08.21.21

Richard Stallman Explains Why He Protests and Condemns the EPO (for Promoting Software Patents in Other Continents, Too)

Posted in Australia, Europe, Patents, Videos at 7:58 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Video download link | md5sum 7fa4e449339520265766a7e9227a6f87

Brooklyn 99 Set the bar too low: Software patents improve innovation; Name a program you wrote; Program? I don't code.Summary: A Free (libre) version of an old video in which Richard Stallman explained to Australian media what rogue EPO officials were up to in Australia

THE EPO‘s promotion of European software patents is nowadays disguised using fashionable buzzwords like “Hey Hi”, but this kind of promotion goes a long way back and moreover predates Benoît Battistelli. In recent years, under António Campinos, the EPO openly bragged about promoting software patents all around the world. Being immune (diplomatic immunity), these tyrannical ‘public servants’ can get away with almost anything!

“Being immune (diplomatic immunity), these tyrannical ‘public servants’ can get away with almost anything!”In the interest of preserving history, as well as format shifting (to a freedom-respecting format and away from Google’s spying/prying eyes), we’ve transcoded the video above. Yes, it’s a Google format, but it is Free (libre) and approved by the FSF, even endorsed.

03.03.21

What Free Software Organisations Can Learn From Australia’s Rape Crisis

Posted in Australia, Free/Libre Software at 12:34 pm by Guest Editorial Team

Reprinted with permission from Daniel Pocock

IN a few previous blogs, I’ve quoted the following clause from the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) Code of Ethics, to emphasize what is wrong with Codes of Conduct:

professionals should be forthright about any circumstances that might lead to either real or perceived conflicts of interest or otherwise tend to undermine the independence of their judgment.

The latest news from Australia is that the Attorney General is one of the suspects. A woman made an allegation of rape and then committed suicide. Both the federal and state police have declined to investigate the case. Many cases end this way, only approximately three percent are successfully prosecuted. He explains why he should not resign from his post on the basis of an accusation alone.

We see a similar trend in Australian football. Only very few players have been taken to trial.

For just about any other leadership figure his arguments may be acceptable. For the minister responsible for enforcing the law, there is a perceived conflict of interest.

It was less than two years ago that the High Court of Australia gave a verdict acquitting Cardinal George Pell of his conviction for abuse. It was probably the most widely publicised verdict in the history of Australian justice. If the allegations against the Attorney General ever proceed to trial, he may perceive himself facing the High Court at some time in the not too distant future. As Attorney General, he is also responsible for recommending the appointment of judges to the court.

High court justices: High Court of Australia, justices, Cardinal George Pell

There is a possibility that this man will be involved in choosing his judge. No other citizen would have this influence in the same situation.

This is where people may perceive a conflict of interest, or to put it bluntly, the average man on the street can smell a rat.

Australian Parliament House, dead rat

We have finally come full circle and we see a G20 country being run like a free software organization.

To say there is a perceived conflict of interest is not an accusation of wrongdoing. The trial may never happen. Nonetheless, this type of thing erodes confidence.

We’ve seen exactly the same thing in multiple free and open source software organizations. We see people publicly boasting about it. Ironically, one of the most hideous incidents occurred in the FOSDEM Legal and Policy issues dev-room. A speaker stood up and used cat pictures to ridicule other volunteers, including somebody volunteering at the very same event. In the same talk, the speaker admits making unilateral judgments about volunteers. She talks about making judgments in disputes where she was a party to the dispute.

Credible organizations seek independent and impartial assistance to mediate or advise in the situations described by de Blanc.

Molly de Blanc, cat behind bars, FOSDEM 2019, bullying, harassment, abuse, enforce, code of conduct

When people ask about romantic relationships or business relationships between decision-makers in large free-software organizations, these are questions about perceived conflicts of interest. These are not invasions of privacy nor are they accusations of actual wrongdoing. The perception or risk of wrongdoing is enough to justify those questions. That is exactly what Stephanie Taylor of Google was complaining about recently in the Outreachy and GSoC conflict of interest scandal. Taylor thought the relationship itself was justification to expel a student yet people stubbornly refuse to disclose their relationships in so many other situations.

Ironically, when Cardinal Pell arrived at the County Court for his sentencing in 2018, he was carrying a character reference from Australia’s former Prime Minister, John Howard. Even if the allegations were false, the fact remains that of 8,000 cases of child abuse investigated in the recent Royal Commission, almost a third involved the Catholic Church. Many of these occurred on Pell’s watch, while he was Arch-Bishop. It may have been prudent for the former Prime Minister to hold back the reference until the survivors receive answers.

02.28.21

On Gangstalking and Victim-Blaming

Posted in Australia, Debian, Deception, Free/Libre Software, Google at 4:05 pm by Guest Editorial Team

Reprinted with permission from Daniel Pocock


I will destroy you, threat, Washington

IT is ironic that the first person to depart the Biden administration was sanctioned for threatening somebody else’s career.

This week Marko Rodriguez went public with news that rogue members of the Apache Software Foundation had decided to persecute him for his commentary on social issues. The board had voted to reclassify satire as a form of prose that “borders” on hate speech. Either it is hate speech or it isn’t. To suggest it “borders” on hate speech is a fudge. The sly comparison of these very different types of writing is simply a smear to hurt his career.

To put this in perspective, board members who disagreed with this defamation did not only vote against it but also choose to resign.

Around Valentine’s Day, Brittany Higgins, a former employee of Australia’s defense minister went public with news about being raped on the ministerial sofa. The questions this woman raises are extraordinary, for example, if the Minister for Defense, Linda Reynolds, cannot defend her own direct reports, how can we rely on her to defend our country?

Brittany Higgins, AustraliaHiggins chose not to name the accused publicly. It appears she wishes to focus attention on the culture and the cover-up. Two independent news organizations, True Crimes News Weekly and independent journalist Shane Olsen have identified a suspect. There is now a twitter hashtag too. A Youtube video shows the former Attorney General, George Brandis, praising Bruce Lehrmann and other former staff in the presence of high court justices.

George Brandis (former Attorney General): All of us know how important staff are to us. We spend so much time together, mostly away from home. We share so many experiences that they become like a second family.

As the man departed days after the incident in 2019, it appears that the Government have had plenty of time to remove his name from virtually all official web sites although there is no super-injunction (yet) to prevent discussion of his identity.

Against this backdrop, Google admitted two female researchers subject to high-profile sackings may have been doing legitimate research. Like Rodriguez and Higgins, both of Google’s female victims had been threatened to self-censor, they refused, they were shamed, they bravely chose to put their persecution in the public domain.

All these cases inevitably remind me of other cases, the growing body count in the free and open source software world.

Higgins’ decision to go public helps us all see how a cover-up was built from day one. Her boss, Linda Reynolds, had suggested that pursuing a criminal justice complaint would destroy Miss Higgins’ career. In effect, the victim was blackmailed to stay silent. This is the thread that draws all these cases of oppression together. In December 2018, two long standing volunteers in the free, open source software world, Dr Norbert Preining and I, revealed how we were subject to blackmail and coercion in our respective roles. In our cases, we both received the veiled threats in writing:

Knife at throat, Debian Account Managers, DAM, blackmail

We are sending this email privately, leaving its disclosure as your decision (although traces in public databases are unavoidable)

In other words, they are saying that if we call out the coercive nature of their communications, they will seek to destroy us.

When you receive a threat like this from somebody with a history of publicly shaming people on a hideous scale, it really feels like they are holding a knife to your throat.

Chilling.

In my case, the community of volunteers and donors had clearly elected me as the fellowship representative so this blackmail was an attack on all those who voted. It was my duty to inform people and call it out.

The crimes were very different but the message seems to be the same: the organization must be protected at any cost. When those in authority do something wrong, the victims have to stay silent, grin and bear it or some gang will impose a bigger pain on the victim.

More on the former Debian Project Leader (DPL), Chris Lamb, giving negative references for volunteers

One volunteer sent me the following comments about Chris Lamb. Many people receiving copies of defamation have showed it to the survivors:

Volunteer: But I am scared that Lamb actually also hosed an application for a company in NY, a job related to Debian. If that has happened, and I can reasonably document it, I would consider a defamation law suit

When the leader of any organization, whether it is Apache, Debian or Google, uses the authority of their position to push defamation, it is like using the height of a bridge to stand above a freeway and drop bricks onto the cars underneath. Lamb may not fear consequences for his actions, his father is a barrister, Robert Lamb, who appears well qualified to stifle any volunteers seeking redress.

07.01.20

Corporate Media Blames ‘China’ and ‘Open Source’ for Back Doors in Microsoft’s Intentionally Flawed Proprietary Software That’s Causing Chaos

Posted in Asia, Australia, Deception, FUD, Microsoft, Security, Windows at 11:16 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Corporate media has long helped Microsoft distract the public, oftentimes leveraging nationalism to achieve this

The red flags

Summary: ‘Red Scare’ tactics are being used to divert attention away from Microsoft’s incompetence and conspiracy with the NSA (to put back doors in everything, essentially making all software inherently vulnerable, by design)

LAST month we published our hospital series. It was about hospital managers and media, in cohesion, blaming or punishing Microsoft’s competition for Microsoft’s own failings. Hospitals are being taken out of service because of Microsoft and somehow, perhaps miraculously, everything gets blamed except Microsoft. It’s part of a media cover-up and hospital blame-shifting pattern.

“It’s almost as though someone is in deep denial about the nature of the real culprit, instead blaming people who exploit the holes (as they can).”It’s barely surprising to hear — as I did earlier this week — that: “An analysis of the ongoing massive cyber attack on Australia finds mostly Microsoft vulnerabilities exploits.”

The official page speaks of “tools copied almost identically from open source.”

They focus on how the exploits were put together, not the holes that they exploit. But this part is telling: “During investigations, a common issue that reduced the effectiveness and speed of investigative efforts was the lack of comprehensive and historical logging information across a number of areas including web server request logs, Windows event logs and internet proxy logs. The ACSC strongly recommends reviewing and implementing the ACSC guidance on Windows Event Logging and Forwarding and System Monitoring.”

This part is pretty clear about Windows being the issue. “Stop public spending on Microsoft,” the person who highlighted to to me said. “Public Money, Public Code. Media blames China.” The above page also link to this page: “The actor has been identified leveraging a number of initial access vectors, with the most prevalent being the exploitation of public-facing infrastructure — primarily through the use of remote code execution vulnerabilities in unpatched versions of Telerik UI. Other vulnerabilities in public-facing infrastructure leveraged by the actor include exploitation of a deserialisation vulnerability in Microsoft Internet Information Services (IIS), a 2019 SharePoint vulnerability and the 2019 Citrix vulnerability.”

IIS, SharePoint, Citrix…

It’s almost as though someone is in deep denial about the nature of the real culprit, instead blaming people who exploit the holes (as they can). Not the people are blamed but the tools. Or sometimes the people, especially if they “foreigners”…

Another person highlighted to us this new piece which he says demonstrates “Windows TCO,” albeit it is “Microsoft marketeering spam” because it sort of rewrites the history of Maersk incidents, which years ago the media said had a major catastrophe due to Windows. This page entitled “Maersk, me & notPetya” says: “Within a couple of hours, it was clear this had impacted every single domain-joined Windows laptop, desktop, virtual machine and physical server around the planet.”

So Windows, with its notorious NSA back doors (for which there are remote access tools — tools which leaked online), is the actual culprit. Maybe stop using something which you know to be flawed (and often by design)?

06.13.20

Contrary to What ‘Managing IP’ Tells Readers, Australia Still Rejects Software Patents

Posted in Australia, Deception, Patents at 8:49 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Megaphones and loudspeakers of lawyers who profit from frivolous lawsuits

Harvesting Intellectual Property. It is not property. AYE PEE.

Summary: We live in an age when patent offices may be eager to grant/allow patents on things courts would reject; but moreover, the media in the pockets of litigation firms plays a role (lobbying for such invalid patents, based on falsehoods)

THE lies being disseminated with regards to software patents are hardly new. We already know, based on US courts, that software patents are generally abstract. They’re therefore not valid, even if the USPTO grants some, having cherry-picked 35 U.S.C. § 101 cases to misinterpret caselaw. We also know that all those software patents in Europe barely stand a chance in European courts. The next batch of Daily Links will contain several more outcomes where European Patents got squashed. It’s not cheap (the process takes money), but at the end we see that the European Patent Office (EPO) under António Campinos and Benoît Battistelli just issues a load of junk. Even examiners complain about it; it harms morale.

“We already know, based on US courts, that software patents are generally abstract.”A few hours ago we caught up with Managing IP, a site bought by a nefarious bunch that promotes litigation and fronts for lawyers. Well, Managing IP is at it again, posting spam for private companies (for a fee!) and even for firms that viciously lie to promote software patents in Australia. So you get a rough idea where their money comes from…

They’ve also just published summaries and headlines which use the term “IP harvesting”; aside from “AYE PEE” (IP) being a deliberate lie (propagandistic misnomer), harvesting? Seriously? What a disgraceful site… and this one comes from an author who’s a megaphone of patent trolls and Team UPC.

“A few hours ago we caught up with Managing IP, a site bought by a nefarious bunch that promotes litigation and fronts for lawyers.”Days apart the site was calling software patents “CIIs” or “computer-implemented inventions,” then speaking of “certainty” rather than validity. It’s about Australia, under the headline “Rokt decision boosts certainty on CIIs in Australia” (no, Australia does not allow software patents, but law firms try to figure out ways around that). From the outline:

Businesses will need to think carefully about how to draft claims for computer-implemented inventions – and may need to protect them as trade secrets

Notice the wording: “how to draft claims…”

“That’s just Managing IP in a nutshell; like the other site founded by the same scholar (IP Kat), this one became the very opposite of honest and anything remotely scholarly.”It’s about finding loopholes and sneaking in patents that likely aren’t eligible. So at the end they might get some fake patents that don’t stand a chance in courts; but since not many parties have sufficient budgets for a challenge/day in court, they might settle or desist anyway. Managing IP is crafting propaganda pieces like these on average twice per day. Nowadays the business model also includes ghosting for law firms. That’s just Managing IP in a nutshell; like the other site founded by the same scholar (IP Kat), this one became the very opposite of honest and anything remotely scholarly.

05.20.20

Amid Lock-Down the EPO is Still Laughing at the Law

Posted in Australia, Europe, Law, Patents at 3:30 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

The European Patent Convention (EPC 1973) is just a fossil made deprecated by sheer neglect and endless violations

EPO 2020, EPC 1973

Summary: There’s a major discord/disconnect between the EPO as originally envisioned by its founders and today’s EPO which just serves the litigation ‘industry’ along with Monsanto/Bayer, Microsoft, and a large bunch of patent trolls glorified by the EPO

THE tyranny of EPOnia is no laughing matter. People’s lives are being devastated by it. Workers sink into deep depression, which in turn leads to chronic conditions and severe health problems. European scientists and technologists are being blackmailed by a bunch of trolls and other bullies using bogus European Patents that should never have been granted. The European public pays immeasurable patent tax and few people in EPOnia — along with law firms and international ‘patent barons’ — pocket a lot of public money. This contributes to inequality, concentration of power, decrease in competition, and retardation of innovation this necessarily entails. Society suffers profoundly.

To make matters worse, there’s no legal basis for it.

Rose Hughes wrote a second and more detailed post about the Friday (announced on Friday anyway) decision [1, 2, 3, 4] from the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA/EBOA) of the EPO, this time focusing on the sausage factory of António Campinos (which resembles Benoît Battistelli‘s war on judges). There were previously worthwhile remarks on how this was done by Campinos also in the corresponding referral regarding software patents in Europe. The short story is, EPO management has just reaffirmed that it violates the EPC by meddling in the affairs of judges; or as Benjamin Henrion put it: “Democracy in patentland [...] Same undemocracy with the UPC, they are allowed to change it on the fly.”

Here are some key parts:

The EPO President referred two questions to the EBA. The President’s first question effectively asked whether the AC is permitted to amend the Rules of the EPC so as to be in conflict with previous interpretations of the Articles by the EBA.

The EBA considered this question too broad, referring as it did to the general question of the competencies of the AC and EBA. The EBA didn’t feel it was necessary to answer such a question. To the EBA, the real issue of the referral was to address the question of the patentability of natural plant and animal products. The EBA further noted that were they to answer “yes” to the President’s first question, this would effectively give the AC “carte blanche to deviate from established case law and give a particular meaning to any Article of the EPC by means of the Rules of the Implementing Regulations. This would open the door to the possibility of circumventing the statutory procedures for amending the Convention itself”. So instead of answering either yes or no, the EBA decided it would be pertinent to re-phrase the question. The EBA therefore combined the President’s questions into a single re-phrased question relating to whether the meaning of the Articles could change over time in view of changes to the Rules.

Admissibility of the Question

To be admissible, a referral from the President to the EBA must relate to a point of law of fundamental importance (Article 112(1) EPC). The EBA acknowledged that the point of law was of fundamental importance because of the wish of the legislator to harmonise the EPO’s and EU’s approach to biotech inventions.

A second requirement for admissibility is that a referral from the President’s to the EBA should relate to a question on which there are conflicting Board of Appeal decisions (Article 112(1) EPC). The Board of Appeal was clear in T 1063/18 (Pepper) that new Rule 28(2) EPC was in contradiction to the previous interpretation of Article 53(c) EPC in G2/12 (Broccoli/Tomato II). Thus the Board of Appeal found that the AC was not competent to amend Article 53(c) EPC by means of Rule 28(2) EPC.

[...]

Simply put, the EBA’s question asked to what extent the interpretation of Article 53(c) EPC may have been changed since G2/12 (Broccoli/Tomato II) by the AC’s introduction of Rule 28(2) EPC. The EBA first reiterated its previous position from G2/12 on the “grammatical, systematic and teleological” interpretation of Article 53(c) EPC. Namely, the EBA interpreted the wording of the Article as clearly excluding essentially biological processes from patentability but not the products of such processes.

The EBA further confirmed that the opinion of the EU commission on the interpretation the EU Biotech Directive was not legally binding on either the EU or EPO. The EU commission had itself accepted that only the CJEU is competent to interpret Union law. As the EBA noted, “to date, no decision concerning the exception to patentability in respect of animals, plants or plant materials obtained by an essentially biological process and the interpretation of Article 4 EU Biotech Directive has been handed down by the CJEU”. The EBA also pointed out that the EPO is independent of the EU, and thus not bound by Union law:

The EBA was further of the opinion that the actions of roughly a quarter of the EPC member states to amend their national legislature to exclude products produced by natural process from patentabilty, was irrelevant. In particular, such actions did not themselves amount to an agreement between the contracting states on the interpretation of Article 53(c) EPC.

[...]

The EBA’s decision in G3/19 can be simply summarised as follows.

EBA: Article means P (under a grammatical, systematic and teleological interpretation)
AC: The New Rule changes meaning of Article to Q.
EBA: Because of the New Rule, Article now means Q.

Therefore, whilst the EBA rephrased the referred questions so as to not consider the appropriateness of Rule 28(2) EPC, G3/19 still seems to none-the-less open the door to the AC to change the EPC by amending the Rules, without unanimous agreement from the contracting states or a diplomatic conference. Finally, the fudging by the EBA to reach its decision in G3/19 will raise questions as to its functioning as an independent body, free from the political influence of the President and AC.

Mind the first commenter (“Anonymous”) and the first comment that says: “May a crude parallel be drawn, pehaps [sic], with the BVerfG’s decision that the UPCA contravenes the German constitution due to violation of the proper procedure for its ratification…?)”

Here’s the full thing:

An excellent account of the distinctly iffy manouevres employed by the EBOA to reach the conclusion desired!

At least one elephant is now situated in the room. Namely, if new Rule 28(2) was not introduced legally – which the EBOA side-stepped considering – can a “dynamic interpretation” of Article 53(c) legitimately arrive at the conclusion reached by the EBOA, if that very interpretation rests upon a rule which was not adopted in a valid manner?

I wonder if we have not seen the last of this. Surely a clever representative can try to get the Boards to look at the issue of whether Rule 28(2) was adopted in a legal manner – and perhaps a Chairman or two close to the end of their careers with the EPO could be persuaded to take a look at this question without the threat of (non-)reappointment hanging over them.

(May a crude parallel be drawn, pehaps [sic], with the BVerfG’s decision that the UPCA contravenes the German constitution due to violation of the proper procedure for its ratification…?)

Someone corrected the above: “I think you mean Article 53(b) not 53(c)?”

“It seems to have become standard practice to just ‘invent’ rules for the sake of patent maximalism.”And another person asked: “I am sure this is a stupid question, but can anyone tell me why the EBoA didn’t say “this doesn’t apply to patents/applications with a filing/priority date before 1 July 2017″. The wording, which refers to grant dates, makes no sense to me. What does this mean for a patent granted on 2 July 2017?”

So the EPC does not matter before some particular day? That does not make sense at all…

It seems to have become standard practice to just ‘invent’ rules for the sake of patent maximalism. This is lawlessness, it is a form of deep corruption.

Here’s a new article from Australia about the EPO’s “video conference (VC)” (promoted under the droll title “Australia can now visit the European Patent Office without jetlag“).

Well, for one thing, this should not be done. This is illegal. Phillips Ormonde Fitzpatrick’s Mary Munroe misses that point. Like all those law firms we’ve mentioned, they never highlight this simple fact. They just don’t care. It’s all about money and “show must go on” (and be charged at $200+ per hour). To quote:

COVID-19 has affected many aspects of conventional life and business and the European Patent Office (EPO) is no exception as social distancing requirements have recently resulted in a decision that all Oral Proceedings before the EPO’s examining divisions are to be held via video conference (VC). While VC facilities have been available to the EPO for more than 20 years, the vast majority of oral proceedings during examination have been held in person at one of the EPO branches in Munich, The Hague, or Berlin. More radically, the EPO have initiated a pilot project to assess the suitability of VC for opposition division oral proceedings which will run from 4 May 2020 until 30 April 2021.

These are interesting developments for Australian applicants of European patent applications for obvious cost savings where representatives no longer incur travel expenses in attending oral proceedings, but more excitingly, for the opportunity to join the VC proceedings, particularly where the EPO agree to schedule an early morning VC.

A couple of hours ago the EPO tweeted: “Want to know how oral proceedings by videoconference work? Find out in this online training course, which includes mock oral proceedings by ViCo in opposition…”

This is not legal, but who cares, right?

Going back to the above thread, the sausage factory gets yet worse. “One could even ask if the EBA has now overstepped its bounds by declaring Article 3 of the AC’s decision void,” said another anonymous comment, reproduced in full below.

I believe the EBA may have overlooked Article 3 of the “Decision of the Administrative Council of 29 June 2017 amending Rules 27 and 28 of the Implementing Regulations to the European Patent Convention (CA/D 6/17)”, which introduced Rule 28(2) EPC. Article 3 states:

“This decision shall enter into force on 1 July 2017. Rules 27 and 28 EPC as amended by Articles 1 and 2 of this decision shall apply to European patent applications filed on or after this date, as well as to European patent applications and European patents pending at that time.”

Hence, Rule 28(2) EPC was introduced with RETROACTIVE effect, including for those pending applications otherwise relying on G 2/12 as laying out the law. I therefore think that the argument for admissibility of G 3/19, namely that T 1063/18 did not interpret the law dynamically and therefore is conflicting with earlier decisions does not hold. Rule 28(2) as introduced by the AC was not introduced dynamically in the sense used by the EBA and the Board in T 1063/18 correctly found that a conflict existed between Rule 28(2) and G 2/12.

One could even ask if the EBA has now overstepped its bounds by declaring Article 3 of the AC’s decision void…

Welcome to the “2020 EPO” (or “EPO 2020″) — a tyranny that mirrors the 2020 Trump Regime — one in which oversight is not allowed (one gets fired for merely looking into allegations of ethical violations) and the rules are made up irrespective of any law, set aside constitutions. The sole goal is absolute power and ‘trickle-up effect’ (passing more wealth to those who already hoard it, then spend waste a tiny portion of it to control the whole system). This is how democracy dies.

11.22.19

Guest Post/Off-Topic: Koalas Caught in Australian Bushfire

Posted in Australia at 2:16 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

By Rianne Schestowitz

If you donate I can go home safely

Summary: Australian volunteers and rescuers need help to rescue helpless animals facing danger

Watching videos/photos of Koalas being rescued from a charred/burning forests in Australia is heart-breaking and devastating. More than 350 Koalas are reported being dead and these numbers are growing. Those who live far from Australia (just like me) can’t help physically rescue them, but a small amount of money/donation to sustain the hospital/facilities, volunteers and rescuers is of great help. Koala is just one of the many species that perish from the bushfire and they need our help, so please donate through the GoFundMe page and through other legitimate websites. Help those who support animal welfare.

03.23.19

Patent Law Firms Still Desperate to Find New Ways to Resurrect Dead Software Patents in the United States

Posted in America, Australia, Europe, Patents at 11:00 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Resurrected

Summary: There’s no rebound and no profound changes that favour software patents; in fact, judging by caselaw, there’s nothing even remotely like that

THIS morning and afternoon we took a look at US affairs, seeing that 35 U.S.C. § 101 remains unchallenged and even if the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) grants a software patent (or patents) — as happens a lot — courts will likely reject it (or these). The Federal Circuit follows Alice (SCOTUS) and so does the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) when assessing inter partes reviews (IPRs). We’ve hardly seen any exception to the rule lately (patent maximalists have stooped as low as to cherry-pick mere applications, e.g. yesterday, or revisit rather old cases); it is possible that, as per this report and another from Patently-O, § 101 will be revisited in SCOTUS. And even if it does happen, it will not necessarily bring back software patents to the US; it may as well force another long(er) nail into their coffin of software patents. Suffice to say, law firms and law students casually spread propaganda about software patents, even as recently as days ago. They want people to believe that software patents are both desirable and attainable (maybe at the Office, but courts are another matter). Here’s another new example. The patent microcosm (“Attorney Julie Reed is a member of Miller Nash Graham & Dunn’s patent team”) keeps lobbying the USPTO and American courts for software patents even though this microcosm never writes any code.

“There’s a similar problem in Europe. Voices are being hijacked and software developers are routinely spoken ‘for’ (without their consent).”The patent microcosm of Australia (Ken Simpson and David Webber of Davies Collison Cave in this case) is still looking at one very old decision in an attempt to sell bogus software patents that Australian courts would likely reject. Maybe the office would reject that one too (if there was a lawsuit over it). There’s this new article about IP Australia at IDG, but it does not deal with this subject.

There’s a similar problem in Europe. Voices are being hijacked and software developers are routinely spoken ‘for’ (without their consent). Patent law firms pretend to care about them, even though all they care about is themselves. But the European Patent Office (EPO) will be the subject of our next post.

« 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