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

05.17.16

Endless Harmonious Self-Congratulatory Praises From Self-Serving Law Firms in the Wake of Just One Pro-Software Patents Decision From CAFC

Posted in Courtroom, Microsoft, Patents at 10:50 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Many loudspeakersMaybe if it’s repeated often enough and shouted from the mountains/rooftops with a megaphone they’ll manage to impose their selfish (greedy) will on the system

Summary: The court that brought software patents to the United States has defended a software patent and patent lawyers want us to believe that this is an historic game-changing decision (potentially to be appealed by Microsoft, if Microsoft actually wanted to fight software patents)

THE corporate media continues to be heavily besieged by patent lawyers and their interests. Nobody seems to be seeking the views of software developers/programmers. It’s almost as though they do not exist in (or to) the media.

Last week a decision was covered by the media (context in this previous post about the decision). It’s a decision which involved a software patents. The only reason it got so much press coverage is that it was in favour of software patents and cherry-pickers were quick to take advantage.

“It’s all just agenda or marketing disguised as “advice” or “news”. Such is the nature of much of the media nowadays.”Kevin Cukierski and James P. Muraff from Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg LLP went on lobbying for software patents in guise of ‘reporting’, other patent lawyers’ sites continued to emphasise mostly pro-software patents decisions (the minority of the whole), there was more bias by omission in lawyers’ blogs, and so on. More push-polling on the subject, more selective quotes that neglect to speak to a single software developer and so on are just what we’ve become growingly accustomed to. An article by Michael Hussey and Marc V. Richards from Brinks Gilson & Lione went as far as claiming that “The Post-Alice Pendulum Swings Backs” (nope, it’s not the Supreme Court deciding here but a notoriously biased and corruptible court). In the news we have now spotted literally dozens of such pieces and virtually all are composed by law firms, not journalists, not software professionals, not judges. Legal firms of patent lawyers pretend Alice as a precedent matters no more or has “growing backlash”, whatever that means (it’s not like there are protests in the streets). Michael Borella from McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP would have us believe that it’s game over and it’s more of the same at the same site where Knobbe Martens (Olson & Bear LLP) celebrates software patents and even says “Good News” in a headline about “Federal Circuit’s Enfish Decision and PTO Guidelines Should Give Hope to Patentees” (what about patentees who are constantly being sued by rivals over software patents and thus file for defensive purposes?).

When will we, for a change, see unbiased reporting on such matters? It’s all just agenda or marketing disguised as “advice” or “news”. Such is the nature of much of the media nowadays.

05.15.16

Relying on EPO, CAFC — Originator of Software Patents in the US — Tries to Bring Them Back Into Play in Microsoft Case

Posted in America, Courtroom, Europe, Law, Microsoft, Patents at 6:11 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

And the microcosm of patents lawyers helps CAFC by selective coverage and accompanying hype that is hardly justified

Omission bias
Reference: Wikipedia

Summary: The highly biased Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) rules in favour of a software patent, so the crowd of patent lawyers (or their sites) goes wild and makes it seem like an Earth-shattering development that suddenly makes software patents very eligible in spite of Alice/§ 101

CONCERNS about the EPO‘s rogue management and the EPO scandals are globally justified as these matters impact not only Europe. And it’s not just because the EPO is not a European body (it’s international/globalist) but because it inspires moves in other countries/continents, where labour rights gradually get abolished/eroded and patents get expanded in terms of scope, number, injunctions, damages, and so on.

“New USPTO Patent-Eligibility Guidance Not So New,” according to this pro-patents site. Lawyers’ sites which comment on USPTO guidelines would rather have us believe nothing has changed. This one says that “this memorandum simply lays out the by now well-known two-part Alice/Mayo test, spells out explanations that examiners are supposed to give when making Section 101 rejections, and provides examiners with responses to arguments that applicants may make. Applicants may find this guidance useful in pressing examiners for better explanation of rejections based on allegedly unpatentable subject matter. However, I suspect applicants will continue to be frustrated by the seemingly subjective, and undeniably unpredictable, nature of many rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101.”

“The USPTO does not care what the Supreme Court says.”Will this patent office stop issuing software patents at long last? We doubt it. The USPTO does not care what the Supreme Court says. It’s pretty much the same at the EPO, where the EPC is repeatedly ignored (on multiple levels).

EPC rules are being ignored/crushed by Battistelli with his lousy leadership (while he makes up the EPO rules/guidelines with zero oversight) and in the mean time we learn that: “The CAFC in Enfish v Microsoft employed the EPO technical test to define what, if anything, was abstract.”

Worth noting, as we have indicated before, is the gross deception (by omission) from lawyers’ sites. When decisions are made against software patents in the US the lawyers’ blogs and sites are mostly quiet; but they’re all in hype and joy otherwise, amplifying the news. This is why the lawyers’ sites were all over this case a few days ago [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9], with headlines like “Federal Circuit Clearly Says Software Can Be Patentable” and summaries such as this: “A Federal Circuit panel (Judges Moore, Taranto, and Hughes) has unambiguously stated that some — one might even say much — software is patent-eligible, reversing findings of invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for two patents “directed to an innovative logical model for a computer database.” Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., No. 2015-1244 (Fed. Cir. May 12, 2016) (opinion by Judge Hughes). In addition to reversing a summary judgment of Section 101 invalidity, the court vacated a summary judgment of invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 102, and left intact a summary judgment of non-infringement. But the reason why this case will be a big deal is the holding — and analysis — pertaining to the patent-eligibility of software inventions.”

“Then came the think tanks (the think tanks of patent maximalism), like one that supports not only patent trolls but also software patents.”“The EPO tech feature test is 40 years old,” one person wrote. “Why didn’t CAFC use it before and avoid all this jurisprudential bullshit?”

As Benjamin Henrion put it, “because the EPO test is garbage.”

Another opponent of software patents asked, “US Court now using EU rules?”

A later question was, “so they just take rules from other Countries when they decide to?”

“The GAO Report has already cited the role of Software Patents in the problem,” it was added, “FTC Report will probably say the same” (the patent maximalists slam it before it’s even released).

“In her Dissent in Bilski,” said one patent attorney, “J. Moore said that the abstract test would swallow circuit court decisions. It did. Hence, Enfish Today.” Another tweet said: “Enfish v Microsoft et al.–Only 1 of 2 Fed Cir Decisions Holding Software Eligible under 101; Held Software Not Inherently Abstract”

“Suffice to say, patent maximalists were celebrating, expounding, and emphasising the news.”Then came the think tanks (the think tanks of patent maximalism), like one that supports not only patent trolls but also software patents. To quote: [1, 2] “Some much-needed sanity in #patent law: Fed Cir says today in Enfish v. Microsoft that #software NOT automatically “abstract” under 101 test [...] unfortunately, Alice left much to interpretation by courts & PTO, who took it as anti-software patent mandate” (still slamming the Supreme Court because, once again, CAFC is trying to promote software patents, which it made up or introduced in the first place).

Here is a press release about the case. Suffice to say, patent maximalists were celebrating, expounding, and emphasising the news. This is their time to deceive, mislead, and engage in shameless self-promotion/marketing. IAM wrote: “Since the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Alice, many in the patent market have been searching for a case that provides some greater clarity on the Justices’ thinking or, at the very least, doesn’t simply see the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirm a lower court ruling and invalidate the patent in question. Those cases have been few and far between but the market took some encouragement this week from the CAFC’s decision in Enfish LLC v Microsoft, when the majority ruling explicitly stated that Alice did not simply eliminate broad swathes of software from patent eligibility.”

“So many sites, almost all of which are run by patent lawyers and their batsmen, are celebrating and emphasising this case because they love software patents and conveniently ignore the cases where the opposite is concluded.”Here is what Gene Quinn’s site and IP Kat wrote. So many sites, almost all of which are run by patent lawyers and their batsmen, are celebrating and emphasising this case because they love software patents and conveniently ignore the cases where the opposite is concluded.

National Law Review went with the headline “CAFC Finds Software Patent Eligible Under 35 U.S.C. §101″ and Andrew Chung from Reuters said “Federal Circuit revives patent, expands software eligibility”.

Software-related patents will survive challenges to their validity despite a U.S. Supreme Court precedent that has led to the widespread cancellation of patents, if they improve the way computers operate, a federal appeals court ruled on Thursday.

In a dispute involving Enfish LLC and Microsoft Corp, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit revived two Enfish patents on an advanced database, agreeing with the company’s Cooley attorneys that the technology improves the functioning of a computer and thus deserved to be patented.

As Microsoft lobbies so hard for software patents, losing this case is possibly good news to Microsoft. One might argue that they’re winning by losing here. This case isn’t about patent trolls but about patent scope and the former “patent reform is minimal,” Benjamin Henrion reminds people, “real reform involves discussing patents for software.”

“Why did it rely on the EPO? It seems totally improper a thing to do.”Right now there’s just one case that shows digression (moving in the opposite direction) as “patent courts are always biased.” (especially true in the case of CAFC, which is full of well-documented corruption)

“In a rare win for a software patentee,” Patently-O wrote, “the Federal Circuit has rejected a lower court ruling that Enfish’s “self-referential” database software and data-structure invention is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as effectively an abstract idea.”

Why did it rely on the EPO? It seems totally improper a thing to do.

In other cases — not the type of cases that patent lawyers want the public to know about, § 101 kills patents because it’s about an “electronic device to obtain clinical trial data that would otherwise be collected by pen-and-paper diary” (to quote the decision, not the Docket Report):

The court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss because the asserted claims of plaintiff’s clinical drug trial patents encompassed unpatentable subject matter and found that the claims were directed toward an abstract idea.

Another § 101 article from the Docket Report says “Popularity of § 101 Motions Weighs Against Certification for Interlocutory Appeal”. To quote: “The court denied defendant’s motion to certify for interlocutory appeal an earlier order denying defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of patentable subject matter because, although there was a controlling question of law that would materially advance the litigation, the court exercised its discretion not to grant appeal given the popularity of 35 U.S.C. § 101 motions.”

The bottom line is this: Most decisions which involve § 101 wind up eliminating software patents. But reading the patent lawyers-dominated media (or their own ‘news’ sites) one might give the opposite impression.

05.14.16

[ES] La USPTO Sigue Jodiéndo a la Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos Al Continuar Emitiéndo Patentes de Software que Son Totalmente Fálsas

Posted in America, Courtroom, Law, Patents at 5:50 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

English/Original

Article as ODF

Publicado en America, Courtroom, Law, Patentes a las 6:46 am por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Las Cortes de los EE.UU continúan rechazándo patentes de software, pero a la USPTO no le importa y continúa emitiéndolas de todas maneras

Linux FEST

LinuxFest Northwest 2016: Las Patentes de Software después de Alice: Una larga y triste cola [via Montana Linux, que dice “Deb Nicholson habló acerca del estado de las patentes de software en los EE.UU después del veredicto de la Corte Suprema en el caso clave Alice vs. CLS Bank case.”]

Sumario: La “línea de producción”, que la USPTO ha degenerado a (limitarse a aceptar casi todo lo que entra) pasándo los costes de los procesos espurios al público (externalidad para ser gravados por los monopolistas, trolles, y los abogados de patentes) y la nueva información sirve para destacar esta gran injusticia que está motivado por la codicia y el control corporativo de la USPTO (cautiverio a manos del proveédor)

El Profesor Dennis Crouch, todavía se mantiene al corriente de los “casos pendiéntes de patentes en la Corte Suprema” (hay casos de patentes interesantes a nivel de SCOTUS en el camino), trayéndo actualizaciones sobre las adaptaciones de la USPTO a resoluciones como Alice, que básicamente trajó el fin a una gran cantidad de patentes de software (la USPTO debería obedecer los fallos judiciales y terminar las patentes de software, pero es demasiado codiciosa para hacerlo). Los artículos constituidos por Dennis Crouch son en realidad muy informativos ya que nos ayudan a rastrear cómo las cosas están cambiando (la obra del Profesor Crouch es académica/científica, por lo que no tiene mucho que ganar personalmente del maximalismo de patentes). Al escribir sobre lo último en el caso de Fitbit, un sitio de abogados de patentes dice: “Como una actualización de nuestros 13 de abril de, el año 2016 entrada del blog, la Comisión de Comercio Internacional de Estados Unidos juez administrativo (ALJ) Dee Lord ha concedido la determinación de resumen que las pretensiones formuladas de dos de las patentes restantes de la quijada en su acción contra el artículo 337 de Fitbit se dirigen a la materia inelegible bajo 35 USC § 101.”

No es díficil ver el porqué de que las grandes corporaciónes estén en armas.”

Este es básicamente el último legado de alto perfil de Alice, que la USPTO (a diferencia de los tribunales, incluido SCOTUS) todavía está tratando de ignorar. La USPTO sigue teniendo discusiones sobre el tema. De acuerdo con un nuevo fragmento de texto encontrado por Benjamin Henrion hace unos días, la USPTO dice “Funciones que no son funciones computadora genéricas, por tanto, no son significativamente más que una idea” (PDF en el mismo).

¿Intentará la USPTO obedecer los decretos de la corte? ¿O es tán reacia/pícara a aceptar que las cosas han cambiado? Su antiguo director, el néfasto David Kappos, actual Delfin de la Sagrada Familia de Patentes (IBM, Microsoft, Apple, HP entre otros) está actualmente cabildeándo contra la Corte Suprema a favor de sus amos – un movimiénto que contribuye a la percepción de corrupci ón en el sistema en su totalidad.

Otro nuevo análisis del Profesor Crouch refuérza la idea de que la oficina de patentes debería enforzar las fronteras de las patentes, y restr íngir su esfera.”

No es díficil ver el porqué de que las grandes corporaciónes estén en armas. Dennis Crouch, el académico pro-patentes, ha hecho algunas cartas de investigación y gráficos que muestran que el porque el sistema de patentes fue creado por no lo es más. El análisis de Crouch ha demostrando cómo las grandes empresas obtienen la mayor parte de las patentes (primer autor más jefes, etc y las personas que quieran obtener parte del crédito), no los desarrolladores independientes (lo mismo en Europa) y añade la siguiente interpretación de los números/gráficos:

El objetivo principal del sistema de patentes es fomentar la innovación – “. Promover el progreso de la ciencia y las artes útiles” Para mí, la naturaleza de la paternidad de la invención es una actividad fascinante: ¿cuáles son los factores que llevan a la invención y cuáles son los resultados de la invención ?

Un cambio importante en los últimos decenios en términos de los inventores que figuran en las patentes de EE.UU. es el aumento de la calidad de inventor en equipo. En 1975, la gran mayoría de las patentes de Estados Unidos se emitieron a un único inventor. Desde entonces, ha habido una tendencia constante hacia más inventores-por-patente. Alrededor de 1990, llegamos a un punto en el que, por primera vez, más de la mitad de las patentes de EE.UU. que aparecen múltiples inventores. Esa tendencia hacia más inventores por patentes continúa en la actualidad.

La perforación hacia abajo, el aumento se observa en las patentes con tres o más inventores. La siguiente tabla muestra el porcentaje de patentes de utilidad, ya sea con un inventor que aparece (pendiente negativa doble línea) o tres inventores que figuran + (pendiente ascendente línea). La caída en el primero se correlaciona casi exactamente con el aumento en el segundo. A lo largo de este tiempo, el porcentaje de las patentes de dos inventor se ha mantenido estable en torno al 25%.

Otro nuevo análisis del Profesor Crouch refuérza la idea de que la oficina de patentes debería enforzar las fronteras de las patentes, y restr íngir su esfera. Sin embargo, su enfoque, sin embargo, es el número de demandas por patentes, que muestra un descenso muy pronunciado el los últimos diez años (las barreras de patentes tal vez caendemasiado bajo, lo que permite prácticamente todas las aplicaciones de patentes sean aceptadas, o más del 90% de ellos). Él llama a esto “Patentes de Tamaño Adecuado“, y añade:

Muchas de las políticas progresistas se centran en la reducción de las disparidades (ingreso, la riqueza, la educación, y oportunidades) que reflejan alguna injusticia social entre los de arriba y los de abajo de nuestro espectro social. Los conservadores suelen reconocer los vacíos, pero no están de acuerdo acerca de si el resultado se califica como la injusticia, así como sobre el papel del gobierno en la redistribución.

política de patentes a menudo es más fácil de implementar que la política social (sobre todo en comparación con otros cambios en la ley de propiedad), ya que una nueva generación de patentes emerge cada veinte años y la vieja generación no se cuelga-en torno a la protección y la dirección de la riqueza, sino que se funde con el destino nos alcance de la dominio público.

En algunos aspectos, sin embargo, las patentes están revirtiendo la tendencia social y paso a una uniformidad y menos diversa – al menos por algunas mediciones externas tales como el tamaño del documento, las reclamaciones por patentes, y esté pendiente de persecución.

Para reformular la última frase (arriba), las patentes están revirtiendo la tendencia corporativa y convirtiéndose de baja calidad y más triviales. Esto significa que aquellos que son pobres serán más pobres y los que son ricos y poderosos tendrá más municiones para marginar a los chicos pequeños (o chicas). Cada vez más chicos pequeños (o chicas) estarán bajo más amenazas de más patentes en manos de las grandes corporaciones. Esto significa que pierden el control; que están siendo dominados. Las patentes falsas que son posibles para invalidar en un tribunal son demasiado caras para invalidar, ya todos aquellos que están en contra se enfrentan a enormes daños que no pueden justificar las facturas legales (por lo que se asientan el caso o quiebran). ¿Para esto se creó el sistema de patentes? Seguramente fué lo contrario. Lo más triste es que la EPO también se está convirtiendo poco a poco en lo mismo gracias a Battistelli, sus chácales y políticos corruptos.

05.08.16

The USPTO Continues to Snub the US Supreme Court and Issues Software Patents That Are Totally Bogus

Posted in America, Courtroom, Law, Patents at 6:46 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

US courts are constantly rejecting software patents, but the USPTO doesn’t seem to care and continues to issue them anyway


“LinuxFest Northwest 2016: Software Patents After Alice: A Long and Sad Tail” [via Montana Linux, which says “Deb Nicholson talked about the state of software patents after the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in the landmark Alice vs. CLS Bank case.”]

Summary: The ‘production line’ which the USPTO has devolved into (just accepting nearly everything that comes in) passes costs of spurious litigation to the public (externality to be taxed by monopolists, trolls, and patent lawyers) and new information serves to highlight this gross injustice which is motivated by USPTO greed and corporate control (vendor captivity)

Professor Dennis Crouch, still keeping abreast of “Pending Supreme Court Patent Cases” (there are interesting SCOTUS-level patent cases on their way), brings updates about USPTO adaptations to rulings such as Alice, which basically brought the end to a lot of software patents (the USPTO should obey court rulings and end software patents, but it’s too greedy to do so). The articles composed by Dennis Crouch are actually quite informative and they help us track how things are changing (Crouch’s work is academic/scholarly, so he hasn’t much to personally gain from patent maximalism). Writing about the latest in the Fitbit case, a patent lawyers’ site says: “As an update to our April 13, 2016 blog post, US International Trade Commission administrative law judge (ALJ) Dee Lord has granted summary determination that the asserted claims of two of Jawbone’s remaining patents in its Section 337 action against Fitbit are directed to ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.”

“It’s not hard to see why large corporations are up in arms.”This is basically the latest high-profile legacy of Alice, which the USPTO (unlike courts, SCOTUS included) is still trying to ignore. The USPTO is still having discussions about the subject. According to a new bit of text found by Benjamin Henrion a few days ago, the USPTO says “Functions that are not generic computer functions and therefore amount to significantly more than an idea” (PDF therein).

Does the USPTO intend to ever obey court rulings? Or is it too rogue to accept that things have changed? Its former director, David Kappos, is now actively lobbying against the Supreme Court on behalf of huge corporations — a move which contributes to the perception of corruption in this whole system.

“Another new analysis from Crouch reinforces the idea that the patent office should enforce patent boundaries, restrict scope.”It’s not hard to see why large corporations are up in arms. Dennis Crouch, the pro-patents scholar, has done some research and plotted charts which show that what the patent system was created for ain’t so anymore. Crouch’s analysis is showing how large corporations get the lion’s share of patents (first author plus bosses etc. and people who want to get some of the credit), not independent developers (same in Europe) and he adds the following interpretation of the numbers/chart:

The primary goal of the patent system is to encourage innovation – “promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.” For me, the nature of inventorship is a fascinating pursuit: what are the factors that lead to invention and what are the results of invention?

A major shift over the past few decades in terms of inventors listed on U.S. patents is the rise of team-based inventorship. Back in 1975, the vast majority of U.S. patents were issued to a single inventor. Since that time, there has been a steady trend toward more inventors-per-patent. Around 1990 we reached a point where, for the first time, more than than half of US patents listed multiple inventors. That trend toward more inventors per patents continues today.

Drilling down, the increase is seen in patents with three or more inventors. The chart below shows the percentage of utility patents with either one listed inventor (downward sloping double line) or three+ listed inventors (upward sloping line). The drop in the first almost exactly correlates with the rise in the second. Throughout this time, the percentage of two-inventor patents has remained steady at around 25%.

Another new analysis from Crouch reinforces the idea that the patent office should enforce patent boundaries, restrict scope. But his focus, however, is the number of claims per patent, showing a very sharp decline about a decade ago (patent barriers perhaps falling far too low, allowing virtually every patent application through, or more than 90% of them). He calls this “Right Sized Patents” and adds:

Many progressive policies focus on reducing disparities (income, wealth, education, and opportunities) that reflect some social injustice between those at the top and those at the bottom of our social spectrum. Conservatives often recognize the gaps but disagree about whether the result qualifies as injustice as well as about government’s role in redistribution.

Patent policy is often easier to implement than social policy (especially compared with other property law changes) because a new generation of patents emerges every twenty years and the old generation does not hang-around protecting and directing wealth but instead melds into the Soylent of the public domain.

In some ways though, patents are bucking the social trend and becoming more standardized and less diverse – at least by some outward measurements such as document size, claims per patent, and prosecution pendency.

To rephrase that last sentence (above), patents are bucking the corporate trend and becoming low quality and more trivial. It means that those who are poor will be further impoverished and those who are rich and powerful will have more ammunition with which to marginalise the small guys (or girls). More and more small guys (or girls) are under more threats from more patents and more corporations. This means they lose control; they’re being dominated. Bogus patents that are possible to invalidate in a court are too expensive to invalidate, and those whom they’re asserted against don’t face huge damages which can justify the legal bills (so they settle or close down the shop). Is this what the patent system was created for? Surely the opposite. The saddest thing is that the EPO too is gradually becoming more like that.

05.07.16

[ES] Interesántes Casos Acerca De Patentes en la Corte Suprema en los Estados Unidos

Posted in America, Courtroom, Patents at 7:51 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

English/Original

Article as ODF

Publicado en America, Courtroom, Patents at 1:45 pm por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz

¿Otro ‘Alice’ en el camino?

The bronze doors of the US Supreme Court

Sumario: Una revisión rápida de los últimos eventos acerca de SCOTUS (Corte Suprema de los EE.UU.) en todo lo relacionado con patentes

Muy pronto saldrá a luz un intersante caso de patentes de diseño en la Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos, conjuntamente con otros casos que no son de patentes y algunos que son (también algunos so de derechos de autor). Un nuevo artículo de Dennis Crouch, cubriendo una “patente de autor paralelo.” (no exactamentemente lo mismo que en el caso Oracle v Google), habla acerca de uno de estos casos: “En ambos casos de patentes y derechos de autor la cuestión de negligencia procesal surge con más frecuencia de lo que parece debido al tratamiento legal de la infracción “en curso”. Cada acto de infracción se considera como un nuevo acto de infracción. Por lo tanto, el período límite de seis años empieza de nuevo cada vez que se realiza una nueva copia del producto infractor, vendido o usado. Si alguien ha estado fabricándo un producto infractor durante los últimos 10 años, la ley permitiría que el titular de la patente que se remonte 6 años por daños y perjuicios. Los tribunales suelen ver ese resultado problemático cuando el titular de la patente se asienta sobre sus derechos durante tanto tiempo (y puesto que la mayoría de las demandas civiles tienen un período más corto de limitaciones) y por lo tanto aplican la doctrina de negligencia procesal que limite la recolección de los daños pasados incluso dentro del periódo de seis años.”

Müller esenciálmente cambió de lado y actuálmente él está en contra de las irraciónales demandas de Apple.

“Esto es incidentálmente” dijo esta persona la segunda vez este término que SCOTUS ha concedido un derecho de autor y un caso de patentes en un día” (SCOTUS típicamente juzga a favor de los reformistas en estos días, de modo que cuaquier caso, los jueces sean asigandos, probablemente terminarán bien).

ComoFlorian Müllerlo puso en el artículo de esta mañana acerca de patentes de diseño “En alrededor de cinco semanas a partir de hoy, veremos cuánto éxitosos han sido los esfuerzos de movilización de Samsung, y dos meses después de que vamos a ver los frutos de la campaña de Apple.” El enfoque de Müller, sin embargo, se declaró por adelantado en su título: “¿A Dónde van a los “amigos del Tribunal Supremo a caer sobre daños de patentes de diseño en de Apple v. Samsung? “Müller y no estamos de acuerdo en el caso de Oracle v. Google (tuvimos un largo intercambio acerca de ello hoy), pero estamos de acuerdo en el caso de Samsung. Müller esenciálmente cambió de lado y actuálmente él está en contra de las irraciónales demandas de Apple.Si SCOTUS emite un dictámen en contra de Apple (en cualquiera de los casos presentes), serán buenas noticias para Google, Android, para el Free software, para Linux. Apple se ha puesto a sí misma en el lado malo de la historia gracias a su insaciáble codicia.

05.02.16

Interesting Supreme Court Cases About Patents in the United States

Posted in America, Courtroom, Patents at 1:45 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Another ‘Alice’ on the way?

The bronze doors of the US Supreme Court
The bronze doors of the US Supreme Court

Summary: A quick review of some of the latest developments regarding SCOTUS (the US Supreme Court) as far as patents go

There will soon be an interesting design patent case at the Supreme Court of the United States, alongside other cases that are not about patents and some that are (some are about copyrights too). A new article by Dennis Crouch, covering a “patent-copyright parallel” (not exactly the same as in Oracle v. Google), says about one such case: “In both patent and copyright cases the issue of laches arises more often than you might think because of the legal treatment of “ongoing” infringement. Each infringing act is seen as a new act of infringement. Thus, the six-year limits period starts anew each time a new copy of the infringing product is made, sold, or used. If someone has been making an infringing product for the past 10 years, the statute would let the patentee them reach back 6 years for damages. Courts often see that result as as problematic when the patentee sits on its rights for so long (and since most civil claims have a shorter period of limitations) and thus apply the laches doctrine to limit collection of back damages even when within the six-year period.”

“Müller essentially changed sides and he is against Apple’s unreasonable patent demands these days.”“This is, incidentally,” said this one person, “the second time this term that SCOTUS has granted one copyright and one patent case in a day” (SCOTUS typically rules in favour of reformists these days, so whichever such case the Justices take under their wing would likely end well).

As Florian Müller put it in this morning’s article about design patents: “In about five weeks from now, we’ll see how successful Samsung’s mobilization efforts have been, and two months after that we’ll see the fruits of Apple’s campaigning.” The focus of Müller, however, is stated upfront in his title: “Where will the ‘friends of the Supreme Court’ come down on design patent damages in Apple v. Samsung?” Müller and I do not agree on the Oracle v. Google case (we had a long exchange about it today), but we do agree on the Samsung case. Müller essentially changed sides and he is against Apple’s unreasonable patent demands these days. If SCOTUS rules against Apple (in any of the ongoing cases), it will be good news for Google, for Android, for Free software, and for Linux. Apple has placed itself on the wrong side of history.

05.01.16

[ES] Alice Continúa Quebrando Patentes de Software Asi Que los Abogados de Patentes, Cabilderos de los Monopolistas, Etc. Ahora Atacan a la Corte Suprema por Hacer Esto

Posted in America, Courtroom, Law, Patents at 4:13 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

English/Original

Article as ODF

Publicado en America, Courtroom, Law, Patentes at 7:10 am por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz

La Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos (SCOTUS) se ha convertido en el objetivo de odio de los que se enriquecen

Alice grave

Sumario: los cabilderos Corpórativos y abogados de patentes están tratándo de poner a Alicia en la tumba, por su impacto en las patentes de software que es muy profundo y así hasta ahora casi indetenible

La cada vez más famosa decisión conocida como Alice (el demandante), simplemente ha cobrado otra víctima. Es una patente de software, por supuesto. Es también un caso de alto perfil (Fitbit y Jawbone), que cubrimos aquí varias veces antes (este año y el año pasado).

La precedencia deAliceestá trabajando. No sorprende que los abogados de patentes estén en pánico.

De acuerdo a the News Corp.-propiedad del Wall Street Journal (detrás de la casa de pago), “el Juez Lord basó la emisión de una decisión de la Corte Suprema del 2014 que dice que compañías no pueden reclamar patentes de software por ideas abstractas sin conceptos inventivos.”
Aquí están los 10 más tempranos reportes acerca de ello [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10] (los encontramos esta mañana, así que puedan haber más ya que es Sabado al mediodíá).
Agarra tiza o escriba una nueva victoria en la pizarra/pizarra blanca. La precedencia Alice está funcionando. No es de extrañar los abogados de patentes están en pánico.

Abogados de patentes agresivos, corporaciónes y sus promotores/ayayeros , gente como el nefásto David Kappos, ahora están en guerra contra SCOTUS misma.

“¿Por qué la S.C [Corte Supremo] no debería tomar decisiónes en los casos de patentes” es la forma en que el buddy patente describe este nuevo ataque contra el juez Stephen Breyer. No debiera ser tan difícil de entender por qué los abogados de patentes son muy molesto que SCOTUS está haciendo lo correcto (en contra de su avaricia). SCOTUS, básicamente, limita el alcance de patentes con decisiones tales como Alice, haciendo descarrilar agresor de patentes como en el ejemplo anterior (menos de un día de nacidos).

SCOTUS está interviniendo en varias otras áreas y ayer vimos este nuevo comentario que dice: “Es la opinión discutió la del Tribunal Supremo o, mejor dicho, ya que parece ser, la del 2 ° Circuito? Si el Tribunal Supremo emitió un dictamen, así como una orden, por mi parte, estaría interesado en verla “.

Los abogados de patentes agresivos, corporaciónes y sus promotores/ayayeros , gente como el nefásto David Kappos, ahora están en guerra contra SCOTUS misma. La ven como una amenaza y desean combatirla usando al Congreso (ratear de legislador a otros legisladores). Se pretende hacer de alguna manera Alice desaparezca. De acuerdo con este nuevo informe de los profesores Colleen Chien (Santa Clara University Law School) y Arti Rai (Duke Facultad de Derecho), el “USPTO fue anfitrión de una conferencia de un día de duración alrededor del primer aniversario de su mejorado de patentes Quality Initiative”, en el que, después de intensas presiones de Kappos, el predecesor de Lee, tenemos esto: “En línea con las sugerencias del estudio de caso, la USPTO tiene como objetivo abordar las preocupaciones sobre determinados tipos de rechazos examinador y consistencia a través de grupos de tecnología dentro del cuerpo de la patente. A tal efecto, será la realización de estudios sobre el uso de la sección 101 y 112 (f) los examinadores; sobre la exactitud y claridad de los estados de motivación en los rechazos obviedad en base a la combinación de referencias; y el cumplimiento de los requisitos de la descripción escrita de las solicitudes de continuación.”

Esperen que los maximalistas de patentes volteen la mesa y propóngan pasos regresivos.”

No toquen la sección 101. Ellos esperan regresar a los días pre-Alice. Otronuevo reporte dice: “La USPTO recientemente solicitó propuestas de estudios de caso que la Oficina podría hacer para mejorar la tramitación de patentes. Hubo más de 100 propuestas presentadas por asociaciones, empresas, bufetes de abogados y particulares. Definitivamente, hay algunas propuestas que la USPTO debe utilizar. [...] Todos estos son grandes propuestas, y cada uno de ellos tiene el potencial de identificar los puntos débiles, ya sea en la USPTO o confirmar que los examinadores están siguiendo directrices de la Oficina. Esperemos que la Oficina está dando a estas propuestas seria consideración.”

Esperen que los maximalistas de patentes volteen la mesa y propóngan pasos regresivos. Boris Zelkind, “un socio centrado en litigios y licencias de propiedad intelectual en la oficina de San Diego de Knobbe Martens,” acaba de decir: “Además, como las patentes continúan recibiéndo golpe tras golpe en los tribunales y en los exámenes posteriores a la concesión de la Oficina de Patentes, las empresas deben considerar si sus innovaciones son adecuadas para la protección del secreto comercial. Esto es particularmente cierto en el mundo del software, donde la decisión del Tribunal Supremo de Estados Unidos en. Alice Corp. v CLS Bank Internacional, creado retos importantes para la obtención de la protección de patentes para las innovaciones de software y hacer cumplir las patentes de software. Por lo tanto, los innovadores en la industria del software necesitar ser cada vez más conscientes de las leyes de secreto comercial y puede ser requerido a depender de dichas leyes con el fin de proteger sus innovaciones.”

Las patentes de software puedan haber caído por un round en los Estados Unidos, pero no cuenten que poderosos grupos de presión/cabildersonolas traigan de regreso porque ellos usualmente se salen con la suya (al final, tarde o temprano).”

Esto es más del mismo maximalismo. Los abogados de patentes, al ver que Alice han hecho que las patentes de software increíblemente difícil de obtener y después asegurar /valer, promueven abiertamente las leyes que criminalizan a los denunciantes – los tipos de personas que habitualmente nos ofrecen información acerca de la EPO (sin embargo, la ley de secretos comerciales está más allá del alcance de nuestra cobertura). Lo que es digno de mención aquí es que claramente hay una fuerte respuesta a Alice y nosotros debemos tomar nota de quién está detrás de él. Los desarrolladores de software están contentos con Alice, mientras que abogados de patentes y empresas de la Sagrada Familia como IBM y Microsoft (enormes agresores de patentes) quieren que la decisión quemado dentro de un cenicero.

Las patentes de software puedan haber caído por un round en los Estados Unidos, pero no cuenten que poderosos grupos de presión/cabilderso no las traigan de regreso porque ellos usualmente se salen con la suya (al final, tarde o temprano). De acuerdo aPatent Docs, PTAB (creciéndo y cada vez más comúnun enforzador deAlice) ha sido invocada de nuevo (contr si, otra tonta patente de software*, como es común en los Estados Unidos) y eventualmente denegado una revisión a CBM.

Techrightspermanece dedicado a exponer todo el marioneteo detrás de las escenas come es abundantemente claro que hay una creciénte (y ya muy fuerte) movimiénto para resucitar las patentes de software en los EE.UU.. “El precio de la libertad es eterna vigilancia,” Thomas Jefferson ya lo dijo.

____
* Esta patente de software es evidente y explica a sí mismo. Para citar: “La patente ’805 se refiere a un sistema y método para solicitar” retroalimentación específica de la página” de los usuarios de un sitio web. Los comentarios del usuario se solicita de manera específica de la página mediante la incorporación de un “elemento seleccionable por el usuario”, o “icono visible,” en cada página web del sitio web.”

04.30.16

Alice Continues to Smash Software Patents So Patent Lawyers, Monopolists’ Lobbyists Etc. Now Attack the Supreme Court for Doing This

Posted in America, Courtroom, Law, Patents at 7:10 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

The US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has become the target of the profiteers’ anger

Alice grave

Summary: Corporate lobbyists and patent lawyers are trying to put Alice in the grave, for its impact on software patents is very profound and thus far almost unstoppable

THE increasingly-famous decision, commonly known as Alice (the plaintiff), has just claimed another victim. It’s a software patent of course. It’s also a high-profile case (Fitbit and Jawbone) which we covered here several times before (this year and last year).

“The Alice precedence is working. No wonder patent lawyers are in panic.”According to the News Corp.-owned Wall Street Journal (behind paywall), “Judge Lord based the ruling on a Supreme Court decision from 2014 that said companies can’t claim software patents for abstract ideas without inventive concepts.”

Here are the earliest 10 reports about it [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10] (found this morning, so there might be more by now as it’s Saturday at noon).

Chalk or write another victory up on the blackboard/whiteboard. The Alice precedence is working. No wonder patent lawyers are in panic.

“Aggressive patent lawyers/corporations and their lobbyists, people like David Kappos, now have a war on SCOTUS itself.”“Why the S.Ct [Supreme Court] Should Not Be Deciding Patent Cases” is how Patent Buddy described this new attack on Justice Stephen Breyer. It oughtn’t be so hard to figure out why patent lawyers are very upset that SCOTUS is doing the right thing (against their greed). SCOTUS basically limits patent scope with decisions such as Alice, derailing patent aggressor as in the above example (less than a day old).

SCOTUS is intervening in various other areas and yesterday we saw this new comment stating: “Is the opinion discussed that of the Supreme Court or rather, as it appears to be, that of the 2nd Circuit? If the Supreme Court issued an opinion as well as an order, I for one would be interested to see it.”

Aggressive patent lawyers/corporations and their lobbyists, people like David Kappos, now have a war on SCOTUS itself. They view it is a threat and they wish to battle it using Congress (snitching on the lawmaker to other lawmakers). They hope to somehow make Alice go away. According to this new report by Professors Colleen Chien (Santa Clara University Law School) and Arti Rai (Duke Law School), the “USPTO hosted a day-long conference around the one-year anniversary of its Enhanced Patent Quality Initiative,” wherein, after intensive lobbying by Kappos, the predecessor of Lee, we have this: “In line with the case study suggestions, the USPTO aims to address concerns about particular types of examiner rejections and consistency across technology groups within the patent corps. To that end, it will be conducting studies on the use of section 101 and 112(f) by examiners; on the correctness and clarity of motivation statements in obviousness rejections based on combining references; and enforcement of written description requirements in continuation applications.”

“Expect patent maximalists to try to turn the table and propose regressive steps.”Don’t touch section 101. They’re hoping to regress back to pre-Alice days. Another new report says: “The USPTO recently requested proposals for case studies that the Office might do in order to improve patent prosecution. There were over 100 proposals submitted from associations, companies, law firms, and individuals. There are definitely some proposals that the USPTO should use. [...] All of these are great proposals, and each of them has the potential to either identify weak spots at the USPTO or confirm that examiners are following Office guidelines. Let’s hope the Office is giving these proposals serious consideration.”

Expect patent maximalists to try to turn the table and propose regressive steps. Boris Zelkind, “a partner focusing on litigation and intellectual property licensing in the San Diego office of Knobbe Martens,” has just said: “Additionally, as patents continue to take a beating in the courts and in the Patent Office’s post-grant reviews, companies need to consider whether their innovations are suited for trade secret protection. This is particularly true in the software world, where the US Supreme Court’s decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, created significant challenges to obtaining patent protection for software innovations and enforcing software patents. Thus, innovators in the software industry may need to be increasingly aware of trade secret laws and may be required to rely on such laws in order to protect their innovations.”

“Software patents may be down for the count in the United States, but don’t count on powerful lobbies not to pull them back up because they usually get what they want (at the end, sooner of later).”This is more of the same kind of maximalism. Patent lawyers, seeing that Alice has made software patents incredibly hard to attain and then assert/enforce, are openly promoting laws that would criminalise a lot of whistleblowers — the types of people who habitually offer us input about the EPO (nevertheless, trade secrets law is beyond the scope of our coverage). What’s noteworthy here is that there’s clearly a strong response to Alice and we ought to take note of who’s behind it. Software developers are happy about Alice, whereas patent lawyers and companies like IBM and Microsoft (huge patent aggressors) want the decision burned inside the ashtray.

Software patents may be down for the count in the United States, but don’t count on powerful lobbies not to pull them back up because they usually get what they want (at the end, sooner of later). According to Patent Docs, PTAB (increasingly and commonly an Alice enforcer) has just been invoked again (against yet another silly software patent*, as is common in the US) and it eventually denied a CBM review.

Techrights remains dedicated to exposing all the string-pulling behind the scenes as it’s abundantly clear that there’s a growing (and already very strong) movement to revive software patenting in the US. “The price of freedom is eternal vigilance,” Thomas Jefferson famously said.
_____
* This patent being on software is evident and self-explanatory. To quote: “The ’805 patent is directed to a system and method for soliciting “page-specific” feedback from website users. User feedback is solicited on a page-specific basis by incorporating a “user-selectable element,” or “viewable icon,” into each web page of the website.”

« 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