Samsung has the power to put an end to a controversial type of patents that are similar to software patents
Slide to unlock: novel or medieval?
Summary: A couple of new developments in Apple’s dispute about the ‘design’ of Samsung’s Android phones, which emulate extremely old concepts in digital form
WE are definitely not friends of Samsung (never have been), but some of its patent cases in recent years (especially against Microsoft and Apple) have had profound implications/impact.
“How on Earth were such patents granted in the first place?”Here is Professor Mark Lemley sharing his “brief for 50 IP professors on design patent damages in the Samsung v. Apple Supreme Court case” (local copy to ensure it endures the test of time). This is one of several such cases that involve Apple and Samsung. Florian Müller wrote that this is about as absurd as Microsoft’s patent bullying “over tiny arrow”. To quote the relevant part: “This is one of the patents Microsoft is presently asserting against Corel. Last summer I reported on Corel drawing first blood by suing Microsoft over a bunch of preview-related patents. A few months later, Microsoft retaliated with the assertion of six utility patents and four design patents. The Electronic Frontier Foundation named one of Microsoft’s design patents-in-suit the “stupid patent of the month” of December 2015 because it merely covered the design of a slider. But that patent isn’t nearly as bad as U.S. Design Patent No. D550,237, which practically just covers a tiny arrow positioned in the lower right corner of a rectangle. If you look at the drawings, particularly this one, note that the dotted lines mark the parts that aren’t claimed. What’s really claimed is just a rectangle with another rectangle inside and that tiny graphical arrow in the bottom right corner.”
“This sounds good on the surface, but unless the SCOTUS Justices rule on this, the perceived legitimacy of design patents may persist.”How on Earth were such patents granted in the first place? It’s not surprising that USPTO patent quality has declined so badly and so quickly and there are new patent quality studies regarding the USPTO. Will any similar studies look closely at EPO patent quality as well?
According to an Apple advocacy site, patents on design might not reach SCOTUS after all. This is bad news to all who hoped that SCOTUS would put en end to design patents once and for all.”Samsung Electronics welcomes support for overturning U.S. court ruling in Apple case,” said this new article, which along with others said “Justice Department Urges High Court Overturn Award to Apple Over Samsung Smartphones”. This sounds good on the surface, but unless the SCOTUS Justices rule on this, the perceived legitimacy of design patents may persist. As Müller put it: “Reading all amicus briefs in Samsung v. Apple (design patent damages). Momentum behind call for reasonableness is very impressive.” It looks very likely that if the SCOTUS rules on this, it will help demolish many design patents by extension, in the same way that Alice at SCOTUS put an end to many software patents in the United States. “A federal appeals court awarded about $500 million in damages to Apple for design patent infringement,” recalled one article, demonstrating just how much money can be at stake due to one single patent. “Design patent owners shouldn’t get 100% of the profits when only 1% of the product infringes, EFF tells court,” according to the EFF’s Twitter account and accompanying blog post that says: “The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) asked the U.S. Supreme Court today to reverse a ruling that required Samsung to pay Apple all the profits it earned from smartphones that infringed three basic design patents owned by the iPhone maker.
“Apple is the aggressor, whereas Samsung — like Google — is hardly ever initiating patent lawsuits.”“The $399-million damage award against Samsung, upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the Apple v. Samsung patent lawsuit, should be thrown out, EFF told the court in an amicus brief filed today with Public Knowledge and The R Street Institute. Forcing defendants to give up 100% of their profits for infringing designs that may only marginally contribute to a product’s overall look and functionality will encourage frivolous lawsuits and lead to excessive damage awards that will raise prices for consumers and deter innovation.”
Don’t fall for the corporate media’s narrative of Apple as the victim even when software patents are to blame. Apple is the aggressor, whereas Samsung — like Google — is hardly ever initiating patent lawsuits. We hope that Samsung will take this all the way up to the Supreme Court (more expensive to Samsung but collectively beneficial to all) and eventually win. The net effect might be the end of many design patents in the US. Those patents so often threaten GNU/Linux or Android products, as we have repeatedly shown here over the years. Will Samsung do a public service here? █
Send this to a friend
Summary: A look at some of Samsung’s ongoing high-profile patent cases which involve Apple
“The Samsung case [one of several ongoing cases] is particularly interesting,” said Standard Law the other day, “because it turns on the “non-discrimination” prong of RAND. Little case law on what ND means.”
RAND (or FRAND) is an anti-Free software (FOSS) loophole. It’s how proprietary software giants like Apple and Microsoft every so often try to exclude FOSS while calling this reasonable, non-discriminatory and fair (i.e. a series of euphemisms, one longer than the other). In practice, RAND is means UnReasonable and Discriminatory, sometimes UnFair too (FRAND). It’s typically about software patents.
“RAND (or FRAND) is an anti-Free software (FOSS) loophole.”“In a statement to Patently-O,” it has just been said, “Samsung argued that “If the current ruling is left to stand, it would value a single design patent over the hundreds of thousands of groundbreaking technology patents, leading to vastly overvalued design patents.” The itself brief cites Professor Rantanen’s 2015 essay for the proposition that the high damage is likely result in an “explosion of design patent assertions and lawsuits.””
In the mean time, another (new) article by Jason Rantanen explores CAFC appeals — a stage that Samsung has already been through. It will soon reach the Supreme Court (the design patent case at least).
Sharing Samsung’s Supreme Court brief, one said a few days ago that we now have access to “Samsung’s Supreme Court brief addressing the question of whether section 289 of the Patent Act requires the disgorgement of the defendant’s total profit from sales of design patent infringing products, or only the profit attributable to the infringing component.”
“For all we know, not a single case at SCOTUS will present the chance/opportunity to challenge software patents, or override Alice as a precedent.”Patently-O still keeps track of new Supreme Court patent cases and there is a new short article by Dennis Crouch which zooms in on one particular case. He wrote: “On remand from the Supreme Court vacatur, the Federal Circuit has reaffirmed its prior NuVasive decision and – in the process limited the reach of the Supreme Court’s 2015 decision of Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 1920 (2015).”
For all we know, not a single case at SCOTUS will present the chance/opportunity to challenge software patents, or override Alice as a precedent. The case of Samsung is about design patents and one new article says that “in the next five years the chances are this isn’t going to go away anytime soon. So what has this continuing battle demonstrated about patent law?”
“It’s going to be interesting to see which companies will oppose Apple’s ludicrous design patents (probably Google and Facebook, judging by what happened before).”The deadline for amici curiae has passed and Samsung can now wait and prepare for this important case that will hopefully determine design patents are out of line. As a bit of background on this: “More than two months ago, the Supreme Court of the United States granted Samsung’s petition for writ of certiorari (request for top-court review) regarding design patent damages, which was supported by Google, Facebook and other tech giants. Tomorrow [last week actually], Samsung has to file its opening brief. At this level of proceeding the parties’ positions, theories and arguments are largely known, but it will be very interesting to see what priorities they set, what case law they can find in support of their positions, and which amici curiae (“friends of the court”) will support them.”
We are still not aware of any information related to this, maybe because the amicis have not yet been published. It’s going to be interesting to see which companies will oppose Apple’s ludicrous design patents (probably Google and Facebook, judging by what happened before).
Speaking of certiorari, Patently-O reports that “Hospira explained that both the district court weighed the secondary indicia of non-obviousness and found them “not sufficiently strong to overcome the showing of obviousness arising from an analysis of the prior art.” To Hospira, the petition was basically a request that the Supreme Court conduct its own factual analysis.”
The very fact that the Supreme Court is not revisiting any software patents cases (so far) may serve to suggest confidence in the Alice case, much to the chagrin of Big Business lobbyists. █
Send this to a friend
Article as ODF
Publicado en Apple, Decepción, Patentes a las 5:22 am por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz
IAM: el Pravda de IP
Sumario: Una miraada a los ‘reportes’ de la semana pasada de IAM y lo que demuestra acerca de su agenda
Es divertido ver cuan abusivos algunos ¨periodistas¨se vuelven, por ejemplo, cuando las noticias se convierte en propaganda de grupos de presión/cabilderos mientras que tratan de mantener la apariencia o cubierta de “periodismo”. Tal es el caso de IAM, que incluso recibe dinero de los trolles de patentes, así como de los abogados de patentes (cuyos intereses son ampliamente conocidos). IAM no está solo en esta categoría y es lamentable que una gran cantidad de fuentes que se auto-describen de “noticias” se han convertido en portavoces de esos intereses. Es aquí donde Techrights típicamente trata/intenta contra esta caja de resonancia.
El mes pasado escribimos sobre las patentes de software en la conducción y en este momento, usando el término de Apple (“termonuclear“) IAM minimiza el riesgo o la cuestión, afirmando: “Mi conjetura es que a pesar del aumento de litigios en el sector comprendido entre las empresas operadoras y continuó ataques lanzados por NPEs -léase TROLLs-, no vamos a ver lo que vimos en la industria de las comunicaciones móviles “.
“El meollo del asunto es que, IAM promueve(no reporta) más y más patentes, más proprietario, menos compartido, menos paz, y más trolles de patentes, juicios de patentes, etc.”
“NPE” significa trolles de patentes – un término que IAM nunca usa, ya que es finaciado/pagado por ellos. Las patentes sobre el acto de conducir (no es novedad) son un problema real y después de que Tesla renunció a muchas patentes relativas a los coches eléctricos, la ‘revista’ IAM (maximalistas de patentes con disfraz de ‘periodistas’) demuestran que están molesto en este acto que cambia el clima de temor de los litigios sobre patentes. Incluso se dice hace que las empresas Chinas piensen (vean el título “Memo a las compañías nuevas de vehículos eléctricos de China: la esperanza no es una estrategia de IP”).
¿Qué es esto? ¿Prédicar o reportar? Habiendose prestado términos de Apple, IAM también juega con las patentes de diseño, a pesar de ser lo suficiéntemente controversiales para alcanzar a la Corte Suprema. “El interest en patentes de diseño ha crecido reciéntemente,” IAM dice, “particularmente siguiéndo el éxito de Apple en afirmar sus patentes de diseño asociádas con el iPhone y el iPad. Apple descubrió que unas pocas y baratas patentes de diseño fueron tán efectiva contra los smartphones de Samsung en su arsenal de patentes utilitarioas en varias funciones de teléfonos y tabletas.”
“No sean engañádos por IAM. No es realmente un sitio de noticias.”
Actualmente no. El caso todavía no se ha decidido. Incluso el Tribunal Supremo decidió tomar sobre el tema y evaluar este tipo de patentes, que hace mucho tiempo que están reivindicados relacionados con las patentes de software de interface del usuario (además de devolución de llamada funciones). Otro nuevo artículo de IAM quiere que los lectores crean que los problemas de Apple son debido a que son lo suficiénte propietarios y trae a Tesla a la vista. Observa cómo se predican de nuevo: “Sin duda alguna, parece ser el caso de que, enfoque basado en la colaboración orientado hacia los ecosistemas de LeEco ha impulsado muy rápidamente hacia la parte superior de los sectores de alta tecnología de China. Pero el rechazo de la característica patentada de la estrategia de Apple – entre muchos, muchos otros – en total podría llegar a ser una elección prudente.”
El meollo del asunto es que, IAM promueve (no reporta) más y más patentes, más proprietario, menos compartido, menos paz, y más trolles de patentes, juicios de patentes, etc.
No sean engañádos por IAM. No es realmente un sitio de noticias. Simplemente dá a su limitada audiencia lo que quiere oir. Como un grupo de interés. Dejenlo allí para que el coro lo lea.
Send this to a friend
IAM: the IP Pravda
Summary: A look at this past week’s ‘reports’ from IAM and what they teach us about IAM’s agenda
IT is amusing to see how abusive some journalists can get, e.g. when news becomes advocacy or lobbying while still under the guise or cover of “journalism”. Such is the case of IAM, which even receives money from patent trolls, not just patent lawyers (whose interests are widely known). IAM isn’t alone in this category and it’s unfortunate that a lot of self-described ‘news’ sources in this domain are so biased that they have become meaningless tripe. This is where Techrights typically weighs in and attempts to intervene/interfere with the echo chamber.
Last month we wrote about software patents on driving and right now, using Apple’s term ("thermonuclear") IAM underplays the risk or the issue, stating: “My guess is that despite increasing litigation in the sector between operating companies and continued suits launched by NPEs, we are not going to see what we saw in the mobile communications industry.”
“The bottom line is, IAM advocates (not reports) more and more patents, more proprietary, less sharing, less peace, and more patent trolls, patent feuds, etc.”“NPEs” means patent trolls — a term that IAM never uses because it's paid by them. Patents on the act of driving (not a novel thing) are a real problem and after Tesla gave up on many patents pertaining to electric cars IAM ‘magazine’ (patent maximalists in ‘journalists’ clothing) shows that it is upset at this act which changes the climate of fear from patent litigation. It even tells Chinese companies what to think (see the headline “Memo to China’s electric vehicle startups: hope is not an IP strategy”).
What is this? Preaching or reporting? Having borrowed terms from Apple, IAM also plays up design patents, despite them being controversial enough to reach the Supreme Court. “Interest in design patents has increased recently,” IAM says, “particularly following Apple’s success in asserting its design patents associated with the iPhone and the iPad. Apple discovered that a few relatively inexpensive design patents were just as effective against Samsung’s smartphones as its arsenal of utility patents on various phone and tablet functions.”
“Don’t be misled by IAM. It’s not really a news site.”Actually, no. The case still hasn’t been decided. Even the Supreme Court decided to take on the subject and assess this kind of patents, which long ago we claimed are related to software patents (UI plus callback functions). Another new article from IAM wishes readers to believe that Apple woes being due to it being too proprietary aren’t quite so and Tesla is again brought up. Watch them preach again: “It would certainly appear to be the case that LeEco’s ecosystem-oriented, collaboration-based approach has propelled it very rapidly towards the top of China’s high-tech sectors. But rejecting the proprietary strategy characteristic of Apple – among many, many others – altogether could prove to be an unwise choice.”
The bottom line is, IAM advocates (not reports) more and more patents, more proprietary, less sharing, less peace, and more patent trolls, patent feuds, etc.
Don’t be misled by IAM. It’s not really a news site. It just gives its limited audience what it wants. Like a think tank. Leave it for the choir to read. █
Send this to a friend
Summary: Various strands of news about patents, focused on issues raised in the latter half of last week
WE habitually publish outlines of news about patent injustice. While we’re not inherently against patents, there are some domains that oughtn’t have patents in them because collective goals are being impeded rather than advanced by them.
Patents on Marijuana Plants
We start this roundup with the eye-catching article about patents on marijuana. To quote Vice: “On August 4, 2015, US officials quietly made history by approving the first-ever patent for a plant containing significant amounts of THC, the main psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, according to the patent’s holders, their lawyers, and outside experts in intellectual property law.
“One has to wonder how this relates to already-controversial patents on plants, putting aside the controversy surrounding legalisation of cannabis.”“Patent No. 9095554, issued to a group of breeders in California, “relates to specialty cannabis plants, compositions and methods for making and using said cannabis plants and compositions derived thereof,” according to the 145-page document, which is filled with charts, graphs, and reams of scientific jargon describing a range of hybrid strains with distinctive ratios of cannabinoids.”
One has to wonder how this relates to already-controversial patents on plants, putting aside the controversy surrounding legalisation of cannabis.
An article by Terry Ludlow, CEO at Chipworks, recently referred to patents as something one “develops” (rather than applies for after actually developing something), which probably highlights a common misconception about what patents actually are (many conflate them with physical objects — things that have had patents applied to them).
“Johnson’s assertion that maintaining high patent quality is important should be commended.”
Hewlett Packard (HP), as showed here in past years, promoted software patents even outside the US and MIP has this new interview with HP’s IP litigation counsel. “The California-based counsel shares her views on the state of the IP environment in the US and how professionals can contribute to improvements, particularly in the patent field,” wrote MIP. One part of the interview said this: ‘Johnson adds that “creating and maintaining a balanced patent system that promotes innovation and good, valid patents, while also ensuring that bad, low quality patents are not used to abuse the system and ultimately undermine its effectiveness” is one of the biggest challenges in patent law. She says: “There are three main US venues that address patent disputes – the ITC, PTO, and federal courts. IP litigation counsel in my position have to stay vigilant about understanding trends and the discourse around all three of these venues.”’
We don’t generally regard HP to be so bad on the patent front, either because it doesn’t attack companies using patents all that often or because it doesn’t lobby for software patents as often as companies like GE, Intel, Microsoft, and IBM (comparable in terms of scale). Johnson’s assertion that maintaining high patent quality is important should be commended. Later today we are going to show that Microsoft and IBM push in the opposite direction.
Marathon Patent Group and Satellite Strategies
“It’s important to understand that what we have here is a patent company (or troll) acting as a satellite for another — an increasingly-common loophole to ensure no reactionary lawsuits.”Regarding a case which was mentioned here recently, MIP writes a decent article and so does IP Kat, which said late on Friday: “Dynamic Advances parent company, Marathon Patent Group (a patent licensing company) , stated in its SEC filing that under the terms of the settlement Apple will be granted a licence for the patent and a 3-year covenant not to sue. In exchange, Apple will pay $24.9 million under the agreement, with $5 million of that sum payable upon dismissal of the litigation.”
It’s important to understand that what we have here is a patent company (or troll) acting as a satellite for another — an increasingly-common loophole to ensure no reactionary lawsuits. It’s an anti-deterrence tactic. This discredits the theory of “defensive” patents; how can patents be used defensively against entities which have no products at all? As the headline of this article from a trolls expert put it, “Apple pays $25M to a university—and the patent troll it cut a deal with” (summarised accurately and succinctly).
“So one can see that Marathon Patent Group is nothing but a new (ish) kind of troll.”“Apple has agreed to pay $24.9 million to a “patent troll”,” it says, in order “to end a lawsuit over its Siri voice system, according to documents filed yesterday with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Publicly traded Marathon Patent Group, whose business is focused on patent licensing and lawsuits, will split the settlement cash with Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI), the New York technical university that provided the patents.”
So one can see that Marathon Patent Group is nothing but a new (ish) kind of troll.
‘Killing’ Patent Trolls
The Week has published a new article titled “How to kill patent trolls once and for all”. Composed by Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry, who describes himself as “a writer and fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center,” the article starts with some useful background: “Why are patent trolls so deleterious? Well, these companies exist for no other reason than to gobble up patents and then file frivolous lawsuits over semantic patent violations against any target they can find, with the hope of cashing in with a big settlement. Needless to say, this can wreck the finances of startup companies. (If you want more details, listen to this brilliant This American Life investigation of patent trolls from 2011.)”
“Militarisation of the world’s patent systems isn’t new; a lot of weapons manufacturers want a monopoly on ‘innovative’ new ways to kill people.”A commonly-cited (but controversial) study is then cited: “Patent trolls cost defendant firms $29 billion per year in out-of-pocket costs, according to one study. But the drag on innovation is much bigger than that. Think of all the fledgling companies that miss crucial time-to-market opportunities, and whose products don’t reach their full potential, because they have to fight patent trolls. Some would-be entrepreneurs are surely so frightened of patent trolls that they don’t even bother trying.”
The concluding words are these: “Always, always stand up to the bully. It’s the right thing to do, and it also happens to be the smart thing to do.”
That’s what NewEgg has been doing. It can at least afford to.
Militarisation of the world’s patent systems isn’t new; a lot of weapons manufacturers want a monopoly on ‘innovative’ new ways to kill people. A new article, “The Pentagon Turns to Intellectual Property to Protect U.S. Military Dominance”, wants us to believe that there’s something to be cheered for because ‘we’ (readers), supposedly as US citizens, are ‘protected’ by the patent system, which keeps ‘our’ military strong, as if rival armies (like China’s or Russia’s) will bow to some patent offices abroad and pay patent royalties to corporations that try to nuke their nation (if it wasn’t for mutually-assured destruction and other forms of deterrence).
“The excesses/abundance/saturations reduce productivity, waste resources, generally slow down development in various fields, and ultimately help nobody but patent lawyers and their largest clients (usually global monopolists).”
It’s not so unusual to find patent lawyers in the media. They keep spewing out their pro-war/feud (in the patent sense) propaganda and they try to ‘sell’ patents (applications, lawsuits and other such ‘products’), in the same way arms manufacturers do. An article which misses the point that not all patents are equal and similar, e.g. software patents, was published in the Canadian press a couple of days ago. “Patents are no barrier to innovation, despite the myths,” says the headline. Well, ask software engineers about it and see what they say. The author wrote that “Canadian entrepreneurs should be vigilant to protest against measures that would cripple our patent system to the disadvantage of innovators. This vigilance should extend to monitoring changes that may be proposed to our laws pursuant to international treaty negotiations.”
Well, actually, some patents may be good (we don’t deny this), but their breadth and number made them so shallow and impractical to keep track of. The excesses/abundance/saturations reduce productivity, waste resources, generally slow down development in various fields, and ultimately help nobody but patent lawyers and their largest clients (usually global monopolists). A Web site of lawyers in Indiana has just said “Indiana patent law delaying demand letters” and an Australian law firm celebrates “Growth, Growth & More Growth” in so-called ‘IP’ (growth for patent lawyers, not for the economy). The Australian, a paper owned by News Corp. (‘Conservative’), plays along with this type of agenda, having just published “Innovators miss the bus on filing home patents”. The Financial Express, in the mean time, calls “a market-oriented approach (corporate-leaning) to patent box regime. Because hey, who cares what the general public thinks, right?
“WIPO doesn’t care about development. It doesn’t care about people. It doesn’t even care about its own staff, which it sometimes drives to suicide.”In contrast to this, based on this report from Africa, there is some resistance from a minister. “A South African cabinet minister speaking at an international conference on intellectual property has challenged the view that protecting the rights of creators and inventors leads to innovation,” says this report. “Rob Davies, the country’s trade minister, raised eyebrows recently when he told the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) – the global HQ of patents – that the role of patent protection in promoting innovation has been controversial.”
WIPO doesn’t care about development. It doesn’t care about people. It doesn't even care about its own staff, which it sometimes drives to suicide. It’s Gurry’s way or the highway, just like at the EPO where Battistelli (previously competed with Gurry for the WIPO position) believes he is a king, so no opposition — however minute — can be tolerated. █
Send this to a friend
Billionaires and their think tanks too get involved
IBM pushing for software patents not just via lobbyists like former IBMer, David Kappos (on IBM’s payroll for lobbying now), but also IBM’s Manny Schecter (above). Photo credit: Esteban Minero
Summary: The law surrounding patents in the United States continues to be manipulated or at least lobbied on by large corporations such as IBM and Microsoft, as well as by think tanks such as CATO Institute
THE PAST few weeks were spent looking at the front group led by David Kappos, who is paid by software firms such as IBM, Microsoft, and more recently Apple, which evidently has a lot at stake (it has just settled a patent lawsuit and here are ten of the earliest reports we were able to find about this [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]). Kappos is trying to diminish if not demolish the impact of Alice so that software patents continue to do their damage (recall the lawsuits from Microsoft against Linux, Apple against Android, and IBM against various Internet companies as of late).
“Kappos is trying to diminish if not demolish the impact of Alice so that software patents continue to do their damage (recall the lawsuits from Microsoft against Linux, Apple against Android, and IBM against various Internet companies as of late).”IAM ‘magazine’, a proponent of this Kappos lobbying agenda (openly so), has just said: “As this blog and others have reported, there has been a general increase in patent activity in the auto sector in recent years, which has brought with it a rise in new infringement lawsuits and activity at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). However according to data recently released by Unified Patents, the number of lawsuits in the sector dropped last year, despite a rise in the overall number of new patent cases in the US. There were 126 new cases filed in 2015 involving carmakers and their suppliers. That was down from 154 in 2014 and 160 the year before.”
Drop in litigation is a good thing, unless one runs a litigious company that is suing rivals or threatening rivals in order to extract ‘protection money’ (settlement). Recent statistics suggest that a vast proportion of patent lawsuits are now being filed by patent trolls, who typically use software patents. According to the above, which refers to trolls using common euphemisms, patent trolls “still account for the lion’s share of new cases with 88 suits filed last year.”
“Drop in litigation is a good thing, unless one runs a litigious company that is suing rivals or threatening rivals in order to extract ‘protection money’ (settlement).”One patent propagandist offers support to his buddy at IBM, which is increasingly a patent aggressor/bully. He previously interviewed him. “IBM’s Manny Schecter,” he wrote, “giving keynote @Innography #Insights2016 today @ 11am CT on “What should we do about Alice?” A very good question!”
One approach embraced by Manny (so far) is rather simple; pay David Kappos, a former IBM employee, to lobby the system. It’s sort of weird that the question is, “What should we do about Alice?”
“One approach embraced by Manny (so far) is rather simple; pay David Kappos, a former IBM employee, to lobby the system.”That’s like asking, “what should we do about the Supreme Court?” IBM seems arrogant enough to attack or discredit the highest court via Kappos (IBM).
The same kind of quote comes from this tweet, which says “IBM Chief Patent Counsel @MannySchecter @Innography Insights – What Should We Do About Alice?” (to his pleasure, based on his response).
“Don’t let IBM, Microsoft, Apple etc. effectively buy the law by ‘buying’ former officials like Kappos.”The one good thing about David Kappos, Manny Schecter and various other proponents of software patents (or boosters of IBM’s patent aggression) is that they help demonstrate/highlight how corrupt the patent system is. One conspiring to shape one’s system by lobbying is not illegal, but to put one’s staff in key positions and to pay to change law may be. Don’t let IBM, Microsoft, Apple etc. effectively buy the law by ‘buying’ former officials like Kappos. It’s a mockery of a system that’s supposed to be shaped by public interests. Ask Manny Schecter how much money, other than lots of salaries, IBM has just paid Kappos to legalise/promote software patents in the US. Generally speaking, try to find out who’s paying to change the law and how much. Yesterday we became aware of a ‘Conservative’ (corporatist) think tank of the Koch Brothers (CATO) publishing a paper on patents (spring edition), downplaying the severity of the patent system’s problems [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9] to essentially defend patent trolls, which mostly come from (or to) Texas. This paper, based on the feedback, is widely liked by patent lawyers from Texas. █
Send this to a friend
Article as ODF
Publicadoen America, Apple, Google, IBM, Law, Microsoft, Patentes at 8:40 am por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz
David Kappos demuestra que las leyes están a la venta en los EE.UU. Incluso las leyes de patentes
Fuente: : David Kappos 2013 interview
Kappos a la cabeza de un grupo financiado por grandes corpóraciones pero conveniéntemente no fue llamada Partnership of Megacorporations
Sumario: Las patentes de software no van a desaparecer todavía simplemente porque compañías como las integrantes de la Sagrada Familia: Microsoft, Apple and IBM (de donde Kappos proviene) usan su dinero para cabildeo, esenciálmente comprando la legislación
EL otro día escribimos acerca depatentes sobre conducir, siendo el contexto (enparte)la iniciativa de Google, que hizo noticias la semana pasada, e.g. [1, 2, 3, 4]. Google está tratando de patentar el conducir [1, 2], lo que trae un montón de preguntas acerca de la esfera de patentes y arte previo, los seres humanos ya manejan carros y lo han hecho por muchos años). Sin dudar estas son patentes de software. Ellas afectan el área de mi investigación, la que es computer vision/machine vision (puramente software/mathematics), no señal de procesamiénto (hardware connotación en ello).
“Si a Kappos le queda algo de dignidad, va a tener que esconderse debajo de una roca y no reforzar la percepción de que el sistema de patentes por el que trabajaba está profundamente corrupto.”
De acuerdo a otras noticias (“Microsoft patents end-to-end encryption”), lala NSA es un pionero en vigilancia másivaquiere un monopolio en encryption [1, 2, 3, 4], en relación a un sistema operativo que es la antithesis de encryption (vigilancia másiva en tiempo real).
Mientras tanto, también nos enteramos que, un agresor de patentesconectado a Microsoft, continúaenjuiciando a Symantec. Como un defensor patentes de software lo puso: “Finjan Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: FNJN), padre de la filial de Finjan, Inc., anunció hace unas semanas que la prueba de Patentes y Junta de Apelación (PTAB) de los Estados Unidos de patentes y Marcas (USPTO) emitió la resolución final de los intentos de los de Symantec Corporation (NASDAQ: SYMC) para invalidar las patentes de 8 Finjan diferentes a través de la revisión de interpartes (IPR).
Por lo tanto, en este caso particular, la PTAB no eliminó las patentes de software, para variar. Motivo de celebración entre los abogados de patentes, pero ¿qué quiere decir de todos los demás? La agresión de patentes de Apple con las patentes de software sigue siendo, de acuerdo a esta noticia, una “cosa” ya que “esta última patente es más orientada a programas.” Muchas de las patentes de Apple ha estado usando para atacar a Linux (o Android) han sido las patentes de software o patentes de diseño, que son inherentemente similar a (o) un tipo de patentes de software.
Ahora que las patentes de software están generalmente bajo ataque y se enfrentan a una amenaza existencial en los EE.UU. (SCOTUS ya ha matado a muchos de ellas con Alice y pronto se podría hacer lo mismo con las patentes de diseño debido a la agresión de Apple) el ex Director de la USPTO, David Kappos, asoma su fea pelada cabeza de nuevo. Ahora trabaja como un grupo de presión para la Sagrada Familia: IBM, Microsoft, Apple, etc., y deshonra a la USPTO ya que actualmente recibe el dinero para cambiar las leyes a favor de susamos/clientes (que es una forma de “puertas giratorias” para la corrupción, girando/moviéndose de acuerdo a su influencias/conexiones con dinero). Como sitio este sitio de abogados acaba de ponerlo“El ex director de la Oficina de Patentes y Marcas de EE.UU., pidió el lunes por la abolición de la Sección 101 de la Ley de Patentes, que establece los límites de la materia patentable-elegibles, diciendo que decisiones como Alice en el tema son un” verdadero desastre “y amenazan la protección de patentes para las industrias clave de Estados Unidos. “lo que quiere decir con” verdadero desastre “es que crea incertidumbre para sus clientes/amos, como IBM, Microsoft y Apple (los que le sueltán la marmaja de dinero). Esto es una continuacion de algo que notamos aquí con anterioridad. Si a Kappos le queda algo de dignidad, va a tener que esconderse debajo de una roca y no reforzar la percepción de que el sistema de patentes por el que trabajaba está profundamente corrupto.
Send this to a friend
Microsoft is an EPO V.I.P. (a marriage made in Hell)
Summary: Yet more examples of preferential treatment for Microsoft at the EPO, which merely helps a foreign company, Microsoft, make sales, e.g. of Windows (even spyware!), and launch lawsuits against GNU/Linux in Europe, having enjoyed a fast lane and outrageous tolerance of software patents (Microsoft even bragged about this)
LAST month we wrote about the worrisome technical relationship between the EPO and Microsoft [1, 2], setting aside preferential treatment for Microsoft as a patent applicant (which does a lot of patent aggression against European companies that ‘dare’ to distribute Linux). The EPO has become just as abusive as Microsoft if not a lot worse and moreover, just like Microsoft, it somehow believes that it is above the law and that it can get away with virtually anything, even mass surveillance without consent.
At 34 minutes past midnight (less than two hours ago) the EPO announced this new release. Well, looking at the download page (warning:
epo.org link), we find this:
These self-explanatory screenshots suggest either that the EPO dumped support for any platform other than Windows or it deliberately leaves these ‘bad’ platforms behind, despite Java being cross-platform. Microsoft must be very, very pleased and happy with its lapdogs at the EPO. To quote the page: “BiSSAP version 1.3.6, currently available only for Windows users. Mac OS and Linux versions will not be updated to be compatible with Java 8.” Whose office is this? █
Send this to a friend
« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »