“[The EPO] can’t distinguish between hardware and software so the patents get issued anyway” —Marshall Phelps
Summary: Old and familiar tricks — a method for tricking examiners into the idea that algorithms are actual machines — are being peddled by Watchtroll again
I COME from a professional background of computer vision and I am also familiar with (and trained in) processor technology, so when I say that software is inherently mathematics I am not just merely repeating what other people are saying. In fact, having debated this in length with Watchtroll a couple of years ago, it became abundantly clear that he (Mr. Quinn) does not know that the heck he is talking about; he could not even name any computer program he wrote. It’s astounding that people who want to believe that software is patentable take him seriously*.
I therefore worry that Watchtroll is seen by many as some sort of ‘authority’ on the subject; it’s a site by and for law firms, or a propaganda mill for their pockets (software patents). They do a lot of lobbying and also shaming of officials like the Director of the USPTO (they never even mention the EPO).
“The latest Watchtroll piece wants people to think of computer programs as computers; as if putting something that is akin to prose through a processor magically makes it patentable.”The latest Watchtroll piece is titled “Operational Mathematics on a Processor is not an Abstract Idea”. They are mixing two things here; processors are not abstract but mathematics is a whole different thing. They cannot just magically link two things to make them look like the same thing. In our view, which was consistent over the years, the processor itself can have patents associated with it, and we don’t object to that. But algorithms are not processors and they are rarely if ever embedded in gate level. The computers are programmable. That’s what Manchester innovated after the (second) World War and what the Computer Science department here — the department which I studied in — became most renowned for.
The latest Watchtroll piece wants people to think of computer programs as computers; as if putting something that is akin to prose through a processor magically makes it patentable. Clueless or just lying to oneself?
We often wonder how many of the software patents proponents who write for Watchtroll actually come from Computer Science and can comprehend computer programs/code. We cannot recall even one. “Peter also works as a patent engineer in patent prosecution,” says the disclosure in the above article. What the heck is a “patent engineer”? That makes it sound like the act of patenting itself is an engineering task? Can they patent the process of patenting too? I once dated a girl who said she was a “nail engineer” (later it turned out she meant manicurist), so here again we have these artistic semantics.
“Sadly, based on what we heard, the above-mentioned pattern of deception (combining or blurring the gap between machine and code) is often used to trick EPO examiners into granting software patents; they can mislead themselves into thinking that they don’t grant software patents, but they do.”“Operational math on a processor is a switching device and not an abstract idea,” Peter writes. The processor just takes an instruction or a set of instructions (input) and produces some output, yielding something that can be processed for visualisation, sound etc. But the processor is not the program itself. The programs are stored in memory or in registers, which themselves resemble a book and are already covered by copyrights, not patents, just like a book. We could go on and deconstruct the whole piece from Peter, who is an Electronic Engineer, not a software engineer (far from the same thing).
Sadly, based on what we heard, the above-mentioned pattern of deception (combining or blurring the gap between machine and code) is often used to trick EPO examiners into granting software patents; they can mislead themselves into thinking that they don’t grant software patents, but they do. █
* Well, here is Mr. Watchtroll being treated as some kind of guru on the subject [1, 2] just a few days ago.
Send this to a friend
SIPO, China (Sina), Singapore and the failure to learn the West’s tough lessons
Summary: Disintegration of Intellectual Ventures (further shrinkage after losing software patents at CAFC), China’s massive patent bubble, and Singapore’s implicit invitation/facilitation of patent trolls (bubble economy)
IAM ‘magazine’, the unofficial voice of patent trolls, seems happy with the migration (or outsourcing) of troll activity to east Asia. That’s why IAM writes so much about Asia these days (as does MIP), except when it grooms the world's biggest troll and Microsoft’s vast patent troll, Intellectual Ventures, which now continues its slow death based on IAM’s latest blog (filled with promotional language). After patents were ‘imported’ from Kodak they apparently move back to east Asia:
Intellectual Ventures has sold a portfolio of around 4,000 former Kodak patents to Dominion Harbor in another sign that the IP giant is actively slimming down its vast portfolio.
This is the fourth deal that IV has done with Dominion, including one in November last year which saw around 50 assets change hands. The firm also sold patents to Equitable IP, the monetisation business led by former ICAP Patent Brokerage CEO Dean Becker, as it has upped its rate of disposals. This blog also reported last year on the disposal of assets to a company called China Star Optoelectronics Technology (CSOT) by what appeared to be an IV vehicle. But none of those deals approach the size of the Kodak transaction with Dominion.
This kind of shift or passage of patents to China was frequently seen in previous years when large Chinese companies bought patents by the thousands. These were bought from the West, where post-AIA patent values diminished. We gave numerous examples of that and last year, naming — amongst others — Singapore, which reportedly doubles down on patent trolling (after Creative had made it (in)famous in 2016, by trolling very major companies in Singapore [1, 2]). This is what IAM wrote with highly sanitised language (e.g. trolling described as “IP value creation” by “patent monetisation entities”):
A new Singapore government report recommends “bringing in” or creating patent monetisation entities, as well as other kinds of other intermediary, to boost the country’s IP commercialisation capabilities.
Published earlier this week, the report comes from the Committee on the Future Economy (CFE), which was established in January 2016 to review Singapore’s longer term economic strategy. Among seven broad strategy recommendations made one to “strengthen enterprise capabilities to innovate and scale up”, with IP value creation a central pillar.
East Asian patent systems not only lowered their patent bar (China’s in particular) but also fostered a lot of litigation — a grave mistake which brings rise to trolls. The trend is noteworthy because some of these Chinese lawsuits are nowadays being filed by Chinese companies in the US and the EU. These chickens will come home and abroad to roost. █
Send this to a friend
The patent microcosm belongs in the same wastebasket that software patents go into
Summary: The latest examples of misleading articles which, in spite of the avalanche of software patents in the United States, continue to promote these
SEVERAL months ago we wrote that software patents had become pretty toothless everywhere except the Eastern District of Texas, where judges continue to exploit their own governance to welcome patent trolls. Nowadays, just because the USPTO occasionally grants software patents does not necessarily mean that courts (more so the higher ones) will respect them. Recent experiences and even a census (2016 statistics) serve to show that lawsuits with software patents have become a very risky game to play (the plaintiff typically loses not only the case but also a lot of money, which law firms pocket in the process).
“Recent experiences and even a census (2016 statistics) serve to show that lawsuits with software patents have become a very risky game to play (the plaintiff typically loses not only the case but also a lot of money, which law firms pocket in the process).”Law firms that used to make a lot of money from software patents are concerned. They need their clients to become dumb or poorly informed. Yesterday we saw a new article, which was unsurprisingly (given the authorship) entitled “Software Is Still Patent Eligible”, published by Sandra Badin, Matthew Karambelas, Nick Mouton, Michael Renaud, and Michael D. Van Loy (Mintz Levin). This is poor advice from a self-serving firm which is just trying to sell its services around software patents. These patents may seem eligible at the US patent office, but how about in District Courts? Or even worse: CAFC? SCOTUS was very clear about it.
Not even District Courts like the Eastern District of Texas’ can provide much of a reprieve, at least not for much longer because SCOTUS has Texas in its crosshairs. Writing about TC Heartland — the case that can effectively kill patent trolls later this year (their modus operandi would be shattered) — Professors Megan M. La Belle & Paul R. Gugliuzza wrote yesterday that “[p]atent litigation is, as we all know, [has been] highly concentrated in a small number of districts. Most notably—some might say, notoriously—the rural Eastern District of Texas hears about forty percent of all patent cases nationwide. Many lawyers and scholars consider this case concentration to be a critical flaw in the patent system.”
“The environment for patent bullies is rapidly changing and those who assisted such bullies (law firms that pursue patents by the millions) will need to find another business tactic.”Putting aside Alice and the Bilski case, the few courts that actually disregard precedential rulings may soon be out of business (not literally, but they will have to shrink significantly) and what will proponents of software patents have left to say?
The environment for patent bullies is rapidly changing and those who assisted such bullies (law firms that pursue patents by the millions) will need to find another business tactic. Fitbit is already withdrawing from its own patent case (which it initiated) and laying off a lot of its staff; they deserve it for resorting to patent aggression rather than innovation. Don’t expect law firms to accept this new reality, as long as they can continue to mislead prospective clients.
In spite of Fitbit deciding to abandon its own case — a fact that Bejin Bieneman PLC’s site (a software patents proponents’ site) conveniently omits — here is a new anti-Alice post [via], published only yesterday, to paint just ponies and rainbows. To quote:
Fitbit sued Jawbone, its rival, alleging infringement of three patents directed to preparing wearable activity trackers with client and/or server computers, whereupon Jawbone unsuccessfully brought a Rule 12 motion to dismiss alleging patent-ineligible subject matter. Fitbit, Inc. v. AliphCom, No. 15-cv-04073-EJD (N.D. Cal. Feb 9, 2017.) The asserted patents were U.S. Patent Nos. 9,026,053, 9,106,307, and 9,048,923; “[a]ll of the asserted claims recite a method or system for pairing that involves three discrete entities: a portable monitoring device, a ‘client,’ and a ‘server.’” Skirting the question of whether claims were directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea, the court found that the claims recite an inventive combination of elements.
As is widely known by now, Fitbit effectively lost the case by dropping it. Not that law firms would want the public to know this…
Objective information about patents has become scarce because the few who have an incentive to write about the subject are those who profit from it. █
Send this to a friend
Lobbying disguised as “news” (from Watchtroll & Friends, the “Alt Right” of the patent world)
Summary: Contrary to a malicious whispering campaign against Lee (a coup attempt, courtesy of patent maximalists who make a living from mass litigation), she is still in charge of the USPTO
FOR a number of weeks if not months (depending on when Watchtroll started spreading malicious rumours, personal attacks, and fake news about Michelle Lee [1, 2, 3, 4]) it has not been known what exactly goes on at the USPTO. This is important as it can help determine the future direction of the US patent system, e.g. eligibility of software patents. The maximalists are trying to install Rader as Director of the USPTO, but they have not been successful.
“…a bunch of spoiled brats and bullies are trying to scandalise Lee and cause her to lose her job while they are sending to officials some truly nasty letters (with phrases like “Drain the Swamp”) to persuade the Trump administration to fire her.”Citing this report, earlier this week Patently-O wrote: “What an oddity – for the past 26 days, it has been an open secret that Michelle Lee remains USPTO Director but officials at the office have repeatedly refused to confirm or deny that role or to provide any answer to the question “Who is in charge at the USPTO?”
“According to a Politico squib report, both Rep. Darryl Issa and USPTO PR Director Paul Fucito have confirmed that Dir. Lee is “in charge” but it is unclear whether she is still USPTO Director.”
As we noted here before, a bunch of spoiled brats and bullies are trying to scandalise Lee and cause her to lose her job while they are sending to officials some truly nasty letters (with phrases like “Drain the Swamp”) to persuade the Trump administration to fire her. █
Send this to a friend
But not to self-serving zealots like Mr. Quinn…
Summary: A new survey from Bloomberg BNA and AIPLA reveals that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), which still grows in prominence, is supported by people who have themselves gotten patents (not those who are in the bureaucracy of patents and self-serving politics)
Who hates PTAB? Who hates IPRs? Sites such as Watchtroll and IAM, which are the megaphone of patent trolls, patent maximalists, patent prosecutors and so on. Not actual developers… these sites are the equivalent of pro-UPC sites in Europe (always connected to legal firms looking to exploit the UPC to foster more litigation, injunctions, and damages).
We couldn’t help but notice last night’s blog post from Matt Levy (CCIA). It’s about patent proponents (but not patent maximalists like prosecutors, profiteers etc.) wanting PTAB, a cornerstone of patent reform from 2011. To quote:
Bloomberg BNA and AIPLA just released a nationwide survey of patent attorneys and agents asking about their experiences with inter partes review at the Patent Trial and Appeals Board. Bloomberg BNA and AIPLA did a survey of attitudes towards inter partes review (IPR). Among attorneys representing patent owners, 48% said that they thought that over all, inter partes review has been very beneficial. This includes in-house counsel. 45% of in-house counsel whose patents had been subject to IPR said that IPRs are very beneficial.
Personally, I find that result pleasantly surprising. I would have expected the numbers to be much lower.
I do note that the survey’s finding is actually a little stronger than Bloomberg reports. The attorneys were asked to rank from 1 to 10 to describe how beneficial they feel that IPRs have been, with 10 being the most beneficial, 1 being the least. 48% of respondents who most recently represented patent owners in an IPR gave a rank between 7 and 10. But if you add in the respondents who ranked it as a 6 (which is still more beneficial than harmful), you get 65% of attorneys representing patent owners. If you only look at in-house counsel in that group, it’s 70% who ranked IPRs as 6 or better.
That is, in a survey of patent attorneys with recent experience with IPRs, a solid majority of attorneys representing patent owners said that they think IPRs are more beneficial than harmful.
Is the survey biased? Bloomberg has no agenda, it’s a news organization. And AIPLA is hardly biased against patent owners. I don’t think it’s fair to impute a bias to either organization.
This is something to bear in mind now that as little as 0% (as low as it can get!) of EPO stakeholders support Battistelli, based on a new survey. Battistelli has basically destroyed patent quality at the EPO and is sending to exile the semi-equivalent of PTAB. The only supposed ‘quality’ that is rising under Battistelli’s regime is the burden associated with filing patents — a thing that no stakeholders is likely to appreciate as it adds to cost/labour.
To quote this month’s short piece from Jérôme Braquehais (REGIMBEAU):
As of 1st November 2016, the European Patent Office (EPO) Examination Directive that includes the acceptance conditions for recording an assignment underwent changes significantly altering the recordal procedure of an assignment at the EPO.
These amendments, which are in line with an increased formalization, primarily concern the obligation that the assignment contract is to be signed by all parties, and the introduction of a control of the signatories function.
As quality at the EPO continues to decline (quality of patents, quality of service, quality of the workforce and so on) we can expect applicants to turn elsewhere. Battistelli killed the EPO and is only surviving by devouring the “stock” left on the shelf (backlog). With the existing EPs being vastly devalued by the gradual association with wrongly-granted, low-quality patents, price drops will become imperative, but it would already be too late. Battistelli is making the EPO completely unsustainable. █
Send this to a friend
The epidemic broke out outside of Texas, where Rodney Gilstrap (below) had bred them with favourable rulings
Summary: A roundup of the latest news about patent trolls and what they are up to in the United States, Europe, and Asia
Rodney Gilstrap, whom we wrote about before [1, 2], may have had a good run facilitating/norturing patent trolls, but his court may later this year be dealt a very major blow from the Supreme Court, which found merit in a complaint about District Courts like the trolls’ docket (Eastern District of Texas).
According to this MIP report, the trolls’ favourite judge, Rodney Gilstrap in the Eastern District of Texas, allows software patents to tax a Web browser which is based largely on Free software. The toll? $20 million. To quote: “An inventor and his late partner’s family has been awarded $20 million in damages against Google by an Eastern District of Texas jury. In a case presided over by Judge Rodney Gilstrap…”
“Patents in standards (SEP, RAND, FRAND etc.) should not be allowed.”This will hopefully be appealed and eventually reach CAFC or SCOTUS; otherwise a lot of Free software out there, not just Web browsers, may be subjected to patent shakedowns that are too expensive to fight back against.
Once again, based on this separate new report from MIP, CAFC turns out to be a lot more strict on patent scope than District Courts. “The Federal Circuit,” it says about CAFC, “has found Watson did not infringe Shire’s patent for Lialda, noting the “rare” exception established by Norian to the presumptively closed nature of the “consisting of” language…”
The “consisting of” cases have been covered here repeatedly in recent months. It’s not about software patents, but there is still something one can learn from that.
In other news, patent troll MPEG-LA (see background in our Wiki) goes after Huawei, which we wrote about this week in relation to Microsoft proxies attacking it after it had declined to sign patent settlement with Microsoft (paying Microsoft for software that Microsoft never developed). Remember that Microsoft is a prominent member of MPEG-LA and see this tweet where Florian Müller reports “H.264 patent holders and MPEG LA pool contributors suing Huawei and ZTE over alleged infringement. As always with MPEG LA, in Düsseldorf.”
“If a so-called ‘standard’ has patents associated with it, then it ought to be rejected, shunned, or simply deny its adopters the ‘privilege’ to attack other adopters of it.”Müller also took note of this news about BlackBerry suing Nokia. What they have in common is that they are both failed companies that used to make phones (still do, to a lesser degree) but have since since turned into trolls that fight companies, sometimes even in the Eastern District of Texas.
Last night we saw many dozens of articles in English about this (not particularly relevant to software patents which we tend to focus on), including for example “BlackBerry Files Patent-Infringement Suit Against Nokia”, “BlackBerry Launches Patent Lawsuit Against Nokia”, “BlackBerry Slaps Nokia With A Patent Infringement Lawsuit”, “Blackberry Hits Nokia With Suit Over 11 Telecom Patents”, and “BlackBerry sues Nokia over patent infringement”. As the below makes clear, BlackBerry is just interested in a source of income (cash flow) which does not necessitate production or anything. It wants welfare:
BlackBerry has filed a patent-infringement lawsuit against Nokia, demanding royalties on the Finnish company’s mobile network products that use an industry-wide technology standard.
Patents in standards (SEP, RAND, FRAND etc.) should not be allowed. If a so-called ‘standard’ has patents associated with it, then it ought to be rejected, shunned, or simply deny its adopters the ‘privilege’ to attack other adopters of it. █
Send this to a friend
Reference: Neil Gorsuch
Summary: Whispering campaign surrounds Neil Gorsuch’s alleged or perceived views on patents, and in particular the America Invents Act (AIA) which brought the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), a serial invalidator of software patents, owing to Alice (a Supreme Court decision)
HIDDEN behind an obnoxious paywall today (as is usual for National Law Journal) is this article with an access token (if someone can access the whole, please get in touch with us). To quote the summary: “Though Gorsuch’s views on patents are mostly unknown, the Tenth Circuit judge has had plenty to say in other areas of intellectual property. And attorneys see signs that he might scale back some procedures created by the America Invents Act.”
“So far it’s mainly an enigma, much like Obama in 2008 (people just impose their own projections onto this blank slate).”We don’t know who these attorneys are (could be professional spinners like Watchtroll), but they might be trying to convince themselves — and the media — that Gorsuch, whom we mentioned in [1, 2, 3], would turn the Supreme Court into an opponent of the AIA, which brought PTAB among other things. The other day we mentioned how in January PTAB broke its own all-time record and this is recalled this week by MIP, which has done a decent job tracking PTAB’s workload.
It would be useful to know on which side Gorsuch sits, at least as far as patents go. So far it’s mainly an enigma, much like Obama in 2008 (people just impose their own projections onto this blank slate).
“If Trump’s Administration promotes patent maximalism, then it can eventually find itself sued for patent infringements.”Will Gorsuch be a secret weapon of patent maximalists or more like a Nemesis to them? They still try very hard to scandalise Michelle Lee [1, 2, 3, 4] and install Rader as Director of the Patent Office.
Incidentally, on the subject of patent maximalism in government, there is this new article titled “Suing The United States Government For Patent Infringement And Defending Against A Claim Of Obviousness”, written by a law firm. To quote:
A patentee may bring patent infringement claims against the United States government pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1498, in which Congress waived the sovereign immunity of the United States against such claims. Patent infringement actions against the government are similar to those brought against non-governmental entities, but they do have some idiosyncrasies. For example, patent owners can only sue the government for infringement in the United States Court of Federal Claims, as opposed to a district court, and jury trials are not available in the Court of Federal Claims.
If Trump’s Administration promotes patent maximalism, then it can eventually find itself sued for patent infringements. They ought to pursue patent quality (Make Patent Quality Great Again), not patent litigation (Make Litigation Great Again). █
Send this to a friend
Dirty tactics from the meta-industry of litigation and virtual (immaterial) ‘assets’
Summary: “The swamp” which is patent maximalists attempts to portray patent sanity as a “swamp”, then lobby the US government to bring back the Reagan era of endless patents on everything
THE USPTO seems like it’s staying as it is, but “the swamp” of Watchtroll just keeps attacking Michelle Lee [1, 2, 3, 4, 5].
Mr. Mullin from Condé Nast has produced an article about this, including the attempts by IAM, Watchtroll and other mouthpieces for patent maximalism to install Rader (basically a crook) as USPTO Director.
This is how Watchtroll is promoting a crooked man:
A patent blog that closely watches USPTO internal politics, IP Watchdog, raised the question earlier this week. Reports last month from Politico and The Hill indicated that Michelle Lee, a former Googler who was appointed in 2014 and is favored by the tech sector, would stay on under the administration of President Donald Trump.
Those reports, published right around Trump’s inauguration, seem much less reliable now. IP Watchdog reports that Lee continues to be seen on the 10th floor of the Madison building, where the USPTO director’s office is. Yet others continue to advocate for themselves, and on February 3, Lee canceled a scheduled speaking appearance in San Francisco. Since at least February 6, the Commerce Department’s website has listed the position of USPTO Director as “vacant” (screenshot by IP Watchdog).
Mullin has been too gentle there with his words. He hardly even mentions Rader’s scandals and maybe he decided to omit what would come across as seemingly impolite. But it’s absolutely essential that people are made aware of Rader’s scandals and don’t let him ruin the USPTO in the same way he ruined CAFC (still recovering).
“…it’s absolutely essential that people are made aware of Rader’s scandals and don’t let him ruin the USPTO in the same way he ruined CAFC…”In a separate article, Mullin shows that patent trolls are down, but not out (or dead), at least not yet. Software patents are now being used by some troll called Blackbird Technologies. We already mentioned this article last week and now it’s TechDirt that writes about it. To quote: “Joe Mullin over at Ars Technica has the story of a patent troll, Blackbird Technologies, which was founded by (of course) two patent attorneys to buy up patents and shakedown companies with legal threats. Blackbird Technologies has now sued Netflix, Soundcloud, Vimeo and a variety of other companies over US Patent 7,174,362, issued in 2007 (filed for in 2000) on a “method and system for supplying products from pre-stored digital data in response to demands transmitted via computer network.””
This is a result of low patent quality. These are software patents. They should never have been granted in the first place. President Reagan lowered patenting standards to the point where the USPTO got filled to the rim with nonsensical patents, then came the patent trolls and exploited this (the first to do so, Ray Niro, is dead now, just like his firm). What Watchtroll et al want Trump to do now is ‘pull a Reagan’ and appoint a crooked patent maximalist, undoing all the progress that has been made under Lee.
“What Watchtroll et al want Trump to do now is ‘pull a Reagan’ and appoint a crooked patent maximalist, undoing all the progress that has been made under Lee.”Edward Lanquist Jr., a “Guest Blogger”, mentioned “National Inventors Day” the other day in the corporate media. This day is not about inventors but about patents, at least to him (the headline says, “National Inventors Day helps stress the importance of patent law”). What we have here is a bunch of patent law firms hijacking the word “inventor” to lobby on patents. To quote: “President Ronald Reagan proclaimed Feb. 11, 1983, as the first National Inventors Day to recognize the achievements of inventors who have contributed so much to our economy. Feb. 11 is the birth date of Thomas Edison, who held more than 1,000 patents. As we recognize the accomplishments of inventors and encourage future inventors, we should also take this moment to look to the current and future state of invention and our patent system.”
Lanquist then attacks the status quo by interjecting his agenda: “Software is patentable. Regularly, someone tells me, “According to the Supreme Court, software is no longer patentable.” This belief is held by many, including CEOs, CTOs and persons involved in technology transfer and development. While some software is not patentable, the broad pronouncement that no software is patentable is just wrong. Software patents continue to be allowed and issued. Additionally, though current software patentability is not as broad as it once was, that will likely change. The patent system swings between broad and narrow protection. Patent protection may now be narrower, but history dictates that it will swing back. Decisions made now to not investigate software patentability will likely be viewed as mistakes later.”
“This is fake news, or lobbying disguised as some sort of news.”Actually, Lanquist seems to be little more than an undisclosed shill. There is no disclosure in the article, but a quick lookup reveals that he “practices patent, trademark and copyright litigation, intellectual property counseling and trademark prosecution.”
Why did the publication not mention this? This is fake news, or lobbying disguised as some sort of news.
Over (or down under) in Australia, patent attorney Mark Summerfield continues to bemoan the death of business method patents. This is his latest:
Is This The Exact Day That IP Australia Turned on ‘Business Method’ Patents?
One thing that is immediately notable is that it appears to have been getting ‘harder’ to obtain a patent in Australia during the period prior to mid-2009, with the proportion of applications lapsing or rejected rising from around 20% to a little over 30%. However, this trend seems to have abruptly reversed with lapsed/rejected rates falling below 2006 levels by the end of 2013. I do not presently have an explanation for this apparent break in the data, and would welcome any suggestions. (Additionally, if you are interested in an analysis of the break establishing its statistical significance, see the Appendix at the end of this article.)
Patent maximalists will attempt to do whatever they can to patent everything under the sun. It means money for them and it’s clear at whose expense. We need to fight back, or else we risk going back into the dark ages of patent trolls, software patents, and ‘legalised’ extortion. █
Send this to a friend
« Previous Page — « Previous entries « Previous Page · Next Page » Next entries » — Next Page »