Article as ODF
Publicado en America, Asia, Courtroom, GNU/Linux, Google, Patents at 8:05 am por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Sumario: A pesar de amasar muchas patentes por diseño propias, Samsung quiere voluntáriamente interceptarlas/socavarlas cada una de ellas, en order de acabar con las demandas de Apple contra Android/Linux
LA Oficina de Patentes de los EE.UU. la USPTO, continua otorgando patentes por diseño, las que son a su vez controversiales en Europa.
Una escala/numero de patents por diseño acaban de ser presentadas por Patently-O, las que dice: “Las patentes de diseño siguen siendo un esquema de protección popular para los desarrolladores de productos de consumo y pantallas. Los diez más concesionarios por lo tanto, mucho de 2016 con la mayoría de los ejemplos recientes …”
“Samsung no ha (históricamente por lo menos) sido agresivo con patentes.”
Con Samsung en la cumbre, luego LGE (a quién Apple frecuéntemente acusó de plagio — en diseños— cuando primero introduco su iPhone). Ambas son compañías Coreanas y un comentari corréctamente señala: “Uno no podría ser sorprendidos al notar que Samsung es altamente conscientes de las propiedades potentes de patentes de diseño.” Actualmente Samsung desafía la potencia de este tipo de patentes, tomando todo el camino hasta la Corte Suprema. En todo caso, esto puede indicar que Samsung solamente a regañadientes patenta diseños, tal vez con la esperanza de nivelar estos fines defensivos cuando compañías como Apple los ataca (con connotaciones nucleares). Samsung no ha (históricamente por lo menos) sido agresivo con patentes.
“Una decisión del Circuito Federal ha puesto a Coleman Co en una posición más fuerte para enjuiciar a un competidor por infringimiento de sus patentes de diseño relacionado a aparatos personales de flotación.”
Harness, Dickey & Pierce, PLC, una firma de abogados (obviamente), acaba de publicar este artículo acerca de patents por diseño de construcción como números acerca de patentes por diseño sugieren un rápido incremento en medio de un caso que SCOTUS trajo en su contra. Como hemos explicado aquí unas pocas veces antes, muchas patentes por diseño son similares y relacionadas con las patentes de software (interfaces en particular). Su existencia es desafíada en las cortes de nuevo, como este artículo sirve para mostrar. Parece una vez más que la CAFC decide en la materia. Para citar:Recuérden que el propósito original del sistema de patetnes fue proveer un incentivo para su publicación a cambio de un monopolio temporario. A la luz de aquella premisa olvidada por mucho tiempo consideren este nuevo post de Patently-O que dice: Una decisión del Circuito Federal ha puesto a Coleman Co en una posición más fuerte para enjuiciar a un competidor por infringimiento de sus patentes de diseño relacionado a aparatos personales de flotación.
La suerte de las patentes por diseño tiene billónes en riesgo; no sólo billones de dólares/pounds/yens pero también billones de personas.
Send this to a friend
Reaching the conclusion that these patents (related to software patents) are excessive and counterproductive?
Summary: In spite of amassing many design patents of its own, Samsung is willing to intercept/undermine all of them, in order to shoot down Apple’s demands against Android/Linux
THE United States’ patent office, the USPTO, continues to grant design patents, which are rather controversial in Europe.
Design patentees by scale/number have just been presented by Patently-O, which said: “Design patents continue to be a popular protection scheme for developers of consumer products and screen displays. Top ten assignees thus-far in 2016 with most recent examples…”
“Samsung has not (historically at least) been aggressive with patents.”It’s Samsung at the top, then LGE (which Apple was often accused of copying — design-wise — when it first introduced the iPhone). Both are Korean companies and one comment rightly points out: “One might not be surprised to notice Samsung highly aware of the potent properties of design patents.” Samsung currently challenges the potency of such patents, taking it all the way up to the Supreme Court. If anything, this may indicate that Samsung only begrudgingly patents designs, maybe in the hope of leveling these for defensive purposes when companies like Apple strike (with nuclear connotations). Samsung has not (historically at least) been aggressive with patents.
“A Federal Circuit ruling has placed Coleman Co. in a stronger position to sue a competitor for infringement of its design patent relating to personal flotation devices.”
–Bloomberg BNAHarness, Dickey & Pierce, PLC, a lawyers’ firm (obviously), has just published this article about design patent constriction as figures about design patents suggest a sharp increase amid a SCOTUS case about/against it. As we explained here a few times before, many design patents are similar and related to software patents (interfaces in particular). Their very existence is challenged in courts again, as this new article serves to show. It seems as though once again it’s CAFC deciding on the matter. To quote: “A Federal Circuit ruling has placed Coleman Co. in a stronger position to sue a competitor for infringement of its design patent relating to personal flotation devices.”
The fate of design patents has billions at stake; not just billions of dollars/pounds/yen but also billions of people. █
Send this to a friend
Changing the law with think tanks and lobbyists
Featuring Microsoft-sponsored ‘speaker’ (lobbyist), David Kappos for software patents and against § 101
Summary: Right now there is growing uncertainty over software patents and even US courts, including the highest such court (the Supreme Court), are such a threat to patent aggressors which utilise software patents to startle or bankrupt their competitors that a propaganda campaign becomes widespread
THE USPTO does not wish to comply with courts’ will. The US patent system is so greedy that it continues to grant a lot of software patents, even when most of them, once properly challenged in a court using Alice, get invalidated. There are still the occasional patent cases where in spite of Alice the software patents survive. One such case has just been covered here and it says: “The court denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment that the asserted claims of plaintiff’s network security patents encompassed unpatentable subject matter and found that the claims were not directed toward an abstract idea.”
“The US patent system is so greedy that it continues to grant a lot of software patents, even when most of them, once properly challenged in a court using Alice, get invalidated.”Meanwhile, patent maximalists are bemoaning the new post-Alice reality, quoting lots of other patent maximalists or lawyers. “It’s getting harder to patent software,” says the headline of this new article. Well, this sounds like excellent news. Software algorithms should never have been patentable in the first place. The author says: “Software patents have been under increased scrutiny for several years due to their malicious use by non-practicing entities, or patent trolls – persons or companies that do not necessarily invent or manufacture anything, but that purchase patents, often from bankrupt countries, and subsequently sue others for infringement.”
Composed by Charles Bieneman, another new article asks, “How Do Biotech Patent-Eligibility Cases Speak to Computer Patent-Eligibility Cases?”
“They’re trying to put an end to invalidations under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and they’re funded by large corporations to do so. Their clients (including Microsoft) pay them to mislead politicians and to lie to the public.”To quote the opening paragraph: “The Federal Circuit recently held that a claim of U.S. Patent No. 5,612,179, reciting “methods of detecting genetic variations” was directed to unpatentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Genetic Technologies Ltd. V. Merial, LLC, Nos. 2015-1202, 2015-1203 (Fed. Cir. April 8, 2016). Anytime the Federal Circuit weighs in on Section 101 patent-eligibility, those of us in the patent bar scramble to comprehend the potential impact to pending patent applications and issued patents alike. For those of us who practice in the computer area, the question arises: how are we informed, or are we informed, by a holding concerning patent claims directed to genetic analysis?”
It’s always noteworthy when CAFC throws away patents like these because software patents originally came from CAFC. Notice the trend now. The courts which once supported software patents no longer do. It must be a scary time to be a patent lawyer in this particular area/domain.
In his final part (part of a long paper), Robert Sachs (patent lawyer) makes it clearer that he was just pushing for software patents all along. To quote his final words: “The fictional form of the mental steps doctrine represents a significant and unwise departure from the factual form. The fictional form is untethered from the conceptual and technological attributes of computer design, the nature of human cognition, and the practical reality and value in computer-implemented inventions. The courts should return to the doctrine’s factual form, and avoid a further descent into the fact-free analysis that now characterizes patent eligibility.”
“One sure thing is, software developers are absent/left out of this whole debate.”This is becoming similar to the infamous whitepaper from David Kappos and his recent lobbying for software patents. They’re trying to put an end to invalidations under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and they’re funded by large corporations to do so. Their clients (including Microsoft) pay them to mislead politicians and to lie to the public. Watch another new example of lobbying for software patents, again taking the shape of a “conference”, just like those funded by Microsoft nowadays [1, 2]. As Cathy Gellis put it: “At this conference on IP in software there’s not nearly enough discussion on WHY ON EARTH DO WE NEED IT.”
“Judge Dyk acknowledges that patent law is not limitless, and that patentable subject matter should not be completely unbounded,” Patently-O noted the other day.
Who’s going to win? The courts, the USPTO, or lobbyists and their affluent clients? One sure thing is, software developers are absent/left out of this whole debate. It’s quite a travesty really. █
Send this to a friend
A lot more than just a patent office…
Summary: For increased influence/power/profit as well as for the personal gain of patent lawyers and their richest clients (usually companies from other continents, with a track record of hazardous patent aggression) the European Patent Office (EPO) continues to promote the UPC, despite it being well outside the scope of the EPO to decide on
“Here’s our latest webinar on the Unitary Patent,” the EPO wrote earlier today. They can’t help themselves, can they? The EPO's lobbying for UPC (at whose expense? The public’s expense!) has got to stop. It promotes the self-discrediting ideas or the growing perception that laws in Europe are decided on by those who profit from them, irrespective of the interests of ordinary Europeans or even European businesses. EPO management has done a lot to legitimise such damaging perceptions. Whose office is it? The Office is just run by Europeans but not for Europeans.
Incidentally, also earlier today there was this post titled “Much Ado About Patents” from IP Kat. It alluded to the UPC and stated: “What do validation rates in EPO patents tell us? These and more questions were subject to economic scrutiny at this morning’s CREATe and Queen Mary hosted workshop.”
“The UPC needs to be dumped. It offers nothing whatsoever to Europe and a lot to non-European actors and their European patent lawyers (agents of corporate occupation).”Well, that’s assuming the speakers are truly independent and the workshop wasn’t set up with an agenda in mind. It didn’t take long for UPC to creep into it: “Leading into the Unitary Patent, there are some interesting questions on the interaction between national patents and EPO bundled patents. Are these patents complements, substitutes or neither? (Do patentees get both national and EPO patents, one or the other, or some other combination?) We have very little understanding as to how these work together on a systematic basis. (We know similarly little about the relationship between national and community trade marks and designs.)”
“Overall,” said the author, “the research suggests that EPO and national patents are complements, and not substitutes.”
So now they want to have not only multiple patent offices (for different jurisdictions) but also multiple patent courts, one for the nation and another for the continent/superstate. What happens if one rules for/against an infringement claims and another does the opposite? This is utterly ridiculous! The UPC needs to be dumped. It offers nothing whatsoever to Europe and a lot to non-European actors and their European patent lawyers (agents of corporate occupation). The UPC is just a Trojan horse. █
Send this to a friend
Defensive, offensive, or just outright dumb and unnecessary? Hypocritical for sure.
Summary: Dumb patents on very dumb/trivial ideas (like gate-locking, or slide to unlock) still a subject which the higher US courts deem worthy of Supreme intervention (while Samsung itself joins the problem with new patent filings)
KOREAN giant Samsung, the market leader in the Android space, is an attractive target for patent lawsuits, even though conventionally Korean companies aren’t combative patent aggressors themselves (they don’t deserve the pricey defendant’s treatment). There’s no escaping the aggressors for Samsung, which even got attacked using EPO patents on software and designs (Samsung won as the EPO patents turned out to be bogus, i.e. erroneously granted).
“There’s no escaping the aggressors for Samsung, which even got attacked using EPO patents on software and designs (Samsung won as the EPO patents turned out to be bogus, i.e. erroneously granted).”Samsung is pursuing design patents of its own now, based on the latest news, e.g. [1, 2, 3] (we found more than a dozen articles about this one) and Apple’s attack on Samsung using design patents is still a subject of discussion, even 2.5 weeks after it was news. This one new blog post says: “Oral argument has not yet been scheduled, but I imagine it will be held sometime in October or November after the Court returns from its summer recess. For now, at least, it seems likely that the Court will still consist of only eight, not the full complement of nine, justices.”
By extension, a lot of design patents will be considered/assessed by SCOTUS, but why were they being granted in the first place? Designs are often covered by laws other than patent law. In the context of patents it’s common for callback functions, i.e. software (behaviour), to be incorporated into the static (visual i.e. plottable) design.
“In the context of patents it’s common for callback functions, i.e. software (behaviour), to be incorporated into the static (visual i.e. plottable) design.”As we pointed out here a long time ago, design patents are in many cases just a subclass of software patents, hence they both need to go away. MIP does not quite agree and in a very recent post about “design rights” (not quite the same as design patents) it said: “After attending the recent INTA/AIPPI conference on “Designs: Into the Future”, James Nurton summarises what there is to love about designs – and also a few reasons not to love them. On the following pages, we also look in depth at the recent Trunki decision in the UK and the pending Apple v Samsung case in the United States”
The Trunki case has been mentioned many times in our daily links. It’s truly dumb and some might call it outrageous. But it’s not about patents. There is hardly a connection/parable here. Either way, to conflate or interject it into the Apple v Samsung would only mislead. █
Send this to a friend
Publicado en America, Courtroom, Patentes at 9:39 am por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Fuente: entrevista 2013
Sumario: David Kappos se ha convertido de Director de la USPTO en un rávido proponente de patentes de software, al punto de desacreditar la intervencioón Congresional y los correctivos dictáments de la más alta corte de los Estados Unidos
Algunos oficiales públicos están actuado como profesionales (no importa el liderazgo de la EPO). Algunos academicos actúan profesionalmente también. El Profesor Dennis Crouch, por instancia, ahora se encuéntra a sí mismo crecientemente interesado en los casos de la Corte Suprema y él escribió acerca de un evento el Lunes (Propiedad Intelectual en La Corte Suprema): “Estoy deseando que llegue el TeleForum Sociedad Federalista este viernes, 8 de abril de, 2016 a 2:00 pm EST en el tema: Propiedad Intelectual en la Corte Suprema.”
“El Sr. Kappos es un abogado de patentes, un máximalista de patentes y cada vez más cabildea por los ricos y poderosos.”Con todas sus fallas sin embargo, La Corte Suprema de los US es razonablemente importante y altamente considerada, especialemente o más despues de que Antonin Scalia falleciese. ¿Quién sería lo suficiéntemente estúpido para enseñar/castigar a la Corte Suprema y incluso al Congreso? Aparentementee el antiguo director de la USPTO. !Qué falta de tacto!
David Kappos se quejó de SCOTUS en Nueva York hace una semana. No parece aceptar la realidad de que las patentes de software están muriéndo en los EE.UU., debido al histórico ruling de sus más altos jueces. Kappos no es un juez tampoco ha logrado mucho; simplemente pasó unos años en IBM, el cual es un notorio agresor de patentes, de allí saltó a la USPTO, cuyo cliente más grande era IBM. Ahora esta cabildeando por patentes de software, haciendo ganancias de ellas y escribiéndo papeles a favor de las patentes de software. Aquí esta el último de sus movimientos (“Law360 Opinion: Tiempo de que el Congreso deje Tranquilo al Sistema de Patentes, por David Kappos”).
“Talvez Kappos simplemente descubrió que hay más dinero en fama y cabildeo que lo hay en otros trabajos.”Para citar a Kappos: “El sistema de patentes de Estados Unidos ha sufrido una serie de cambios dramáticos en los últimos años, incluyendo aprobación y aplicación de la Ley de América Invierte el 2011, seis casos de la Corte Suprema de Estados Unidos que afectan a las leyes de patentes, nuevas normas administrativas por la Conferencia Judicial de Estados Unidos, y las acciones por la Federal Trade Comisión y estatales fiscales generales. Muchos de estos cambios eran necesarios para hacer frente a los abusos en el sistema, donde los frívolos juicios de patentes han sido utilizados por los “malos actores” para extorsionar esencialmente los pagos de las empresas después injustamente haber sido acusados de infracción. Sin embargo, los poderosos efectos de estos cambios emprendidos por múltiples ramas del gobierno sugieren fuertemente Congreso prudentemente puede dar un paso atrás a base de recortar aún más el sistema de patentes. Es hora de dejar que el sistema abrazar sus principales cambios recientes y funcionó cuestiones de aplicación antes de una nueva reforma sea considerada seriamente.”
El Sr. Kappos es un abogado de patentes, un máximalista de patentes y cada vez más cabildea por los ricos y poderosos. El incluso escribe documentos técnicos a favor de las patentes de software. ¿Cuándo va acabar todo esto? Es inapropiado ya que hace parecer que ambos IBM y la USPTO intervinieran con políticas y el trabajo de los jueces, incluso jueces de la Corte Suprema. ¿Talvez todavía este en la planilla de IBM? De otra manera como puede uno justificar sus acciones.
El otro dia los máximalistas de patentes (tambien grandes promotores de patentes de software) notaron que la renuncia de David Kappos [...] coincidentemente pasó poco después de que diera un fuerte discurso a favor de las patentes de software.”
“¿Cuánto más se puede permitir que estos oportunistas continúen jodiéndo?”Talvez Kappos simplemente descubrió que hay más dinero en fama y cabildeo que lo hay en otros trabajos” Verdaderamente tenemos la esperanza – ¿en vano? -de que se detenga. Esto desacredita todo el marco de patentes en los Estados Unidos.
De acuerdo a este nuevo artículo acerca PTAB la gente de la USPTO esta tratándo de “inclinar el campo de juego un poco hacia atrás en su favor.” Para citar en su totalidad: “Desde que entró en vigor en septiembre de 2012 los exámenes posteriores a la emisión introducidas por la Ley de Estados Unidos inventa han ayudado a hacer la vida mucho más difícil para los titulares de patentes de los Estados Unidos. La semana pasada, sin embargo, la USPTO ha anunciado algunos cambios en las normas que rigen el proceso que sólo podría inclinar el campo de juego un poco hacia atrás en su favor.”
¿Cuánto más se puede permitir que estos oportunistas continúen jodiéndo? Sin duda una gran cantidad de abogados de patentes están preocupados debido a que más patentes sólo significa más negocio para ellos, en el mismo sentido que más guerras significan más ganancias a los fabricantes de armas. “Varios jefes de nuevas empresas dijeron C y E que han perseguido a pesar de la protección de patentes de métodos comerciales y patentes de software que enfrenta un mayor escrutinio de patentes y Marcas de los EE.UU.” dice este nuevo artículo Más tarde culpa a Alice (en SCOTUS) al decir: “Estos movimientos se ajustan a un patrón, establecido por la audiencia Partners, de llevar a cabo las patentes de procesos que la mayoría de la gente en la industria creen que no pueden ser patentados. Por otra parte, van a venir en la estela de. Alice Corp. v CLS Bank International, junio 2014 sentencia del Tribunal Supremo que parecía apretar la elegibilidad mientras invalidaba algunas patentes de software y de métodos de negocios. De hecho, el Software Freedom Law Center, que representa a los desarrolladores sin fines de lucro, dijo en ese momento que la decisión era “un paso más hacia la abolición de las patentes de software.””
“A medida que el mundo se mueve más lejos de las patentes de software (incluyendo a los EE.UU.) Kappos está trabajando para hacer todo lo contrario.”Los abogados de patentes sólo prestan atención a Alice cuando las patentes de software resisten escrutinio, como otro nuevo artículo (“Un backslash de la Corte Alice: el Juez de Delaware Judge Robinson, Critical of Recent Trends, Mantiene las Patentes de Software en tres Casos”) ayuda a mostrar. Para citar: “¿La Tendencia? En aplicar § 101 desde Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l., 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), las cortes han dado duro a las patentes de software. Las Cortes Distritales frecuéntemente citan a Alice para traer abajo las patentes de software. Como el Juez Robinson nota, El Circuíto Federal, por su parte, no ha implementado o sostenido una patente por ordenador bajo § 101 desde los DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014), la única victoria post-Alice para un dueño de patentes, emitida hace unos meses después de que Alice fue emitida. Van Busqueda Mejoarda 8 & n. 4 (citing eight Fed. Cir. decisions striking down computer-implemented patents).”
Saber que el Sr. Kappos es una clase de guerrero anti-Alice (en SCOTUS) estos dias nos ayuda a calificarlo como tal. A medida que el mundo se mueve más lejos de las patentes de software (incluyendo a los EE.UU.) Kappos está trabajando para hacer todo lo contrario. █
Actualizació: Reciéntemente nos ha sido indicado [1, 2] que Kappos ahora trabaja en un grupo frontal de varios prominentes proponentes de patentes de software, incluyendo IBM (su antiguo empleador), Apple, Microsoft, y HP – La Sagrada Familia -. El siguiente screen de pantalla se explica a sí mismo
Send this to a friend
Source: 2013 interview
Summary: David Kappos has turned from Director of the USPTO into a raving proponent of software patents, to the point of discrediting Congressional intervention and corrective judgments from the highest court in the United States
Some public officials are acting like professionals (don’t mind EPO leadership). Some academics act professionally too. Professor Dennis Crouch, for instance, now finds himself growingly interested in the Supreme Court’s cases and he wrote about an upcoming event on Monday (Intellectual Property in the Supreme Court): “I’m looking forward to the Federalist Society teleforum this Friday, April 8, 2016 at 2:00 pm EST on the topic: Intellectual Property in the Supreme Court.”
“Mr. Kappos is a patent lawyer, a patents maximalist and increasingly a lobbyist for the rich and powerful.”With all its flaws notwithstanding, the Supreme Court of the US is reasonably important and quite highly regarded, especially or more so after Antonin Scalia died. Who would be silly enough to chastise the Supreme Court and even Congress? Apparently the former director of the USPTO. How tactless.
David Kappos complained about SCOTUS in New York a week ago. He doesn’t seem to accept the fact that software patents are dying in the US, owing to the historic judgment of the highest judges. Kappos is no judge and not much of an accomplisher either; he just spent many years at IBM, which is a software patents aggressor, then leaped into the USPTO, whose biggest client was IBM. Now he’s lobbying for software patents, profiting from software patents, and writing papers in favour of software patents. Here is his latest such move (“Law360 Opinion: Time For Congress To Leave The Patent System Alone, by David Kappos”).
“Maybe Kappos simply found out that there’s more money in fame and lobbying than there is in other jobs.”To quote Kappos: “The U.S. patent system has undergone a number of dramatic changes in recent years, including passage and implementation of the 2011 America Invents Act, six U.S. Supreme Court cases impacting patent laws, new administrative rules by the U.S. Judicial Conference, and actions by the Federal Trade Commission and state attorneys general. Many of these changes were needed to address abuses in the system, where frivolous patent suits have been used by “bad actors” to essentially extort payments from businesses after unfairly accusing them of infringement. However, the powerful effects from these changes undertaken by multiple branches of government strongly suggest Congress can prudently step back from further reshaping the patent system. It is time to let the system embrace its major recent changes and work out implementation issues before further reform is seriously considered.”
Mr. Kappos is a patent lawyer, a patents maximalist and increasingly a lobbyist for the rich and powerful. He even writes whitepapers in favour of software patents. When is this going to stop? It’s inapproriate as it makes both IBM and the USPTO look as though they intervene with policy and interfere with judge’s work, even Supreme Court Justices.
The other day patents maximalists (also huge proponents of software patents) noted that the “resignation of David Kappos [...] coincidentally happened shortly after he gave a strong pro-software patent speech.”
“How much further can one allow these opportunists to go?”Maybe Kappos simply found out that there’s more money in fame and lobbying than there is in other jobs. We truly hope he’ll stop. This discredits the whole framework of patents in the US.
According to this new article about PTAB the USPTO folks are trying to “tilt the playing field just a little bit back in their favour.” To quote the whole thing: “Since they came into force in September 2012 the post-issuance reviews introduced by the America Invents Act have helped make life far tougher for US patent owners. Last week, however, the USPTO announced some changes to the rules governing the process which just might tilt the playing field just a little bit back in their favour.”
How much further can one allow these opportunists to go? No doubt a lot of patent lawyers are concerned because more patents just mean more business to them, in the same sense that more wars mean more profit to arms manufacturers. “Several heads of new firms told C&E they’ve pursued patent protection despite business method and software patents facing greater scrutiny from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,” says this new article. It later blames Alice (at SCOTUS) by stating: “These moves fit a pattern, established by Audience Partners, of pursuing patents of processes that most people in the industry believe can’t be patented. Moreover, they’re coming in wake of Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, the June 2014 Supreme Court ruling that seemed to tighten eligibility while invalidating some software and business-method patents. In fact, the Software Freedom Law Center, which represents not-for-profit developers, said at the time that the decision was “one more step towards the abolition of patents on software inventions.” ”
“As the world moves further away from software patents (the US included) Kappos is working to do the very opposite.”Patent lawyers only pay attention to Alice when software patents withstand scrutiny, as another new article (“One-Court Alice Backlash: Delaware’s Judge Robinson, Critical of Recent Trends, Upholds Software Patents in Three Cases”) serves to show. To quote: “The trend? In applying § 101 since Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l., 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), courts have given software patents a rough go of it. District courts frequently cite Alice to strike down software patents. And as Judge Robinson notes, the Federal Circuit, for its part, has not upheld a computer-implemented patent under § 101 since DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014), the sole post-Alice victory for a software patent owner, issued a few months after Alice came down. See Improved Search at 8 & n. 4 (citing eight Fed. Cir. decisions striking down computer-implemented patents).”
To know that Mr. Kappos is some kind of anti-Alice (at SCOTUS) warrior these days helps us map him accordingly. As the world moves further away from software patents (the US included) Kappos is working to do the very opposite. █
Update: It has just been pointed out to us [1, 2] that Kappos now works on a front group for several prominent proponents of software patents, including IBM (former employer), Apple, Microsoft, and HP. The following screenshot is self explanatory.
Send this to a friend
Wasting valuable courts’ time on some silly patents that are neither novel nor nontrivial (prior art below)
Summary: The US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) is going to deal with inane Apple patents that are being used in an effort to make billions of dollars (‘Apple tax’) out of a Linux-based operating system (Android) which competes against Apple’s
TECHRIGHTS has among its primary goals the abolition of software patents and the success of FOSS, which is ascending in Europe these days. This would be beneficial to software developers and probably for the public as a whole. The losers? Probably patent lawyers and their biggest clients, who refer to their patent portfolio as a “war chest”.
“We believe that real change can come from the courts, especially the high ones, which everyone must follow.”We recognise that significant change hardly comes from politicians anymore, as they are nowadays funded (especially in the United States) by the aforementioned “biggest clients”. We believe that real change can come from the courts, especially the high ones, which everyone must follow. Consider the long-awaited SCOTUS appeal regarding an Android case. Can SCOTUS bury so-called ‘design’ patents, which are essentially akin to software patents (usually a GUI with some buttons and unspecified callback functions for behaviour)? After Alice, which changed a lot, we sure hope so.
We have been covering Apple’s attacks on Android/Linux since the very beginning (the Apple vs HTC case). It’s still being dragged on, even several years after the death of Steve Jobs, which says a lot about Apple (they are still an aggressive patenting company). The expected decision on whether it shall be dealt with by SCOTUS was scheduled for Monday, after some people waited in vain on Friday. This has been covered to death in the media by now, so we won’t bore our readers with yet more of the mundane pertinent details (we covered these before anyway, including the laughable patents at hand [1, 2]).
“It’s still being dragged on, even several years after the death of Steve Jobs, which says a lot about Apple (they are still an aggressive patenting company).”To give just a short media survey/roundup, Spicy IP oddly enough chose to focus on another case. It said: “We’ve been given to believe that the Roche vs Cipla appeal came up at the Supreme Court today.”
An article by Joe Mullin, on the other hand, noted: “Are design patents for “carpets and wall-papers and oil-cloths” or smartphones?”
Korean English-speaking media said the obvious, FOSS proponents like SJVN spread the news early on, and maybe hundreds if not thousands of media outlets wrote about this as well. To quote SJVN: “Years in the making, the Supreme Court has agreed to listen to Samsung’s appeal of Apple’s design patent awards. [...] At first it looked like Apple won its design patent wars over Samsung. As time went on, that “victory” started looking more like a defeat as Samsung won its appeals. Now, Apple is in even more trouble. The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has elected to hear Samsung’s appeal of the $548-million award lower courts gave Apple.”
“The expected decision on whether it shall be dealt with by SCOTUS was scheduled for Monday, after some people waited in vain on Friday.”To quote Florian Müller, who used to be a FOSS opponent (Microsoft/Horacio Gutierrez paid him for this) but later seemed to have flipped back to pro-FOSS, he wrote: “The Supreme Court of the United States has just published a decision it had already made on Friday (March 18): Samsung’s December 2015 petition for writ of certiorari (request for Supreme Court review) in Apple’s design patents case has been GRANTED with respect to question 2 (damages). As a result, the Apple v. Samsung damages re-retrial scheduled to begin later this month in the Northern District of California is almost certainly going to be postponed indefinitely, as Apple is seeking unapportioned infringer’s profits on all five products still at issue and won’t be entitled to that if Samsung prevails in the top U.S. court.”
“For my take on why design patents were neglected for such a long (and crucial) time,” wrote this person to Müller (whose expertise is this one particular case), linking to the paper about design patents. To quote part of the abstract: “This project, initially published as a two-part series of articles entitled ‘Design and Deviance: Patent as Symbol, Rhetoric as Metric,’ reveals the unrecognized power of gender and sexuality norms in the deep discourse of pivotal American case law on design patents.”
“A re-retrial was scheduled to take place in California in a week,” Müller wrote. “In light of the Supreme Court decision I’m sure Judge Koh will cancel it.”
The reason we quote Müller so extensively about this particular case is that, with respect, he did follow this case for many years. He later added:
- “Apple’s lawyers filed 10 pages to tell Judge Koh the re-retrial should go ahead despite SCOTUS cert presenting risk of re-re-re-retrial…” (source)
- “Now, I understand Apple’s lawyers in the sense they want to just dismiss Samsung’s Supreme Court case and say “hey, they ain’t gonna win it”” (source)
- “But when a case has already had a trial and a retrial, and needs a re-retrial, then the judge won’t take the risk of a re-re-retrial.” (source)
- “I actually thought it was not a bad thing to have a Korean-American judge in charge to understand cultures, documents etc.” (source)
- “What I accuse her of is upholding ultraweak patents. Injunctions: granted some, denied some, appeals court was moving target.” (source)
“Watch how some patent lawyers view things. It’s all about money to them (even a crude picture of dollars).”Here is an analysis by a Professor of Law (journalists tend to be clueless about these matters) and Patently-O‘s take from Jason Rantanen and Professor Crouch, who looks for some input through a survey.
Levy from CCIA (lobbying) wrote: “CCIA argued to the Court that this interpretation overreached in an unconstitutional way, and that the correct interpretation could be found by looking at a related statute, the Vessel Hull Design Protection Act.” Rob Lever, a journalist, said that: “The US Supreme Court on Monday opened the door to reducing the hundreds of millions of dollars in damages owed by Samsung to Apple in the blockbuster patent case between the world’s biggest smartphone makers.”
“We look forward to following the case and hopefully we shall see Apple walking away with nothing.”Watch how some patent lawyers view things. It’s all about money to them (even a crude picture of dollars). To quote a part of it: “It is penny-wise and pound-foolish to scrimp on “preparation and prosecution” of patents—which if the invention is any good, will be infringed and attacked—and then to spend hundreds of millions on patent infringement and validity and damages litigation and appeals.”
We look forward to following the case and hopefully we shall see Apple walking away with nothing. As usual, only the lawyers are guaranteed to win. █
Send this to a friend
« Previous Page — « Previous entries « Previous Page · Next Page » Next entries » — Next Page »