12.10.18
Posted in Deception, Microsoft, OIN, Patents at 12:50 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Microsoft’s legal department relies on its vultures (to whom it passes money and patents) to sue its rivals; but other than that, Microsoft is a wonderful company!
THE company that spent decades committing crimes and is currently under investigation in the US for “bribery and corruption” nowadays “loves Linux,” according to itself. But does it really love GNU/Linux? Or is it just bribing people (and organisations and publishers) to say so or at least passively accept those who claim so?
About a month ago the Open Invention Network helped spread the "Microsoft loves Linux" lie; days ago it also added another member (“Printing Industry Leader Heidelberg Joins the OIN Community in Support of its Digital Future”) to its pact that is absolutely worthless in the face of patent trolls and other satellite entities. It can do absolutely nothing about those. It even admits so.
We have meanwhile also noticed that the Franklin Pierce Center at the University of New Hampshire School of Law brought in a person from Microsoft. He is still at Microsoft too; he’s Microsoft’s vice president and chief patent counsel, so he’s like an influencer through academia too (Microsoft does a lot of that). To quote these tidbits:
The Franklin Pierce Center at the University of New Hampshire School of Law has announced that Micky Minhas, vice president and chief patent counsel for Microsoft Incorporated, will join the faculty as the Franklin Pierce Distinguished Professor of Intellectual Property Practice. In addition to teaching in both the fall and spring semesters, Minhas will provide strategic guidance on cutting-edge IP curriculum at UNH Law. Minhas will retain his position with Microsoft. For more than six years, he has managed the Microsoft patent group that is primarily responsible for outbound and inbound intellectual property licensing, patent strategy, patent acquisitions and divestitures, and managing patent preparation and prosecution of patents. He is a frequent speaker on patent and patent licensing topics worldwide.
The term “patent licensing” is a euphemism for extortion. Failing that, litigation or other forms of retaliation. This is what Microsoft champions, having done that for over a decade.
Looking at Microsoft-centric news sites (with connections to Microsoft), GeekWire is still grooming Microsoft’s patent troll Nathan Myhrvold, whom Microsoft bankrolled for well over a decade. Intellectual Ventures is being painted as some sort of chef (“Hungry for new art in Seattle? Nathan Myhrvold’s Modernist Cuisine Gallery is a photographic feast”). Rovi, a patent aggressor that is connected to Intellectual Ventures [1, 2, 3], meanwhile brags about taxing Samsung using video software patents. So these trolls are definitely very active. There’s also this report about ongoing lawsuits of Intellectual Ventures. “Attorneys for Intellectual Ventures LLC and JPMorgan Chase & Co. debated a claim of IV’s cybersecurity software patent before a Federal Circuit panel Thursday,” Matt Bernardini wrote.
This “cybersecurity software patent” is just a software patent and it therefore invalid, as per 35 U.S.C. § 101. Just because the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) granted it doesn’t mean it’s legitimate.
And speaking of cybersecurity software patents, Microsoft’s patent troll Finjan (subsidised by Microsoft, partnered with Microsoft) is at it again. This truly malicious troll is filing its next lawsuit (among many) against Microsoft’s rivals in security. The latest target? Qualys. The press release is now everywhere (e.g. [1, 2, 3]. Finjan brags about it aplenty because its sole ‘product’ is lawsuits.
Microsoft claimed patent “truce” a month ago, but its patent trolls keep striking hard at Microsoft’s rivals. They’re being traded like a real company (latest financial reports disappoint despite higher trading) and the word “Sales” gets used as well as the word “Earnings”. They make a troll sound like it actually makes something. There are also new investors in nothing but these lawsuits; the troll is being propped up by BlackRock and by Seizert Capital Partners LLC. We don’t know if Microsoft is connected to these, but it’s widely known that Microsoft invested in this troll and it has already sued or blackmailed more than a dozen Microsoft rivals in this domain. Coincidence?
How about MOSAID (now known as Conversant), which Microsoft funneled tons of Nokia patents to? As expected, it then went after Microsoft’s rivals with patent lawsuits (as usual). Watchtroll wrote about the latest twist as recently as 5 days ago:
On Tuesday, November 20th, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential decision in Google LLC v. Conversant Wireless Licensing, which vacated a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to uphold the validity of patent claims owned by Conversant after conducting an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding petitioned by Google and LG Electronics. The Federal Circuit panel of Circuit Judges Kathleen O’Malley, Raymond Chen and Kara Stoll found that the PTAB erred in its final written decision by failing to consider the primary argument raised in the original IPR petition.
This is about the Federal Circuit (CAFC) and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The Microsoft-armed troll attacked Google.
CAFC is nowadays more aggressive against these trolls than PTAB; CAFC epically stops Intellectual Ventures (in cases where Intellectual Ventures also sues Microsoft’s rivals in the security space, notably Symantec). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
12.09.18
Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents, Rumour at 7:16 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
The EPO wrote this (below) almost three years ago
Summary: Abuses at the European Patent Office, political turmoil and an obvious legislative coup by a self-serving occupation that produces nothing have already doomed the Unitary Patent or Unified Patent Court (UPC); so now we deal with complete fabrications from Team UPC as they’re struggling to make something out of nothing, anonymously smearing opposition to the UPC and anonymously making stuff up
LAST WEEKEND the person who ratified something that cannot in principle be ratified (or become functional) decided to publicly announce his resignation. There were some reports that mentioned this in relation to the UPC as well (even though there’s more to his decision, primarily Brexit itself). Science Minister (or whatever his job title was at the time; it kept changing) Sam Gyimah wasn’t the first to resign and his predecessor too kept changing job titles until resignation (for similar reasons). We can only imagine how Germany’s constitutional court views this turmoil. Not too favourably…
“The UPCA is dying in its sleep, the EPO already ignores it (the subject is almost never brought up), and Team UPC blogs are more or less dead (no new posts).”With only a couple of weeks left before Christmas it seems pretty clear that the UPC is more “dead” than it has ever been. There will be some more restful weekends soon. As for weekdays? Don’t expect any oral hearings as none are even scheduled. In two or three weeks’ time Team UPC will need to explain why it floated totally false (fabricated) ‘unitary’ rumours. The UPCA is dying in its sleep, the EPO already ignores it (the subject is almost never brought up), and Team UPC blogs are more or less dead (no new posts).
Days after Ramona Livera (Elias Neocleous & Co LLC) published lies and distortions about the UPC in Cypriot press she apparently paid money for more sites to carry these ‘unitary’ lies (self promotion rather). It says more about the integrity and honesty of such firms (than it says about UPC/A itself).
A few days ago Hogan Lovells’ Joseph Raffetto and Steffen Steininger decided to relay some more falsehoods. Perpetuating false rumours of Team UPC is nowadays seen as a virtue, surely?
Here is what they wrote:
While the German Federal Court (FCC) has still not officially announced when it will issue a decision regarding the constitutional complaint against the German law that ratified the Unified Patent Court Agreement (UPCA), rumors about a possible decision in December are circulating the German patent community. The FCC, however, officially has not acknowledged a decision date at this point. Across the channel, in the meantime, two UK patent practitioners argued before the House of Lord’s EU Justice Sub-Committee in favor of a UK participation in the Unitary Patent system during the transitional period agreed upon in a withdrawal agreement following Brexit and beyond that period.
When they say “rumors about a possible decision in December are circulating the German patent community” they don’t cite any sources. Because there are none. There’s no basis for this.
Where are those sources? They’re not even being named. It’s like a self-serving whispering campaign.
“When they say “rumors about a possible decision in December are circulating the German patent community” they don’t cite any sources. Because there are none. There’s no basis for this.”Alan Johnson has meanwhile had nothing to say on the subject. He and his colleagues are among those who spread these false rumours the most. Days ago he wrote in their UPC Blog about SPCs, not UPC (Bristows are big boosters of SPCs). So the UPC Blog is not even about UPC anymore! And on the same day Kluwer Patent Blog (where Bristows often writes) published “SPCs under friendly fire“ (overly dramatic headline).
Why does nobody mention anything of substance about UPC or UPCA? Because there’s nothing.
JUVE, which likes patent trolls (and therefore the UPC as well), still calls patent trolls by a euphemism (“NPE”) and seems happy that they choose to troll companies that actually make something… in the country where JUVE itself is based. JUVE’s subscribers are profiting from these trolls and they hope to profit even more from something like the UPC (which would be inviting to trolls). As JUVE put it: “For NPEs, Germany will continue to be the court location in Europe. This is demonstrated by Data Scape’s lawsuits against none other than Apple, Amazon and Spotify at the Regional Court Düsseldorf…”
More money for lawyers would mean more money for the publisher (JUVE), but the UPC isn’t happening and JUVE isn’t writing about it anymore. It’s almost as if they’ve given up completely.
“More money for lawyers would mean more money for the publisher (JUVE), but the UPC isn’t happening and JUVE isn’t writing about it anymore.”Benjamin Henrion has meanwhile said about UPC that: “Defining how courts are established (130 pages of the rules of procedure) should be the only privilege of Parliaments, not outsourced to biased patent experts like Mr Mooney” (citing an old article from JUVE, which amplifies Team UPC itself).
“Mooney is a symptom of the problem,” I told him, as UPC “is a legislative coup.” It’s a bunch of lawyers attempting to hijack the law and enrich themselves. The constitutional court’s judges can hopefully see that because it’s not difficult to see that and it would be an utter embarrassment to Germany if it ever went ahead; it would also be a political crisis and possibly lead to legal action. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
12.05.18
Posted in Deception, Europe, OIN, Patents at 5:56 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Does it have data storage somewhere? Patentable! Just claim that it’s “distributed”.
Summary: Yesterday’s embarrassing event of the EPO was a festival of the litigation giants and trolls, who shrewdly disguise patents on algorithms using all sorts of fashionable words that often don’t mean anything (or deviate greatly from their original meanings)
YESTERDAY, a day after the embarrassing behaviour had already become evident, Croatian media was having a go again at the corrupt Vice-President of the European Patent Office (EPO). It’s an article about corruption and pedophilia in the Republic of Croatia. We will write about it soon. These cases of corruption are very problematic not only for the reputation of the Office but also that of European Patents. There are many such patents (about a million unexpired ones).
Yesterday there was also an event about blockchains and it was an EPO event. We’ve already written a lot about this subject, e.g. in:
- Blockchain and Bitcoin Patents Help Demonstrate How Software Patents Get Used by Giants to Crush Emerging Technologies (‘Threats’)
- Blockchain Domain Infested With Software Patents, MasterCard Among the Culprits
- Financial Giants Will Attempt to Dominate or Control Bitcoin, Blockchain and Other Disruptive Free Software Using Software Patents
- Blockchain Becomes the Target Not Only of Financial Institutions With Software Patents But Also Trolls
- Walmart, Bank of America, Allied Security Trust (AST) and the Rush for ‘Blockchain’ Patents
We’re going not to focus so much about what blockchains are; they’re abstract, no doubt, they’re a conceptual thing. Instead we want to focus on what the EPO says an does about blockchains. It’s quite incredible and even disturbing that the EPO is now retweeting the world's most notorious patent trolls and letting them promote software patents in Europe. It’s almost as though patent trolls nowadays control the agenda of the Office. Maybe it can be understood in light of the EPO’s hiring of actual thugs, especially for top positions like hirings themselves. The EPO is perfectly happy to give a platform — keynote even — to people who send me death wishes. The EPO actually retweeted both personal and company’s account of Erich Spangenberg. It doesn’t get any worse.
“The EPO is perfectly happy to give a platform — keynote even — to people who send me death wishes.”This troll has even been mentioned by Team UPC folks. One of them wrote: “My partner Christoph von Praun will tomorrow attend the conference “Patenting blockchain” at the @EPOorg in The Hague. Speakers include @mariekeflament and Claire Weils of @circlepay and @SpangenBlog of @ipwe.”
Team UPC must be very happy to see (in)famous patent trolls on stage. After all, they’re some of the biggest clients of Team UPC. “Today,” wrote another person, “associate Howard Read is attending the #PatentingBlockchain conference at the @EPOorg. The conference explores #IP protection, and in particular the patenting of blockchain technology and its applications in different technical fields.”
“Team UPC must be very happy to see (in)famous patent trolls on stage. After all, they’re some of the biggest clients of Team UPC.”Never mind if it all boils down to software. Here is the EPO’s official account quoting thugs, extortionists, scam artists and trolls [1, 2]. Will Madoff be at the next EPO event?
It is not exactly surprising (or even new) that the EPO promotes software patents under the guise of “blockchains”; it has also just done that with “SDV” and with “AI” when it wrote: “The #patent system can benefit from AI which will make the work of examiners easier. Adding the layer of human intelligence will enable progress.”
So even this blockchains event invokes “AI”. Basically, the EPO now uses a slant on “AI”; it just means algorithms, such as search, mis-framing it all so as to pretend experienced examiners can just be replaced by some machines. Should we also have academic papers automatically generated?
“Basically, the EPO now uses a slant on “AI”; it just means algorithms, such as search, mis-framing it all so as to pretend experienced examiners can just be replaced by some machines.”Watch who opens up this event of the EPO. When clueless, nontechnical politicians ride the waves of buzz and marketing it looks like this [1, 2, 3]. At no point do they demonstrate any comprehension of the underlying concepts. Watch who’s on the panel. The one person there who’s semi-technical comes from OIN, a pusher of software patents (and the "Microsoft loves Linux" lie). He’s there alongside people like Fröhlich (EPO). OIN is being revealed for what it truly is: a shield of the status quo (IBM et al with their lust for “blockchain” patents).
Here’s what the EPO said about him [1, 2, 3, 4]: “The next panel with Mirko Boehm at #OpenInventionNetwork, Benjamin Bai at Ant Financial Services Group/Alipay, Klaus Haft at @hoyngrokh, Richard Bennett at SSM Patent Attorneys & moderated by Michael Fröhlich at EPO will discuss the IP landscape of #blockchain #blockchainpatents pic.twitter.com/EnfjV0cfzN [...] Mirko Boehm: “The fundamental building blocks of #blockchain are open source and will continue to be so in the future. This is how the industry is currently developing. “ #patentingblockchain #blockchainpatents [...] Mirko Boehm at #OpenInventionNetwork: “Over the past 5 years that I have attended EPO events, there has been noticeable progress on the sources of data for prior art and the possibility of identifying it.” #blockchain #blockchainpatents” [...] Where do you see #blockchain in the next 5 yrs? M. Boehm: “It’s a promising technology with drastic impact in the financial & logistics fields” B. Bai: „More patent applications will come. In terms of solving technical bottle necks: The best is yet to come“ #blockchainpatents”
“OIN is being revealed for what it truly is: a shield of the status quo (IBM et al with their lust for “blockchain” patents).”They’re mixing two things, maybe intentionally (the same slant as “AI”); one thing is patents on blockchains and another is use of blockchains to manage patents. So which is it? In this event the separability is virtually non-existent. Here’s the last of this bunch of tweets: “Where do you see #blockchain in the next 5 yrs? Richard Bennett: “I look forward to seeing how the legal framework will developed by the EPO” Klaus Haft : „More activities over next years. In terms of litigation in #blockchainpatents, we’ll see it only after the 5 years.””
That doesn’t even make any sense. What does “litigation in #blockchainpatents” even mean? It means nothing. It’s gobbledygook. Ledgers for court filings?
As Benjamin Henrion (FFII) correctly pointed out: “EPO forgot to invite the critics, OIN was probably invited to justify the “you see, we even asked the point of view of open source”. Disgusting.”
“They’re mixing two things, maybe intentionally (the same slant as “AI”); one thing is patents on blockchains and another is use of blockchains to manage patents.”IAM did the same thing a few months ago. OIN represents large corporations, not the Free/Open Source community. The same is true for the Linux Foundation, but that’s another subject altogether.
Now, watch what the EPO said about Benjamin Bai [1, 2]: “Benjamin Bai: “You cannot patent the fundamental #blockchain technology, however you can patent value added services based on blockchain” #blockchainpatents #patentingblockchain [...] #Blockchain is still a young technology both from a regulatory perspective and patent litigation perspective. It needs the space to grow. But we don’t want to see litigation killing innovation, says Benjamin Bai #blockchainpatents #patentingblockchain”
That thing about “patent value added” is completely nonsensical; these are still software patents, but the Office is corrupt enough to grant them (examiners are threatened to). Never mind if courts would reject them (if it reached that far). Painting algorithms with “blockchain” brushes isn’t a new concept, but this time they do a whole conference/forum to promote this practice.
“That thing about “patent value added” is completely nonsensical; these are still software patents, but the Office is corrupt enough to grant them (examiners are threatened to).”Notice how, as per this EPO tweet, they even admit those patents are “CII”: “Richard Bennett at SSM Patent Attorneys: “In the field of CII, patent attorneys try to get broad claims while limiting only those features for defining the envisaged invention. “ #blockchainpatents #patentingblockchain”
They then retweet this buzzwords salad — typical keyword/buzzword stuffing from proponents of abstract patents: “blockchain, AI, smart contracts, IoT, interoperability…”
Georg Weber and Yann Ménière, who are loyal pushers of software patents (whom Battistelli put in high places in order to grant such patents illegally), are at it again.
“Georg Weber and Yann Ménière, who are loyal pushers of software patents (whom Battistelli put in high places in order to grant such patents illegally), are at it again.”The EPO retweeted this thing: “”The world will be tokenised”. Great insights from @mariekeflament & Claire Wells of @circleinvest and Georg Weber & Yann Ménière of @EPOorg at #patentingblockchain conference in The Hague this morning. pic.twitter.com/XlwCpy3Og9 – At European Patent Office”
So based on lies and deliberate misinterpretation of the EPC they grant patents on something they call “blockchain”; will courts honour such patents? No, even those in the audience are sceptical. Gabriele Mohsler of Ericsson is quoted by the EPO as saying: “At the moment the most pertinent challenge is drafting a good application which will hold in front of the court.”
They’re openly recognising that the courts know these are bunk software patents. So Mohsler then speaks of “the technical effect.” The EPO quotes her as follows: “Gabriele Mohsler shares two tips based on her experience at @Ericsson: drafting claims in an indirect way and better understanding of the technical effect. #blockchainpatents #patentingblockchain”
The term “technical effect” has always been laughable nonsense. We’ve been joking for it for years. The EPO retweeted someone who said “Blockchain patent filings 2008-2018 dominated by China and the US. Numbers growing rapidly!”
“The term “technical effect” has always been laughable nonsense. We’ve been joking for it for years.”That’s just because the term is rather new, just like “cloud”. Distributed databases go a very long way back. There’s prior art. As the EPO admits: “The first patent filing including the actual word #blockchain happened in 2012, says Claire Wells at @Circlepay #blockchainpatents #patentingblockchain”
But it goes a long way back; the words/terminology were just different. Wells then said it is “hard to protect it on an open source basis” (whatever that even means). The EPO wrote: “Claire Wells @Circlepay: “The ethos behind #blockchain took a libertarian stand, but in order to enable to derive value, it is very hard to protect it on an open source basis” #blockchainpatents #patentingblockchain”
Again, this is pretty meaningless and vague. Yes, many blockchain implementations are Free/Open Source software. Now they just try hard to strap software patents (“CII”) onto these. Here they are using the term “CII” again. In the EPO’s words: “The EPO practice of examining #blockchain inventions is predictable, harmonised and offers legal certainty. It is documented in the CII guidelines and is entirely based on case law from the BoA #blockchainpatents #patentingblockchain”
“…many blockchain implementations are Free/Open Source software. Now they just try hard to strap software patents (“CII”) onto these.”They clearly know what they’re doing here.
“If a court in France finds blockchain unpatentable under the EPC,” Henrion (FFII) wrote (referring to an actual court ruling from France), “will the EPO adapt [sic] its practice?”
“Of course not,” I responded. “The EPO repeatedly ignored courts, attacked courts, attacked judges (driving them almost to suicide), and broke the law like it’s a hobby/sport.”
Another person (FFII in Sweden) wrote: “So are records on a blockchain ever since IBM and EPO bent the rules for patent inflation. Its not inventions. Its an abstract exercise in monopolizing language and math that causes risks and harm to society and innovation.”
“He is promoting hype around “blockchain”, but at the same time he labels it “CII”.”In case there’s any doubt, even the EPO’s Vice-President from Spain is admitting explicitly that it’s about granting patents on software (“CII”). In the EPO’s own words: “Alberto Casado, EPO VP Operations : “There are many conferences about blockchain, but this one was the very first ever about #patentingblockchain. I would like to thank everybody for making this good exercise possible” #blockchainpatents pic.twitter.com/cLu7dI2Ybw […] Blockchain inventions are part of CII. The EPO is well prepared for assessing patentability in CII, says Alberto Casado #blockchainpatents #patentingblockchain […] Alberto Casado, EPO VP Operations: Thank you for being with us today. Applicants, scientists, researchers, attorneys – We have learnt a lot from you. #blockchainpatents #patentingblockchain”
He is promoting hype around “blockchain”, but at the same time he labels it “CII”. Remember the EPO’s Lievens? He’s now quoted as saying: ”We at the EPO need to be ready for this #blockchain “invasion” in other fields…”
“…it certainly seems like nothing but an echo chamber of patent maximalists, led by literal patent trolls who even admit that they favour software patents and that blockchain patents are just software patents.”What other fields? The blockchains are just software.
Surveying who the EPO has retweeted (e.g. this thing), it certainly seems like nothing but an echo chamber of patent maximalists, led by literal patent trolls who even admit that they favour software patents and that blockchain patents are just software patents. They also admit their uncertainty about courts’ approval.
Finally came the closing words in the late afternoon. It doesn’t seem as though António Campinos attended. At no point was he mentioned.
In summary, trolls from the United States (who used fake patents to shake down thousands of businesses) are now the ‘face’ of the EPO. How fitting. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
12.02.18
Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 12:24 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: It’s rather noteworthy that no matter how grim things have become for Team UPC, which drafted and promoted new laws for self-enrichment purposes, these people persist with all the same lies that predate several more barriers, which no doubt will prove fatal to the Unified Patent Court Agreement (UPCA)
TODAY we shall focus primarily on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), but first we shall give a little update from Europe.
IP Kat‘s Cecilia Sbrolli is promoting CIPA’s event, which takes place tomorrow (Monday), as follows: “On Monday 3 December 2018 The Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys (CIPA) will organise the webinar Litigation Financing – Removing Financial Risks from Patent Infringement, with speakers Eric Morehouse (Kenealy Vaidya) and Chris Thornham (Taylor Wessing).”
“…it’s pretty incredible that even amid the resignation of Gyimah these people pretend that the sole question is, “can Britain participate?” (in something that doesn’t even exist!)”CIPA’s chief inside IP Kat was, in our humble assessment, one of several factors that ended coverage of EPO scandals. It just didn’t suit the authors’ interests; they’re leading proponents of the UPC, which is impeded by corruption at the EPO, not to mention an attack on judges’ independence.
“The Unified Patent Court (UPC) is not yet established,” said Team UPC (Marks & Clerk) just before the weekend as if it’s a matter of time. An article by Graham Burnett-Hall, Steven Gurney, Tom Farrand, Andrea Williams and Rayyan Mughal said this:
Intellectual Property In A ‘No-Deal’ Brexit: What Can We Expect? – Intellectual Property
[...]
The Unified Patent Court (UPC) is not yet established and is dependent on ratification of the Unified Patent Court Agreement by Germany (which itself is dependent on the outcome of an ongoing constitutional challenge). It is currently unknown whether the UPC will be operational before Brexit day, i.e. 29 March 2019. Even in a ‘no deal’ situation, the UK is committed to exploring whether it will be possible to participate in the UPC and unitary patent system. It is worth noting that the UK ratified the Unified Patent Court Agreement in April of this year, i.e. after having started with EU withdrawal process, which indicates that continued participation in the UPC is considered by the UK government to be politically acceptable, notwithstanding the fact that the UPC is required to apply relevant EU law in its decisions. If the UK is prevented from being involved with the UPC and unitary patent then patent protection and enforcement in the UK will continue just as it does now.
The above spreads (yet again) those two infamous lies; it’s pretty incredible that even amid the resignation of Gyimah these people pretend that the sole question is, “can Britain participate?” (in something that doesn’t even exist!) █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
11.26.18
Posted in Courtroom, Deception, Patents at 12:06 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Patent law (litigation) firms, looking to profit from software patenting and litigation with such patents, are still offering intentionally bad advice (about patentability and success rates in courts); they should instead embrace PTAB and undo the mess they’ve created
THE FINE art of cherry-picking, e.g. cherry-picking of court decisions, has been mastered by law firms looking for “marketing opportunities”. We saw that earlier this year with the Berkheimer lie and as we shall show in a moment, they’re doing it again. Their goal is to legitimise this old fiction that software patents are still worth pursuing at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and moreover suing over. Only lawyers would win. They don’t care if the patents are virtually worthless and litigation goes nowhere because they profit regardless (legal bills).
“They don’t care if the patents are virtually worthless and litigation goes nowhere because they profit regardless (legal bills).”For similar reasons, law firms encourage automation; they would want millions of patents pursued per year (like in China) and they constantly promote the concept of computer-generated inventions [sic], which sometimes get conflated with “AI” (not searching patents using classifiers or patenting software by dubbing it “AI”). Unified Patents, incidentally, has just taken note of an essay, “Computer-Generated Inventions, addressing the legal issues surrounding the patenting of computer-generated inventions.”
Terms like “computer-generated inventions” (a misnomer) aren’t to be confused with “computer-implemented inventions,” the misnomer long used by the European Patent Office (EPO) to bypass the EPC and facilitate software patents in Europe, except in European courts (they would typically reject these). There was an attempt to bypass the national courts using an EPO-connected Unified Patent Court (UPC), but thankfully it’s never going to happen. As one UPC proponent from Germany has said: “The draft Agreement on the withdrawal of the UK from the EU (“Brexit” Agreement, draft of November 14) is completely silent on the faith of the Unified Patent Court (UPC). Does this mean that the participation of the UK in the UPC system is off the table?”
“The patent maximalists try hard to abolish PTAB or overcome the courts, which they frequently bash or misrepresent.”“UPC has been off the table for at least a year,” I told him, but “CIPA and other lobbies, conjoined with law firms-owned media, just keep lying about it and lying to politicians…”
How does all this relate to the US? Well, the Federal Circuit keeps rejecting software patents, typically upon appeals emanating from Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) inter partes reviews (IPRs). The patent maximalists try hard to abolish PTAB or overcome the courts, which they frequently bash or misrepresent. They would have us believe that the Federal Circuit changed its position, but this couldn’t be further from the truth. Let’s examine the past week’s news.
Last week Joseph Herndon wrote about a Federal Circuit case where prior art (§ 102) was leveraged to show that a US patent was invalid. This related to PTAB as explained below:
Patent owner Acceleration Bay, LLC (“Acceleration”) appealed the final written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board holding unpatentable claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,829,634; 6,701,344; and 6,714,966. Activision Blizzard, Inc., Electronic Arts Inc., Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc., 2k Sports, Inc., and Rockstar Games, Inc. (collectively, “Blizzard”) cross-appealed portions of the Board’s decisions holding that the Lin article is not a printed publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a), among other issues.
Here, we look at the determination of features in a “preamble” as being limitations of the claim, as well as, requirements of an article being considered a printed publication for prior art purposes.
The patents at issue are directed to a broadcast technique in which a broadcast channel overlays a point-to-point communications network. The communications network consists of a graph of point-to-point connections between host computers or “nodes,” through which the broadcast channel is implemented.
Blizzard filed six inter partes review (“IPR”) petitions—two for each of the ’344, ’966, and ’634 patents—based principally on two different prior art references: one set of IPRs challenged claims based on the Shoubridge article alone or combined with a prior art book Direct-Play (“Shoubridge IPRs”), and another set of IPRs challenged claims based on the Lin article alone or combined with DirectPlay (“Lin IPRs”).
[...]
Here, the Board found that although Lin was indexed by author and year, it was not meaningfully indexed such that an interested artisan exercising reasonable diligence would have found it, which is a proper consideration under the Federal Circuit precedent. As such, the Federal Circuit found that Lin was not a printed publication under § 102.
PTAB found these claims to be lacking novelty and thus unpatentable. It should not matter whether the prior art was printed or fully implemented or whatever; the important point is, prior art does exist. If something is not novel, then it isn’t novel, period.
“It should not matter whether the prior art was printed or fully implemented or whatever; the important point is, prior art does exist.”§ 102 isn’t so commonly leveraged in this context. Fake patents that are software patents are trivial to discredit and easy to invalidate using Section 101 (35 U.S.C. § 101). When it’s just algorithms, nothing physical, the SCOTUS Alice decision comes handy. A few days ago someone wrote: The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has awarded Xerox a patent for a blockchain-driven auditing system for electronic files, according to a patent filing published Nov. 13. #xerox #blockchain https://lnkd.in/dxSzNNx
We wrote about it last weekend; this should be presumed invalid, just like every other “blockchain” patent.
But sometimes marketing defies reality and logic. How about the buzzword/term “AI”?
“…it’s almost the end of the year and the Berkheimer lie (from back in Valentine’s Day) is still being propped up by lying lawyers looking for a buck.”Aaron V. Gin is trying to call algorithmic patents i.e. software patents, “AI”. It’s done to hide/distract from the fact that Section 101 would invalidate all of them in court. They’re all abstract. As we explained numerous times in the past, the term “AI” is just being invoked/used/misused a lot more than before; Gin, however, says that “research indicates, perhaps as expected, that AI-related patent application filings have been increasing throughout the world at growing annualized rates. Figure 1 illustrates the number of AI-related patent application filings in various jurisdictions between the years 2006 and 2016.”
So they (mis)use the term more than before. That means nothing at all. It’s like a fashion. “An interesting piece of work from one of the world’s largest patents law firms,” a patent maximalist called it. So they analyse a bunch of buzzwords? More so ones that have been (re)popularised in the past couple of years? What a weak hypothesis and method.
Moving on to the next example, it’s almost the end of the year and the Berkheimer lie (from back in Valentine’s Day) is still being propped up by lying lawyers looking for a buck.
“To claim that Berkheimer had any meaningful effect would be patently false, but the above is just marketing anyway.”“Courts are trending toward broader patent eligibility,” wrote Jessica L.A. Marks in the headline. She “is a patent attorney at Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLC,” according to her bio and she wrote along with “Virginia L. Carron [who] is a partner at Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. She practices patent and trademark litigation and counseling.”
They are just spreading lies. The patent courts do the exact opposite, narrowing patent scope. So what’s the premise of this article? The Berkheimer nonsense, which changed nothing at all. To quote some portions:
In addition to those Supreme Court decisions, the lower courts and the USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) also began finding numerous previously patented inventions unpatentable under the new guidance. For example, between the Alice decision and June 2015, over 70% of patents challenged in federal courts as ineligible under this new standard were ultimately found invalid.
The U.S. Patent Office followed suit, strictly analyzing and rejecting applications under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the statute that governs patent eligibility. The number of rejections under § 101 for biological, genetic, and organic chemistry inventions doubled after Alice.
But in the last year, the tide has been turning. The Federal Circuit, the appellate court one step below the Supreme Court that handles all patent appeals, has issued several decisions that have gone the other way, upholding patent eligibility. Based on these decisions, the USPTO has issued memoranda to its patent examiners. These memoranda interpret federal circuit decisions and provide guidance to the patent examiners on issuing patent eligibility rejections. Each of these memoranda indicate that the USPTO is interested in allowing more patents.
For example, the Berkheimer memo, issued April 19, 2018, instructed that examiners could no longer reject claims as being “well-understood, routine, and conventional” without providing written support as to why each individual element and the combination of elements was “well-understood, routine, and conventional.”
To claim that Berkheimer had any meaningful effect would be patently false, but the above is just marketing anyway. Truth is not a necessity to them.
“In a super rare decision, one single software patent was upheld in CAFC…”As Berkheimer did not really help them much, on they move to (or latch onto) another case, the exceptionally rare kind of decision on HTC and Ancora (covered here before). A patent troll expressed glee over it, saying: “software [patent] licensing [extortion] is an area we pioneered: happy about this ruling…”
They linked to Charles Bieneman, a software patents proponent (law firm, obviously!) who belatedly wrote about Ancora Technologies, Inc. v. HTC America, Inc.
To quote:
Reversing a District Court decision, the Federal Circuit had held that patent claims directed to enforcing software licenses are patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 and the Alice abstract idea test. Ancora Technologies, Inc. v. HTC America, Inc., No. 2018-1404 (Nov. 16, 2018) (precedential) (opinion by Judge Taranto, joined by Judges Dyk and Wallach). Claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,411,941 recite “methods of limiting a computer’s running of software not authorized for that computer to run.” Relying on Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., (Fed. Cir. 2016), the Federal Circuit reversed the lower court’s Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, holding that “the claimed advance” was patent-eligible as “a concrete assignment of specified functions among a computer’s components to improve computer security.”
The most hilarious spin came from the patent trolls’ lobby, IAM. It not only wrote about it behind paywall; it then proceeded to encouraging fruitless litigation with tweets like: “Patent owners [sic] have less to fear from early Alice motions after recent CAFC decision…”
“That was 10 days ago and they’re still talking about it. How much longer? A month? A year?”“A welcome 101 boost for software patent owners [sic] from CAFC,” said another tweet and later they added: “A CAFC judgment which overturns a lower court decision to invalidate a software-relate patent has provided some welcome relief to those holding rights [sic] in the field.”
In a super rare decision, one single software patent was upheld in CAFC and the firm behind it, Brooks Kushman P.C., is showing off as follows:
On November 16, 2018, the U.S. Court Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that a software security patent owned by Ancora Technologies, Inc. claims eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The decision reversed a district court ruling that the patent was invalid as directed to an abstract idea. The decision establishes that patents claiming computer-related inventions directed to improving the function of a computer system by applying a specific improvement, rather than claiming only the improvement in the abstract, are patent-eligible under §101. Brooks Kushman PC represented Ancora in the Federal Circuit appeal.
That was 10 days ago and they’re still talking about it. How much longer? A month? A year? Like we said last weekend, this is a rare exception of a case, hardly the ‘norm’; almost every other 35 U.S.C. § 101 case winds up with CAFC’s unanimous invalidation of the underlying patents (the above is about one single patent, unlike cases where several are involved). Watchtroll wrote about a more typical 35 U.S.C. § 101 outcome at CAFC (from around the same time):
On Tuesday, November 13th, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued another in a growing number of Rule 36 judgments. This particular Rule 36 patent eligibility loss for the patent owner came in Digital Media Technologies, Inc. v. Netflix, Inc., et al., and affirmed the district court’s finding that patent claims asserted by Digital Media against Netflix, Amazon and Hulu were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because they were directed to an abstract idea.
The Federal Circuit panel of Circuit Judges Alan Lourie, Timothy Dyk and Todd Hughes decided to issue the Rule 36 judgment without opinion despite counsel for Digital Media contending at oral arguments that the district court did not properly administer the Alice/Mayo test when reaching a determination that the asserted patents were patent ineligible, and despite the district court admitting the pure subjective nature of determining whether a claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The patent-at-issue in this case is U.S. Patent No. 8964764, titled Multimedia Network System with Content Importation, Content Exportation, and Integrated Content Management. It claims a multimedia system that addressed various needs in the field of managing digital information in a way that makes it easy to download audio/video content from the Internet while providing reliable and flexible content protection and incorporates the use of digital video recorders (DVRs) for multiple users within a premise or vehicle.
It would be wiser for law firms to just simply accept 35 U.S.C. § 101 and try to profit from the invalidation of bogus patents. Over the weekend Strafford had this ‘advert’ in which is dealt with the question: “How can patent litigation defendants take advantage of the guidance for §101 challenges?”
“It would be wiser for law firms to just simply accept 35 U.S.C. § 101 and try to profit from the invalidation of bogus patents.”It is a “Patent Eligibility Post-Alice” ‘webinar’ (one among other Strafford ‘webinars’ that Patent Docs has just advertised [1, 2], the sole exception being the American University Washington College of Law). It is no secret that software patents have generally become easy to invalidate. Lawyers can profit that that, too…
Why don’t they focus on cleaning up the mess they created rather than combat the status quo and lie to their customers? As it stands at the moment, any time they 'pull a Berkheimer' they just harm their reputation by offering bad advice to clients. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
11.25.18
Posted in Deception, Intellectual Monopoly, Patents at 5:00 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: The mythology about patents being something one can own and then sell is one among the biggest lies perpetrated and exacerbated in the 21st century, giving rise to ‘extortion factories’ such as patent trolls
THE European Patent Office (EPO) and U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) are both run by patent maximalists, Battistelli’s António Campinos and Trump's Iancu. These people view patents as things they’re not. They’re clueless or intentionally wrong, i.e. dishonest.
“They interject themselves into media and create their own propaganda sites, usually with inappropriate terms like “asset” and “property” in the name. So even the very names of these sites are lies.”As Hartwig Thomas put it: “The notion of IP is just a propaganda term which attempts to wrap copyright, trademarks and patents in the respectable cloth of “private property” which is guaranteed in the constitution. But the constitution never meant to guarantee anything like it.”
Josh Landau was quoting Madison on the subject of patents several days ago. To quote:
James Madison is credited with introducing the Patent and Copyright Clause to the Constitution, and defended that clause in Federalist 43, stating “[t]he utility of this power will scarcely be questioned.” But he was well aware that there were dangers to the power, writing in his own papers that the patent monopoly could produce more evil than good.
But it wasn’t just in his private papers that Madison referenced the potential problems patents can create. In the letter to Congress in which he, as President, recommended the establishment of a separate patent office within the Department of State, he also noted those dangers, saying he recommended “further guards [be] provided against fraudulent exactions of fees by persons possessed of patents.”
Patents have since then become like a religion with clergy/preachers who tax everyone; some, without being lawyers, are doing this too (trolls). They interject themselves into media and create their own propaganda sites, usually with inappropriate terms like “asset” and “property” in the name. So even the very names of these sites are lies.
“Even the name of the site and the job/title/role contain the propaganda term. If they repeat the propaganda often enough, they presume, people will eventually believe it. Even politicians, judges and governments…”The headline and each paragraph here, for example, contains the lie and the propaganda term “IP”. That’s just a new example; there are examples like it every day. Even the name of the site and the job/title/role contain the propaganda term. If they repeat the propaganda often enough, they presume, people will eventually believe it. Even politicians, judges and governments… █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
11.24.18
Posted in Deception, Europe, OIN, Patents at 1:41 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: The last hope of software patents (bypassing national courts that keep rejecting such patents) may be coming to an end and not even sponsored self-promotional posts can resurrect such hopes
THE European Patent Office (EPO) — we cannot emphasise strongly enough — barely mentions the UPC any longer. António Campinos mentioned it at most a couple of times since becoming the EPO’s President back in July. Sure, Campinos actively promotes software patents in Europe — patents that aren’t legitimate (that’s why they try to replace the current court system with the UPC, which the EPO has more leverage over).
“Sure, Campinos actively promotes software patents in Europe — patents that aren’t legitimate (that’s why they try to replace the current court system with the UPC, which the EPO has more leverage over).”Yesterday we spotted an article titled “Sind Ihre Produkte vor patentrechtlichen Angriffen und „Trollen“ sicher?” in German media. It’s about the UPC, which has been de facto dead for nearly a year, thanks in part to the constitutional complaint in Germany. There are several other factors in the mix, one of which is Brexit.
Team UPC’s Jane Lambert wrote yesterday on Twitter, in light of leaked Brexit documents: “The section on IP in the leaked political declaration in @TheGuardian__ makes no mention of British participation in the #UPC after the transition period and leaves no room for it so ratification and spend on rent and fitting out Aldgate East has come to 0 https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/nov/22/brexit-leaked-political-declaration-in-full …”
There’s “no need to kick this dead horse and businesses in the UK do not want it anyway, only trolls and litigators,” I told Lambert.
“It’s about the UPC, which has been de facto dead for nearly a year, thanks in part to the constitutional complaint in Germany.”Bristows has meanwhile promoted the delusion of Italy magically replacing the UK (that would require a massive overhaul and it’s impractical). “Italy’s Council of Ministers approves amendment of IP Code to implement unitary patent and UPC system,” it wrote, citing itself (see rebuttal in this earlier post). To make matters worse, Bristows has apparently just paid to spread its lies to news feeds. It is the first time in months that they say anything at all about UPC.
The reality of the matter is, UPC is dead, which means that courts will continue to reject software patents and reject the gross misrepresentation of the EPC (the EPO keeps trying to justify patents on algorithms this way, snubbing courts).
Yesterday the EPO wrote: “Last chance to register for our “Global patenting and emerging technologies” conference. Don’t miss out on an inspirational day…”
“It was bad enough that OIN legitimised software patents in the US; is it doing the same in Europe now?”By “emerging technologies” the EPO means algorithms, which are not patent-eligible (but today’s EPO ignores the law and the rules anyway). It then wrote: “What does the IP landscape look like in the area of #blockchain? Mirko Boehm from the Open Invention Network, Benjamin Bai from Ant Financial Services Group, Klaus Haft from @HoyngRokh and Richard Bennett from Schwabe Sandmair Marx will discuss that here: http://bit.ly/EPOblockchain18″
Shame on OIN for participating in patent trolls-infested events of the EPO where software patents are promoted and disguised by hype waves. We have totally lost respect for OIN. It was bad enough that OIN legitimised software patents in the US; is it doing the same in Europe now? █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
11.22.18
Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 7:58 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: The latest EPO news, including the habitual lies about the Unified Patent Court (UPC) courtesy of those looking to increase litigation rates
TODAY is a relatively calm day (Thanksgiving in the United States), but that does not mean that EPO scandals can be ignored. There are some bits — not necessarily news — that need highlighting today.
First of all, Bristows LLP has just woken up. It wrote a UPC blog post for the first time in several months (they used to write several times per week). It was published at least 4 times throughout the day (different revisions due to their lousy CMS). As usual, Bristows (Gregory Bacon in this case) is maintaining the illusion, lie and fiction that the UPC is about to happen. But no ‘unitary’ patents exist and UPC is basically dead; even Team UPC nearly quit mentioning that (it’s hard to find mentions of it any longer and EPO management almost never utters those words). The final words from Bristows: “The Italian Ministry of Justice announced in 2016 that a local division of the UPC will be in Milan (in an existing court building at via San Barnaba 50).”
Will? Would? In 2016 or thereabouts Bristows also advertised UPC jobs in the UK — jobs that never existed and will never exist. Is that not against the law?
But it wasn’t just Bristows; “Not to be confused with the much delayed Unitary Patent,” Novagraaf wrote some hours ago as if the UPC is “delayed” rather than dead. This help perpetuate those infamous old lies about inevitability. They belittle the court and show disdain for justice.
Speaking of disdain for justice, how about the EPO granting software patents in Europe in defiance of courts, Parliament and the EPC?
The EPO resumed advocacy of this abomination earlier today (as it does every day). By “emerging technologies” the EPO nowadays means abstract software patents (described using much-hyped words and acronyms). The referenced page is all about “AI” and other such buzzwords.
“One easy solution is to outright forbid patents on software,” Benjamin Henrion noted today, citing and quoting Jonathan Rosenberg’s new article titled “Software Patents Considered Harmful” (in Medium).
It’s quite long and here are the opening words:
Friends and relatives who are not in the technology industry always ask me if I’ve ever gotten a patent. For them, a patent has this sheen of accomplishment. They believe it means you invented something, that you are an innovator, that you’ve done something no one has done before. I give a little chuckle, tell them that yes, I have a few patents (I actually have 90 issued U.S. patents), but that it’s not really a big deal, and thank you for asking. In reality, I’m being polite. I don’t want to burst their bubble, nor do I want to launch into a long tirade. Because, the reality is, that patents — and in particular — software patents — are a plague upon the industry. They hamper innovation. They cost companies millions and millions of dollars in frivolous law suits. They waste time and energy from people who just want to build products. They are anathema to the Internet. Software patents are harmful.
Software patents have three key characteristics which have resulted in their harmfulness. They are vague in terms of what is actually invented. They can be passed along as property. You can sue for infringement without making the product to which the patent applies. Lets cover each in turn.
Software patents may be the subject we’ll focus on this weekend in relation to the American system.
Last but not least, Märpel wrote at around 8PM on Thanksgiving, just to share the following item from Tuesday:
RESOLUTION
SUEPO members in Munich, gathered in a General Assembly, note that:
- The President, Mr Campinos has decided to face Elizabeth Hardon, former Chairman of SUEPO Munich and Chair of the Local Staff Committee Munich, with a new disciplinary committee instigated by the same old Administration which is still in place, and apparently with the same old charges.
- The Tribunal has already castigated the Administration’s behaviour in the cases of Ion Brumme (Judgment 4043) and Malika Weaver (Judgment 4042).
- The President did not take into account the instructions contained in the Resolution CA/26/16 dated 16 March 2016 to inform the Administrative Council of any new disciplinary proceedings concerning a staff representative and to consider the possibility of involvement of an external reviewer for arbitration or mediation.
Further noting that:
- Laurent Prunier, as Secretary of SUEPO The Hague and member of the Central Staff Committee, was dismissed for extraneous motives, similarly to Elizabeth, Malika and Ion.
- Staff representatives face difficulties accommodating their workload in the Appeals Committee with the workload in their other duties, mostly patent examination. Judgments 3971 and 4050 made public these difficulties, resulting in disciplinary measures against Aurélien Pétiaud and Michael Lund, which the Tribunal considered “within the range of acceptability” or “not to be disproportionate”. It is now absolutely clear that those disciplinary measures were politically motivated as part of an intimidation campaign against staff representatives.
Expresses its disappointment about the continuation of the attacks initiated by former President, Mr Battistelli.
Expresses its deep concern that the President’s decision will prevent the restoration of social dialogue and further damage the reputation of the Office.
Urges the President:
- to drop the charges raised against Elizabeth Hardon,
- to reinstate Laurent Prunier in full,
- to provide reparation of the torts inflicted on Aurélien Pétiaud and Michael Lund
Munich, Tuesday 20 November
Union-busting activities have arguably exacerbated under António Campinos, who seemingly uses Bergot as his main attack dog. Less than a week ago SUEPO removed a sort of blog post that it had published a day earlier even though Bergot’s name was removed from the cited page. Nobody could ever explain to us whether this removal was due to another threat like the one in summer or in March (we wrote about that several times back then, even in February). █
Update: SUEPO resolution voted by the SUEPO General Assembly held in Munich on Tuesday 20.11.2018 (with slight grammar-related edits)
Pressure is increasing on Campinos. The situation at EPO remains utterly negative: Campinos, who was said to be nominated by the Administrative Council because of his alleged proven record of good performance in the field of social partnership at Alicante, has done absolutely nothing concrete since his arrival last July, to redress the situation of the abusively sanctioned staff representatives all union officials (e.g. whilst solving the pending cases and redressing the past ones).
In reality he is protecting Elodie Bergot who as principal director HR at EPO is personally responsible for the social mess of the past five years. Bergot was behind the abusive sanctioning of all staff representatives and SUEPO officials and will do her best to torpedo “amicable settlements” she hates more than anything else.
Campinos is thus not acting bona fide when he on the one hand, claims to EPO staff he wishes to foster “amicable settlements” over litigations, but on the other hand since months, does nothing concretely to find solutions to the few pending cases of abusive sanctions which destroyed the life of those impacted.
The next step should thus be to involve the Administrative Council and the EU Institutions in Brussels to inform them that nothing has changed at the EPO and how within a few months, Mr Campinos seems to develop into a “mini Battistelli”, apparently happy to finish the work of his mentor.
Campinos’ lack of action is not going to improve the deteriorated reputation of the EPO as an employer as long as Rule of Law and the respect for the Duty of Care owed to all EPO staff are not re-established and seen to be re-established.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »
Content is available under CC-BY-SA