Cisco ruling could lead to ban on Arista tech imports” (import bans likely imminent). Cisco, as a reminder, is a facilitator of an empire’s back doors. Cisco used to openly advertise these back doors, but now it shies away from such negative publicity (because of Snowden’s leaks).

Who really benefits from all this?

02.03.16

Patent Invalidation Statistics and Cost of Patent Litigation (Even If Bogus) Show That Patent Scope and Examination Standards a Problem in Europe, Not Just the US

Posted in America, Europe, Patents at 5:13 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

The huge cost (even to innocent parties) of patent maximalism motivated by self-importance and greed

Pig's bank

Summary: Far too many bogus patents (patents that should not be granted in the first place) and spurious patent lawsuits that end up in favour of the defendant serve to show the external cost (or externality) when it comes to low-quality patent systems that strive to grant a lot of patents irrespective of merit

LAST year we wrote quite a lot about software patents in Europe, including in Germany’s courts, where Apple had been trying to block Android/Linux (Germany is strategic for many such lawsuits). Well, according to this interesting new piece from IP Kat, “German Federal Patent Court (partially) invalidates 80% of litigated patents” and here are the numbers for software patents: “For software and telecommunications patents, the invalidation rate is even higher at 88% (58% totally invalid, 30% partially invalid, 12% maintained). Patentees fare slightly, but only slightly, better on appeal, as the win rate for appeals against decisions invalidating a patent is higher (60%) than the win rate for appeals against decisions maintaining a patent (40%).”

“It’s a very big deal when patents are ruled invalid in courts because it means that patent offices simply failed to do their job properly and as a result many companies may have to spend a lot of money that they’ll never redeem (even when acquitted).”Many people read this piece within hours and many comments there alluded to the EPO. People have strong feelings about this. It’s a very big deal when patents are ruled invalid in courts because it means that patent offices simply failed to do their job properly and as a result many companies may have to spend a lot of money that they’ll never redeem (even when acquitted). This is a serious injustice. It also serves to show the real cost of patent offices that associate the number of patents with “innovation” (and thus embark on a patents gold rush).

As revealed by a patent maximalists’ blog the other day, patents are now being found invalid in the courts only upon appeal (i.e. even more legal charges) because examiners granted too easily (or pressured to grant by management, if the example of the EPO’s Grant Philpott was to be generalised). The same blog also spoke about patent trolls with software patents. We wrote a great deal about NewEgg’s defense from such trolls in recent years (NewEgg deserves kudos for its policy on this matter). To quote the blog: “In the appeal, the Federal Circuit noted that – this time, NewEgg was the one with an unreasonable position — demanding a “de novo review of the district court’s findings” despite recent Supreme Court precedent to the contrary. However, the Federal Circuit followed its usual practice of requiring each party to bear its own costs of the appeal.”

“The patent offices need to come under an examination.”So once again it’s an appeal and no legal fees will be reimbursed. The cost of fraudulent patent lawsuits (invalid patents) is passed to the defendant, which even if proven innocent still loses (a lot of money). What kind of justice is this? The UPC can potentially bring a lot more of this to Europe and given the statistics above (from Germany) we shouldn’t have to tolerate it. The patent offices need to come under an examination. Currently they just don’t have any effective form of oversight; quality is hardly imposed from the outside, except perhaps the Supreme Court, the EPC (old), and so on. Why are so many bogus patents granted in the first place? Some of the evidence we had showed for that the EPO threatens to sue us over, some remains in tact.

Consider this new analysis from a patent lawyers’ site. It is titled “Monsanto Patent On Virus-Resistant Melon Revoked” and it says: “The patent application was filed with the EPO on 21 December 2006 and the grant of the patent became effective on 4 May 2011. The patent has since been opposed by, inter alia, numerous NGOs.”

Do NGOs and persistent political pressure need to act as oversight for greedy offices where there’s insatiable aspiration to increase the number of patents, even if by unethically broadening patent scope (e.g. to forms of life)?

02.01.16

Microsoft Infiltrates Politics and Can Engage in Election Fraud in Iowa Right Now

Posted in America, Microsoft at 8:00 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Less than a decade after Iowa took Microsoft to court for extremely serious abuses

Iowa State

Summary: It is apparently acceptable to put a convinced serial abuser in charge of the country, simply because it frames this as volunteering

MICROSOFT, the company that brought corporate corruption to new levels (many examples exist) and actively prevented Free/Open Source/transparent software from being used for elections (open source voting was almost single-handedly derailed by Microsoft), is now misusing the word “volunteer” to make its strong-arming sound like goodwill. Microsoft gains power over the election and also receives free publicity. According to this new article, “Microsoft volunteered [sic] to provide the technology to help tally up the results of Iowa’s caucus, free of charge [sic]. Now it will be put to the test Monday night. The contests in both parties are expected to go down to the wire. And the spotlight will be on precinct officials who have been trained on a new Microsoft app, which is meant to cut down on human error and speed up the reporting process.”

So now we have a platform with back doors of the NSA being used to decide on politics. Microsoft has a history of rigging votes in all sorts of ways (we covered many examples over the years) and spies have too. Consider the fact that candidates like Sanders openly complain, repeatedly, about the NSA. Now there’s a company of liars and cheaters (see how Microsoft lies about privacy [1] in its failed [2] rebranded browser right now) who habitually spy and abuse presiding over an election. Isn’t that just great? A company that turned operating systems into malware/spyware as per textbook definition, as well one that engaged in financial fraud, will now be in a position to facilitate election fraud. There’s an immense power here — unprecedented power over the world’s most powerful political system. To make matters worse, the back doors in Windows can enable other entities — including foreign — to crack and tamper with the results.

Sanders already expressed concerns about it (Microsoft meddling in the votes while also defending back doors) and asked for Free software, as we noted in our daily links last week. Remember that Microsoft is a serial tax evader (the IRS is on this case right now) — something that Sanders is planning to tackle. How can Microsoft be trusted to run Iowa’s voting process? This is just insane for so many reasons.

“Microsoft [is] infiltrating the Obama administration,” a reader told us this weekend, citing this report about Obama giving (or at least pledging) billions of dollars to “computer science” in schools [1, 2], whereupon “Brad Smith, president of Microsoft, said computer science education is an “economic and social imperative for the next generation of American students.””

Microsoft sure knows how to turn one’s government into a major client and advocate.

Whatever happens in Iowa, remember that Microsoft is in charge. A company of cheats, liars and criminals is supposed to oversee something like that? And it characterises it as goodwill? What has the United States come to?

Related/contextual items from the news:

  1. Stop using Microsoft Edge’s InPrivate mode if you value your privacy

    It’s possible that you reached this article purely by chance, or you may have Googled ‘how to change the default search engine in Microsoft Edge’. However you got here, the fact that you’re reading this indicates that you’re either interested in Windows 10′s Edge, or actively use it — and this means there’s something you need to know.

    If you fall into the latter camp and use Edge’s InPrivate mode to cover your online tracks, you might want to think about changing your web browser. Edge has already got some stick for its lack of extension support — “it’s coming, it’s coming!” Yeah, whatever… so’s Christmas — but now it turns out that InPrivate mode is a privacy nightmare. It is possible to peak behind the curtain and see which sites have been visited when using a browsing mode that should mask this.

  2. Microsoft Edge Remains One of the Least Used Browsers in Early 2016

01.31.16

La Avara USPTO deja Ambiguedades, ¨Per Se¨, para el Patentamiendo de Software en los Estados Unidos A Pesar del Caso Alice

Posted in America, Europe, Patents at 2:34 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

English/Original

Publicado en America, Europe, Patents at 9:10 am por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz

No ambiguedades ¨como tales¨, simplemente ambiguedades ¨per se¨

USPTO subject matter

Sumario: La oficina de Patentes de los Estados Unidos, USPTO esta tratando de esquivar las decisiones de los que escriben las leyes en ese país, probablemente por codicia y no por motivaciones de control de cálidad.

La Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos fue bien clara acera de patents abstractas y la USPTO a regañadientes tomó esto en cuenta, sólo después que las cortes han tirado una y otra vez en el tacho de basura patentes otorgadas por la USPTO, donde cálidad de control es peor que comedia negra (¿es una examinación hecha en alguna manera o simplemente sellandola por un dinero?).

“Sin sorpresas, en este extremo sistema no regulado, la oficina de patentes hace lo muy minimo para acomodarse a las decisiones de la corte y deja muchas ambiguedades para patentar ideas abstractas.”Basado en esta página acerca de ¨Materia Sujeta a Eligibilidad de Patentes¨, la USPTO no quiere actualmente obedecer la ley como estan interpretadas por la Corte Suprema. Sin sorpresas, en este extremo sistema no regulado, la oficina de patentes hace lo muy minimo para acomodarse a las decisiones de la corte y deja muchas ambiguedades para patentar ideas abstractas. El término ¨per se¨ es mencionado por lo menos 5 veces en esta página y Benjamin Henrion (FFII) correctamente dijo que la ¨USPTO Esta abusando el ¨per se¨, como la OEP ha abusado del ¨como tál¨ para permitir que el software sea patentable al final¨ (ESTAS PALABRAS SON COMO VAGAS EXCEPCIONES A CADA REGLA).

¨Patentes,¨ escribió un persona patente-centrica, ¨Nueva entrada en & tomo 101 (materia sujeta a elegibilidad). ¿Cuándo actualizan MPEP?¨

Henrion, quien hablará acerca de problemas similares relacionados con patentes de software en Europa mañana en Bruselas, respondió a lo de arriba diciendo ¨que esta escrito por leguleyeros que quieren explotar las ambiguedades.¨

“USPTO ESTA ABUSANDO EL ¨PER SE¨, COMO LA oep HA ABUSADO DEL ¨COMO TÁL¨ PARA PERMITIR QUE EL SOFTWARE SEA PATENTABLE AL FINAL”
      –Benjamin Henrion
Otra persona opuesta a patentes de software escribió: ¨¿Interpretando la ley para servirse a sí mismos? ¿En orden de obtener ganancias?¨

Henrion más tarde la llamó ¨Estilo de la OEP para agarrar dinero¨ (recuerden como la OEP hace esto).

Están representando las patentes de software ¨aceptables¨ (o implícitamente permitidas) así que a agarrar dinero a cuestas de los ciudadanos. ESTO ESTA SIMPLEMENTE MAL. nO DEBERÍA SER HECHO. Estas organizaciones tienen dominios .org and .gov, pero operan como corporaciones avaras y las sirven [http://techrights.org/2015/10/11/closer-contact-with-major-applicants-leaked/] no a los ciudadanos.

Escribiendo acerca de la CAFC (Corte de Apelaciones del Distrito Federal), este sitio pro patentes de software (de abogados de patentes) escribió ayer que la CAFC ¨No abuse su discreción para permitir al acusado la § 101 Defens despues de Alice; Reclamos por ¨Compras de Carga Anónimas¨ usando tecnología de ordenador son abstractas y no patentables.¨

También dijo que el ¨acusador se movió para evitar la re-emitida invalidez bajo §101 como no hecha con buena cause y como injustamente perjudicial. El acusado discutió que el cambio fue hecho en vista de la §101 decision in Alice v. CLS Bank de la Corte Suprema, que fue decidida dos meses antes que las contenciones de invalidez fueron servidas. La Corte distrital acordo que la decisión Alice fue suficiente cause para reafirmar al §101 defense en las contenciones finales de invalidez. El distrito más tarde otorgó juicio sumario de invalidez bajo §101. El acusador apeló.¨

Como puede ser visto aquí, la USPTO otorga patentes de software, pero como los decretos de la Corte Suprema, estas patentes are considerada invalidas. Esto significa que la USPTO no hace lo que es legal y las palabras de arriba (¨per se¨) ayudan a mostrar que no esta incluso interesada en obedecer la ley. Simplemente quiere que el número de patentes otorgadas cresca exponencialmente (el número doblo en materia de pocos años).

Esta extrema codicia significa que una burbuja de patentes esta siendo creada (llevando a valuaciones incorrectas de algunas compañías) e inevitablemente explotará, causando mucho daño a la economía de los Estados Unidos. No será tan malo para los abogados de patentes cuando finalmente esto suceda.

Los abogados de patentes en Australia, mientras tanto, tratan de descubrir como patentar software en los Estados Unidos y su país. Medios de abogados ha publicado recientemente ¨Métodos de Negocios y Patentes de Software Elegibiliad: Estandares de los US y Australia¨ y dice:

RPL sostuvo que ¨no es una invención patentable simplemente ´poner´ un método de negocio ´dentro´ de una computadora para implementar el método de negocio usando la computadora por sus bien conocidas y entendibles funciones.¨ Puesto de otra manera, el ordenador no puede ser una mera herramienta ena la que la invención es hecha,¨ pero en vez ¨debe envolver al creación de un estado artificial de negocios donde el ordenador es integral a la invencion…¨ El aspecto inventivo (¨ingenuidad¨ como término de una corte australiana) debe ser ¨en la manera que el ordenador es utilizado¨, no en el esquema, plan o proceso que esta siendo implementado.

A primera vista, suena similar a la guía presentemente publicada en la decisión de la Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos en Alice Corp. versus CLS Bank Int´l. La Corte Suprema mantuvo que ¨una mera instrucción para ´implementar´ una idea abstracta ´en una computadora´… no puede impartir elegibilidad de patentes.¨ En ves de ello, citando casos previos, Alice mantuvo que la invención puede ser patente elegible donde ¨mejora el funcionamiento del ordenador mismo,¨ o ´contribuye a un mejoramiento en otra tecnología o campo tecnológico.¨

Más y más lugares en el mundo, incluyendo Europa, decretan/consideran patentes de software invalidas, al menos cuando ellas llegan a las cortes. Es tiempo para que el público presione a las oficinas de patentes y abogados de patentes con los que ellos interactuan (todo por la acumulación de dinero), demandando que dejen de ignorar la ley. eLLOS NO DEBERÍAN PERSEGUIR MÁS PATENTES DE SOFTWARE. Ellas son una gran parte de los problemas de hoy. Si las patentes son comparadas con ¨productos¨ y maximilación de ¨ventas¨ (a clientes o aplicantes) es el objetivo, no sorpresa por que terminamos en este creciente terrible desorden.

“[La OEP] no puede distinguir entre hardware and software así que las patentess son otorgadas de todas maneras.”

Marshall Phelps, Microsoft

« 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