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

10.17.19

There Won’t be Patent Justice Until Patent Trolling Becomes Completely and Totally Extinct

Posted in Courtroom, Patents at 8:30 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

If the system exists to reward innovation and not punish the falsely-accused

A hanging snake

Summary: SLAPP-like behaviour and extortion/blackmail tactics using patent monopolies are a stain on the patent system; it’s time to adopt measures to stop these things once and for all, bearing in mind they’re inherently antithetical to the goal/s of the patent system and therefore discourage public support for this whole system

THE POSITION that patent trolls ought not exist is not a controversial one. People who never invented or created anything go after those who do; many of the underlying patents are merely purchased — a passage of assignment that probably oughtn’t be permitted. The key concept behind patents and rationale for their existence demand that the end goal should be innovation, progress of science. Sharing of knowledge/methods/understanding can be mutually and collectively beneficial.

The United States has thankfully weakened patent trolls; some went out of ‘business’, some barely survive and others suffered in the ‘sales’ department (selling ‘protection’), quite severely in fact. A lot of trolls we used to cover no longer exist. They don’t formally announce shutdown, but it’s clear that they no longer operate, i.e. no new lawsuits are filed (that’s their sole mode of operation).

As expected, RPX has been waning. We wrote about this several times in recent years. It became less relevant because the US patent system ‘tightened’ and litigation numbers collapsed. It did better when there were lots of patent trolls around. It profits from their existence and patent trolls are like an ally. These trolls, referred to by another name, NPEs, have been mentioned by RPX some ago as follows:

Litigation finance firms have experienced record fundraising in recent years, with private equity firms and hedge funds looking for opportunities to invest in uncorrelated assets that can withstand, or even perform well, in the next economic downturn. With large amounts of capital on hand, and therefore fewer concerns about diversifying their investments, multi-strategy funds are proving to be attractive investment partners for standalone litigation funders. Through such partnerships, a new breed of NPEs has emerged—one backed by more copious and patient capital than those of years past. This article, the first in a series covering the evolving sources of capital for NPEs today, takes a look at two private equity firms and a hedge fund backing notable NPE campaigns.

“12 of the 17 patent suits filed today were filed by #patenttrolls, according to RPX Corp.,” said one Twitter account. “That’s 71%.”

“It’s a very costly thing.”‘Only’ 71%. Sometimes it’s 100%. It used to be even higher about half a decade ago. The back yard of patent trolls is still seeing more software patents granted by the USPTO (patents which courts would likely reject, no doubt even in Texas). It’s a very costly thing. Most of the time wrongly-accused parties aren’t compensated, not even seeing their legal fees covered. Here with the British court system we have this issue as well. Lawyers are very expensive here and earlier this week Anthony Gold’s Robin Stewart wrote “I won in the First-tier Tribunal and the other side was unreasonable: do they have to pay my legal costs?”

Probably not. In his own words:

The Court also commented that their decision did not have the effect that pre-action costs could not be recovered, but rather costs “of and incidental to” the proceedings may include costs incurred before the commencement of the appeal.

As noted in the previous post, the EPO tried to impose severe legal costs upon me for daring to just speak about EPO abuses. EPO management acts a lot like patent trolls, not just working for trolls’ agenda and bottom line. But that’s a subject for another day.

10.15.19

EPO Boards of Appeal Need Courage and Structural Disruption to Halt Software Patents in Europe

Posted in Courtroom, Europe, Patents at 8:56 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

It takes courage — not just intelligence — to oppose misnomers such as "artificial intelligence" patents

Software patents and artificial intelligence patents

Summary: Forces or lobbyists for software patents try to come up with tricks and lies by which to cheat the EPC and enshrine illegal software patents; sadly, moreover, EPO judges lack the necessary independence by which to shape caselaw against such practices

THE European Patent Office (EPO) has taken control of another EPO, the Organisation. Battistelli started it and António Campinos continues just that. He even rendered his 'boss' at the Council his 'butler'. Imagine that! How is that even legal/constitutional? Maybe it isn’t. But who’s to actually enforce the law/constitution (or EPC)? This is a circular issue.

Advocacy of software patents by the EPO isn’t news; we saw some forms of it way back in the Brimelow days, but it has been getting worse since and judges have since then totally lost any sense of autonomy and independence. They will probably ‘vote’ (decide) the “usual way” some time soon (patent on software simulation) because Campinos is already meddling towards that outcome! See what happened in G 2/19.

“They will probably ‘vote’ (decide) the “usual way” some time soon (patent on software simulation) because Campinos is already meddling towards that outcome!”Sometimes we still see examples of software patents being thrown out inside rather than outside the EPO. Sometimes even loud proponents of software patents (no, not software professionals) admit it. Such was the case the other day when Bardehle Pagenberg wrote: “Authenticating individuals based on liveness probability: non-technical EPO refused to grant a patent on a method of authenticating financial transactions based on biometric data.”

Bardehle Pagenberg is, in our experience, the most vocal and shameless proponent of these bogus patents. They focus on these. Bardehle Pagenberg’s Patrick Heckeler, having published this page, even promoted another case where:

The first instance examining division refused searching the claimed subject-matter because it allegedly lacks technical character…

Forget about all that “technical” (or “technical effect”) nonsense; it’s the wrong test or criterion/criteria. Same for “problem-solution”. The sole riddle ought to be, does this cover something physical (where that physical thing is strictly required)? If not, then it’s abstract. Throw out the application/patent.

Sadly, however, the EPO adopted clever little tricks and loopholes, such as misuse of words like “machines”; they associate the overused term “AI” with “machine learning” (what it means originally) as if there’s some machine or device somewhere. This week they also repeat the nonsense which is “machine translations” when they say: “What is the role of machine translations in proceedings before the EPO?”

“Sadly, however, the EPO adopted clever little tricks and loopholes, such as misuse of words like “machines”; they associate the overused term “AI” with “machine learning” (what it means originally) as if there’s some machine or device somewhere.”“Those are not “machine translations” but lousy algorithms that take something in and spew garbage out,” I told them, “an incoherent mess for most languages, with no legal validity whatsoever…”

It’s rather worrying to see how the EPO deals with obvious software patents that under 35 U.S.C. § 101 the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) would be pressured to throw out, either at first instance (examination) or Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) — or, failing that, district courts, the Federal Circuit and SCOTUS (no potent challenge to that in 5 years at that level).

Professor Dr. Maximilian Haedicke on Lack of Separation of Powers at the EPO (Which Dooms UPC)

Posted in Courtroom, Deception, Europe, Patents at 7:25 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.”

Or: Truth is sunshine to the vampires of lies.

Amazing sunlight

Summary: Team UPC (“empire of lies”) is catching up with reality; no matter how hard media has attempted to not cover EPO scandals (after the EPO paid and threatened many publishers that tried), it remains very much apparent that EPOnia is like a theocracy that cannot be trusted with anything

WE CAN quite safely assume that most examiners at the European Patent Office (EPO) aren’t happy with the direction the Office has taken. Staff surveys have repeatedly shown this (with large margins). António Campinos is just more of Battistelli and they carry on lowering patent quality, based on studies they attempt to suppress. They’re meanwhile creating new loopholes/routes to software patenting in Europe and striving to replace ‘naughty’ European courts (that ‘dare’ oppose such patents) with something more ‘obedient’ or complicit. EPO judges are casualties as they’re being terrorised to the point where it’s dangerous (to one’s career) to oppose patent maximalists. Only weeks ago we saw Campinos intervening in favour of software patents. He made remarks about an important upcoming case. Does he not have something better to do (than meddling in legal matters he lacks technical qualifications in)?

“Only weeks ago we saw Campinos intervening in favour of software patents. He made remarks about an important upcoming case.”Who’s in charge of the EPO? Certainly not the law or judges who enforce/review that law. A politician from France/Portugal calls all the shots. These aren’t scientists but politicians! Nontechnical autocrats, people who keep calling patents “property” yet again (they’re not property). “You mean patents,” I told them last night. They never respond. On they go with joint EUIPO lies (now 3 weeks of that disgraced “IP” ‘study’, tweeted and retweeted every single day). Pure pseudoscience and an insult to facts.

Should we be surprised that several nations — not just Germanyopenly oppose the handover of patent courts to EPOnia? Or that scholars issue strongly-worded criticisms when they’re not on the EPO’s payroll?

“Should we be surprised that several nations — not just Germany — openly oppose the handover of patent courts to EPOnia?”Team UPC hardcores (apparently a Brit in Munich) are tweeting (quoting) that “rule of law within the EPOrg are criticised. This question is further explosive against the background of the equally pending constitutional complaint against the Unified Patent System.”

Tweets aren't journalism, but this is a translation of a journal. This thread in full says: “Potential impact of G3/19 on DE constitutional complaints; UPC? Prof. Haedicke, GRURInt 2019, 885 on referral G3/19 (from orig German): “This conflict, however, is about much more than the question of the interpretation of A53(b) EPC. It makes it clear that the [EPO President] and the AC seem to have a different understanding of the relationship between the institutions of the EPOrg than the Boards of Appeal. The scope of the judicial control over legislative acts of the AC and the degree to which the AC is bound by the [...] interpretation of the EPC rules by the BoA are controversial. In question is the power of the judiciary to take binding decisions on the interpretation of the EPC which go beyond the individual case. Also affected is the role of the President of the EPO and the system of [...] checks and balances within the EPOrg resulting from the separation of powers.[…] The effects of this dispute thus extend far beyond the concrete question of fact. If the AC were able to change the case law of the Enlarged BoA in order to extend its binding force beyond the [...] individual case, this would enhance the position of the AC, significantly weaken the BoA & strengthen the position of the critics of the EPC to its detriment. The referral may also have consequences for several pending constitutional complaints in which shortcomings in the [...] rule of law within the EPOrg are criticised. This question is further explosive against the background of the equally pending constitutional complaint against the Unified Patent System. It is of great importance to ensure that the relationship between the AC and the BoA [...] complies with principles of the rule of law.”

“It doesn’t matter what some lawyers and politicians at the EPO (and around it) say; at the end of the day the issue is now in the hands of judges the EPO does not control (perhaps with the exception of Stephan Harbarth).”The litigation ‘industry’ refuses to let UPC/Unitary Patent die. Herbert Smith Freehills LLP still mentions it in relation to Brexit (and promoted its take on it earlier this week).

It doesn’t matter what some lawyers and politicians at the EPO (and around it) say; at the end of the day the issue is now in the hands of judges the EPO does not control (perhaps with the exception of Stephan Harbarth).

Widespread condemnation or popular uprise won’t be possible (as happened with the EU copyright directive) if media refuses to cover it.

10.09.19

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

10.08.19

Eric Lundgren in the Media Again

Posted in Courtroom, Microsoft at 5:08 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Previously:

Overview

Microsoft’s Declaration of War on Recyclers

Summary: The “Lundgren story”, which was documented for Netflix publication, is now at Vice (not exactly known for objectivity but for insincerity)

Eric Lundgren was in the news yesterday [1] (yes, again), as pointed out to us by a reader. Will this get the debate reignited again? Oddly enough, it came from the same publication that lied about Richard Stallman, causing his career’s deterioration. This publication later publicly celebrated this ‘achievement’ (in a later article) and that helped distract the media from the Bill Gates Epstein-MIT scandals. That publication is funded by a close friend of Bill Gates, which makes one wonder…

Either way, yesterday we asked a friend of Mr. Lundgren about further information and sent our wishes to Mr. Lundgren. The series is likely not over; we still want to publish court material one day. Microsoft did that selectively just to demonise if not slander Mr. Lundgren. This merits a belated response now that he is out of prison. “I don’t know what I was supposed to learn by going to prison,” he was quoted as saying yesterday. Issues to cover next in the series: Microsoft Silencing Media; Court Mischief; Legal and Financial Ramifications. It may take some time as the man is recovering from over a year inside a cage, for the ‘crime’ of recycling old PCs, harming potential new sales (manufacturing) with ‘new’ copies of Windows.

Related/contextual items from the news:

  1. Meet the E-Waste Recycler Jailed for a Year for Infringing Microsoft’s Copyright

    “I don’t know what I was supposed to learn by going to prison. I just made the most of my time while I was there,” he said. “They try to break you in prison. That’s basically what prison is set up to do…I would say my time in prison definitely emboldened me further towards my goal which is to see that all the e-waste in the country and the world isn’t thrown away but is recycled.”

    In prison, Lundgren sketched out a plan for a new business. When he got home, he hit the ground running. His new business recycles electric vehicle batteries.

    “We’re going to save 47 million pounds of batters from landfills this year,” he said. “It’s going to save billions of dollars in commodity value alone and take away 70 percent of the toxicity in our landfills.”

09.08.19

Koch Explains the Dirty Games the European Patent Office Plays at ILO

Posted in Courtroom, Europe, Law, Patents at 10:59 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Game

Summary: Gaming the legal process means one is interested neither in the process nor in the law (or in justice); this is becoming the hallmark of today’s EPO, even in Geneva

THE Campinos-run European Patent Office (EPO) had asked appellents to drop their ILO appeals. This was rightly seen as a rather insulting, tactless suggestion. As staff representatives put it, these appeals are not a ‘hobby’, they’re about justice. EPO management isn’t interested in justice but in cover-up; how is such an authority expected to look after patent law? It’s absurd!

One former staff representative (unjustly dismissed by Team Battistelli/Bergot) explained: “Though my life is tough, I don’t lose morale easily, and I have a passion for both justice and rule of law — which, to me, are closely linked.

“EPO management isn’t interested in justice but in cover-up; how is such an authority expected to look after patent law?”“Thanks a lot (already), also for your commitment to stop software patents unlawful under the EPC , and to inform about the developments in the EPO — all the best to you.”

Half A day ago we wrote about Koch v EPO [1, 2, 3], an appeal which — as we put it then — “serves to show ILO dysfunction as well as EPO misconduct.”

“This case helps highlight a lot of problems not only at the EPO but ILO (more specifically its Tribunal) as well.”The appellant, Koch, decided to get in touch and clarify a bit. She’s courageous enough to speak to us just to ensure we get the story of this case right. She said “it would be a major catastrophe for staff of all IOs [international organisations] if IOs could prevent their employees’ access to the Tribunal by introducing “errors” in their internal appeals process, and if the Tribunal agreed with this, as Judgment 4131, under 5., seems to imply. Imagine a defendant “re-running” an appeal in the complainant’s name, but without his/her participation — utterly absurd, isn’t it? That’s what the EPO does, at least in 3 of my cases.”

We’re going to follow up some time soon with further details. This case helps highlight a lot of problems not only at the EPO but ILO (more specifically its Tribunal) as well. They’re supposed to be mutually-independent entities, but evidence suggests otherwise. It’s like the so-called ‘independent’ (but in exile) Boards of Appeal at the EPO.

When ILO ‘Justice’ for EPO Staff Gets ‘Lost in the Post’

Posted in Courtroom, Europe, Law at 10:25 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Swisspost

Summary: An important case/appeal regarding the European Patent Office (EPO) seems to be eternally delayed, draining money and wasting time almost indefinitely

THE EPO fights its own staff whilst apparently outsourcing their jobs. The media doesn't want to talk about it. That means that EPO management needs pretexts for firing people, claiming they’re offenders, incompetent etc. Severance pay can be impacted by that kind of pretext. António Campinos does it perhaps more than the person who put him in charge (he has outsourcing experience from EUIPO) and this will likely worsen over time (if the endgame is complete outsourcing).

“It’s far from over and it implicates even the very top position (President) of the EPO.”In Koch v EPO [1, 2], which we’ve studied lately, there are some new developments. It’s interesting not only because details are publicly available* but because it concerns an aggrieved staff representative with disability attributed to the job at the EPO (related to the unjust dismissal). It’s far from over and it implicates even the very top position (President) of the EPO. We’ll probably revisit this case every now and then.

Here’s the latest:

https://twitter.com/AnetteKoch/status/1168896759902429186

https://twitter.com/AnetteKoch/status/1168907490391666690

https://twitter.com/AnetteKoch/status/1168939540729532416

https://twitter.com/AnetteKoch/status/1169179509767245824

The ramification of this failure to deliver would be devastating to justice and, as we shall cover in later articles, we already know they use all sorts of tricks to manipulate and procrastinate the case (or send it ‘back’ to the EPO). They hope that complainants will simply run out of patience (and/or money).

The significance of this case will become more apparent over time. More information is becoming available and it serves to show ILO dysfunction as well as EPO misconduct.
______
* The EPO’s staff, including SUEPO (the union), is aware of this case. Moreover, the Tribunal’s Jurisprudence is public, for instance, Judgments no. 3785, 3694 and 4131 (see triblex data base).

08.29.19

Updates on Koch v EPO, Anette Koch’s Case Which the EPO Would Rather Nobody Heard About

Posted in Courtroom, Europe, Law at 12:47 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: An interesting appeal at ILO unearthed to expose a profoundly dysfunctional ILO ‘tribunal’ and an unbelievably cruel EPO that ‘burns’ its own staff and then disclaims liability

Dr. Anette Koch, a former staff representative at the European Patent Office (EPO), was mentioned here a few times over the years. She was ruthlessly and mercilessly fired for her disability, which had likely been caused by her job at the EPO. So much for caring about one’s employees, eh? Battistelli and António Campinos probably prefer for her to just disappear because her case opens all sorts of jars full of worms, implicating many top officials of the EPO.

Two days ago her Twitter account became active again. Here’s what she has said since the last time we mentioned her case, in chronological order (oldest first):

We might sooner or later have more to say about the subject, as we study this case closely.

« 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