The gentler equivalent of Donald Trump discrediting a US-born judge for being “Mexican”?
Summary: A quick glance at how patent lawyers and their lobbyists/advocates have reacted to the latest decision from the US Supreme Court (Justice Breyer)
TECHRIGHTS isn’t too shy to mock those who mislead the public in order to attract business. They’re selling snake oil.
Earlier today we found this piece from IP Watch which took the side of patent holders [sic] as if they and they alone are the ones who matter. This is rather typical and very much expected from so-called ‘IP’ sites. Dugie Standeford (publishing behind a paywall) tells/covers only one side of this debate — the much smaller side. The narrative is not complete.
“Personal attacks on SCOTUS Justices (especially Justice Breyer) are again quite tactlessly thrown into the mix, with focus on the same Justice whose intelligence was attacked before (see above).”IAM, which is funded by patent law firms and even patent trolls, is once again lobbying for software patents, trolls and many others that lose in the Cuozzo decision last covered here this morning (yesterday’s rant was apparently not enough for this author). Earlier today he selectively mentioned people supportive of his position (i.e. IAM’s sponsors). Just remember that IAM is not a news site but a lobbying campaign dressed up as 'reporting'. It’s an advocacy site for EPO management as well, so it’s important to see what these guys (yes, all male) are up to.
Personal attacks on SCOTUS Justices (especially Justice Breyer) are again quite tactlessly thrown into the mix, with focus on the same Justice whose intelligence was attacked before (see above). And for what? Simply for daring to put an end to (or helping towards the end of) software patents and by extension patent trolls in the US? Watch the ad hominem parts therein. How shameful. Over at Patently-O, which is a lot more professional, two related decisions are named as “their impact could shape the business model of patents licenses as property.”
Actually, patents are not property but a time-limited monopoly on an idea, a concept, and sometimes a mechanical design or chemical recipe etc. SCOTUS is not in any way challenging property rights. There’s nothing physical at stake.
“Actually, patents are not property but a time-limited monopoly on an idea, a concept, and sometimes a mechanical design or chemical recipe etc.”Speaking of physical things, this new post from the Docket Report indicates that § 101 has just eliminated another bogus patent. To quote the original: “Similarly, a lawyer’s legal assistant may provide her with messages or mail in a manner that does not interfere with her primary activity: participating in a conference call. This could be accomplished at a certain time (delivering the message between telephone calls) or in a certain location (placing the message in the corner of her desk).”
It is truly satisfying and increasingly nice to see that all those bogus patents (on old ideas implemented in software) drop like flies. With few exceptions, no doubt, software patents continue to die in the US. For the first time in over a decade (since I started getting involved in this area), patent lawyers are on the defensive and they’re terrified. Their software patents bubble is bursting and they might have to downsize a bit (maybe no yacht and one Ferrari fewer). Patents on algorithms are sinking like the Titanic in the very birthplace of software patents (it has been two years since Alice at SCOTUS; many patent applications get rejected now). It’s great, unless one is a patent lawyer. Having been let down by SCOTUS, lawyers and attorneys now lean on [1, 2] CAFC, the nepotists’ court that gave the US software patents in the first place (several decades ago with Martin Goetz). Incidentally, Patently-O writes about the very same case (Immersion Corp. v HTC Corp., which is effectively against Android/Linux) and it’s not about patentability of software patents at all; it’s about timing. Not much will come out of it and they’re trying to find some small victory to distract themselves from the major defeat (Cuozzo).
“As always, we remain committed to fighting software patents wherever they appear.”Funnily enough, in light of the Cuozzo decision Apple advocacy sites now pretend that Apple is fighting patent trolls when in fact it is Apple that acts like a massive troll, especially when it comes to its war on Android OEMs. Here is one such Apple advocacy site reminding us of Apple’s patents hoard. Another site warns that “LinkedIn’s portfolio of over 1,000 families of granted patents, though only roughly half the size of Facebook’s, is on a par with Twitter’s.” The LinkedIn deal with Microsoft “has a patent profile,” says the headline. These are two companies which are very hostile with software patents, especially against GNU/Linux and Free software.
As always, we remain committed to fighting software patents wherever they appear. Software developers do not want them, whereas many of the above-mentioned parasites want them, in order to claw/grab the money earned by hard-working professionals that actually produce things. █
Send this to a friend
Halo as a sanctuary for patent trolls
Summary: A Supreme Court ruling on patents, its implications for software patent trolls, and how media that is promoting software patents and patent trolls covered it
THE dishonest/self-serving patent lawyers in the US might never openly admit this, but software patents are dying not only in US courts and PTAB but also, increasingly, at the USPTO. This does not necessarily solve the problem of patent trolls because trolls tend to go after small companies that have neither the will nor the budget to invalidate the asserted patents, e.g. by going to court.
“Court rulings like this,” say anti-trolls lobbyists, “make it much more urgent for Congress to pass patent litigation reform legislation this year” (they probably allude to the VENUE Act or the likes of it).
“This does not necessarily solve the problem of patent trolls because trolls tend to go after small companies that have neither the will nor the budget to invalidate the asserted patents, e.g. by going to court.”“Supreme Court Ruling in Halo/Stryker Case Will Lead to More Lawsuits from Patent Trolls, More Forum Shopping by Repeat Plaintiffs,” says the accompanying PDF. “Ruling Gives Small Businesses Less Incentive to Fight Meritless Suits,” says the second line. This is correct as it’s already far too expensive and laborious. The smaller the company, the more likely it is to just pay ‘protection money’ (extortion) because the ratio between the ‘damages’ and the legal costs in a court makes it the ‘correct’ business choice.
Suppose for a moment that patent trolls don’t get granted (or get to buy) the patents they use. The proposed reform legislation does not actually tackle software patents. The subject is not even on the agenda and that’s a problem. As long as software patents can land on the lap of patent trolls, these are guaranteed to be misused. Natalie Rahhal of MIP wrote about the same decision (Halo/Stryker case) as follows: “The Supreme Court decided both Halo Electronics, Inc v Pulse Electronics, Inc, et al and Stryker Corporation, et al v Zimmer, Inc, et al on Monday, in a decision that significantly lowered the bar for the issuance of enhanced damages in a patent infringement case.
“Gene the WatchTroll (or “Watchdog” as he prefers to think of himself) is so upset that judges are doing their job and eliminating software patents (after SCOTUS Justices ruled on the matter) that he shamelessly exploits these latest developments to assert Justices are writing legislation (untrue).”“Enhanced damages are set out by Section 284 of the Patent Act and allow the Court to award a patent owner up to three times the amount of the damages found, if the jury or the court determines that the infringement was wilful.”
Gene the WatchTroll (or “Watchdog” as he prefers to think of himself) is so upset that judges are doing their job and eliminating software patents (after SCOTUS Justices ruled on the matter) that he shamelessly exploits these latest developments to assert Justices are writing legislation (untrue). In our previous post we showed how he had exploited the Halo/Stryker case to accuse Justices of ignorance and here he is saying that §101 (Alice) is “overused”:
It seems as though once the court realized the claimed invention related to software, it pulled out its §101 goggles and ignored any other grounds for patent invalidity. Such an analysis, which pushes decision-making into 101, which is ill-suited to be used as such a brute force instrument, has perplexed and frustrated patent practitioners. Courts, including the Federal Circuit, simply disregard the other sections of the Patent Act in favor of §101, which for them is easier and leads to decision-making without the need of discovery and without presuming the issued patent is valid.
With or without Halo/Stryker, with or without Enfish, §101 still stands and it will continue to demolish software patents by the thousands (those that reach PTAB and the courts anyway). One can be sure that patent lawyers will keep saying “Halo” and “Enfish” any time they wish to defend trolls and software patents. Joff Wild, for a change, says the T word (“Trolls”) in his article about Halo (a case which we first mentioned here last week) and here is his opening paragraph: “There have already been plenty of articles written about the Supreme Court’s decision in Halo v Pulse, which was handed down yesterday. As is usual in cases where they review the work of the Federal Circuit, the court’s justices have decided that its practices are wrong. This time, it’s the approach that the CAFC has towards determining wilful infringement – it’s too rigid and lets too many potentially very badly behaved defendants off the hook. Instead, the Supreme Court has stated, judges should have a lot more discretion in deciding when a defendant’s behaviour has been so egregious that it deserves the sanction of triple damages.”
“With or without Halo/Stryker, with or without Enfish, §101 still stands and it will continue to demolish software patents by the thousands (those that reach PTAB and the courts anyway).”Expect this to be used to discredit §101 and defend patent trolls. Now that Ericsson’s patent trolls (in Europe) are about get ‘scooped up’ IAM celebrates and as another major lawsuit comes to light IAM says: “Earlier this week an entity called Global Equity Management (GEMSA) filed lawsuits against 20 separate operating companies including Spotify, Netflix and Uber over the alleged infringement of two patents. All of the suits were filed in the Eastern District of Texas.”
That’s just a patent troll in the Eastern District of Texas, as usual. “US Pat 6,690,400, Asserted Against Amazon Web Service Users,” Patent Buddy wrote, adding some of his information about the patent. Apparently that’s just fine with Wild and his colleagues, whose employer received money from patent trolls. This EPO‘s mouthpiece, IAM ‘magazine’, still treats the world's largest patent troll (and Microsoft-connected troll) like some kind of heroic entity that people ought to emulate. Last week it continued to groom this patent troll, Intellectual Ventures. They almost do public relations, having spoken directly to the company’s executives last month (the editor in chief did, the trolls denialist).
“It doesn’t seem to bother Congress enough. Why not? Follow the money.”Perhaps the saddest thing in it all is that most voices that weighed in on the latter (and we were able to find) treated a win for patent trolls as some kind of fantastic ruling from SCOTUS, except perhaps TechDirt with this article titled “Supreme Court Just Made It Easier For Patent Trolls”.
To quote TechDirt: “As we’ve noted over the past decade or so, the Supreme Court has been smacking down the Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit (CAFC) over and over and over again on issues related to patent law. And on Monday, the Supreme Court did it once again — but this time in a way that actually might not be good.”
The analysis ends with: “At the very least, this seems like an argument for Congress to finally stop sitting around and doing something to fix the patent troll problem.”
It doesn’t seem to bother Congress enough. Why not? Follow the money. Why is IAM so soft on trolls? Again, follow the money.
We could say a lot more about IAM’s sheer bias. Consider its latest coverage from Asia. IAM, as usual, misses the point. LG and Samsung are absolutely massive companies (almost part of the nation itself, including the military in fact); they are the exception, not the norm, when it comes to the number of patents. IAM says “Korean companies own some of the world’s largest patent portfolios, including of course the single biggest stockpile of US grants – by some margin – which belongs to Samsung Electronics.” But IAM does not mention that this is pretty much limited to just two companies. Regarding Japan, which has a lot more than just two or three giant technology companies, IAM suggests some kind of patent liquidation. Notice how they ascribe or use the word “asset” to refer to a patent (the A in IAM is “asset”), as if it’s some kind of physical object. Euphemisms are everywhere at IAM. It’s lobbying disguised as news. █
Send this to a friend
Summary: A look at some of Samsung’s ongoing high-profile patent cases which involve Apple
“The Samsung case [one of several ongoing cases] is particularly interesting,” said Standard Law the other day, “because it turns on the “non-discrimination” prong of RAND. Little case law on what ND means.”
RAND (or FRAND) is an anti-Free software (FOSS) loophole. It’s how proprietary software giants like Apple and Microsoft every so often try to exclude FOSS while calling this reasonable, non-discriminatory and fair (i.e. a series of euphemisms, one longer than the other). In practice, RAND is means UnReasonable and Discriminatory, sometimes UnFair too (FRAND). It’s typically about software patents.
“RAND (or FRAND) is an anti-Free software (FOSS) loophole.”“In a statement to Patently-O,” it has just been said, “Samsung argued that “If the current ruling is left to stand, it would value a single design patent over the hundreds of thousands of groundbreaking technology patents, leading to vastly overvalued design patents.” The itself brief cites Professor Rantanen’s 2015 essay for the proposition that the high damage is likely result in an “explosion of design patent assertions and lawsuits.””
In the mean time, another (new) article by Jason Rantanen explores CAFC appeals — a stage that Samsung has already been through. It will soon reach the Supreme Court (the design patent case at least).
Sharing Samsung’s Supreme Court brief, one said a few days ago that we now have access to “Samsung’s Supreme Court brief addressing the question of whether section 289 of the Patent Act requires the disgorgement of the defendant’s total profit from sales of design patent infringing products, or only the profit attributable to the infringing component.”
“For all we know, not a single case at SCOTUS will present the chance/opportunity to challenge software patents, or override Alice as a precedent.”Patently-O still keeps track of new Supreme Court patent cases and there is a new short article by Dennis Crouch which zooms in on one particular case. He wrote: “On remand from the Supreme Court vacatur, the Federal Circuit has reaffirmed its prior NuVasive decision and – in the process limited the reach of the Supreme Court’s 2015 decision of Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 1920 (2015).”
For all we know, not a single case at SCOTUS will present the chance/opportunity to challenge software patents, or override Alice as a precedent. The case of Samsung is about design patents and one new article says that “in the next five years the chances are this isn’t going to go away anytime soon. So what has this continuing battle demonstrated about patent law?”
“It’s going to be interesting to see which companies will oppose Apple’s ludicrous design patents (probably Google and Facebook, judging by what happened before).”The deadline for amici curiae has passed and Samsung can now wait and prepare for this important case that will hopefully determine design patents are out of line. As a bit of background on this: “More than two months ago, the Supreme Court of the United States granted Samsung’s petition for writ of certiorari (request for top-court review) regarding design patent damages, which was supported by Google, Facebook and other tech giants. Tomorrow [last week actually], Samsung has to file its opening brief. At this level of proceeding the parties’ positions, theories and arguments are largely known, but it will be very interesting to see what priorities they set, what case law they can find in support of their positions, and which amici curiae (“friends of the court”) will support them.”
We are still not aware of any information related to this, maybe because the amicis have not yet been published. It’s going to be interesting to see which companies will oppose Apple’s ludicrous design patents (probably Google and Facebook, judging by what happened before).
Speaking of certiorari, Patently-O reports that “Hospira explained that both the district court weighed the secondary indicia of non-obviousness and found them “not sufficiently strong to overcome the showing of obviousness arising from an analysis of the prior art.” To Hospira, the petition was basically a request that the Supreme Court conduct its own factual analysis.”
The very fact that the Supreme Court is not revisiting any software patents cases (so far) may serve to suggest confidence in the Alice case, much to the chagrin of Big Business lobbyists. █
Send this to a friend
Maybe 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. █
Send this to a friend
And the microcosm of patents lawyers helps CAFC by selective coverage and accompanying hype that is hardly justified
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. █
Send this to a friend
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
“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.
Send this to a friend
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. █
Send this to a friend
Article as ODF
Publicado en America, Courtroom, Patents at 1:45 pm por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz
¿Otro ‘Alice’ en el camino?
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.
Send this to a friend
« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »