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

06.12.18

Corrupt Benoît Battistelli Promotes Software Patents in IAM’s Patent Trolls-Funded Event in the United States

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 11:24 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Image created by EPO insiders (circulating in the Office this week)

Luciferistelli

Summary: With less than 3 weeks remaining for Battistelli’s term he engages in gross revisionism, lobbying, and even looting of the patent office

TOMORROW, as we have just noted, the EPO‘s “expert” (that’s what the EPO calls him) will promote software patents in Europe. But today is Battistelli’s turn. Battistelli already writes articles for IAM about software patents (he’s an author there) and gives keynotes speeches for IAM. This is extraordinary as in the USPTO software patents are on the way out and here comes Battistelli from Europe to promote them there (in the US), in an event funded by patent trolls. IAM will probably write about it shortly, rubbing Battistelli’s back like he rubs theirs.

“Battistelli already writes articles for IAM about software patents (he’s an author there) and gives keynotes speeches for IAM.”But here’s a bit of an unexpected thing: Johanne Bélisle (French-sounding name) has just been named in another country, Canada. The EPO is already retweeting it and it says: “Our CEO, Johanne Bélisle, and the President of the European Patent Office, Benoît Battistelli, signed two memorandums of understanding to help strengthen global collaboration.”

Just over an hour ago the EPO boosted this article (warning: epo.org link) with the following nugget of information:

The meeting was held on the side-lines of the 11th IPBC Global congress hosted by IAM Magazine, where the EPO President will deliver a keynote address on the topic “The patent system in the age of Artificial Intelligence”.

We’ve asked CIPO: “Why does EIPO brag about being seen with a hugely corrupt official who uses diplomatic immunity to avoid being held accountable for his countless abuses?”

“IAM will probably write about it shortly, rubbing Battistelli’s back like he rubs theirs.”It’s just like in his trip to Paris where last week he collected an award that is cynical to the extreme.

Earlier today the EPO wrote: “The European Case Law Identifier (ECLI) sitemap makes it easier to access and reference decisions of the EPO’s boards of appeal.”

So I asked them: “The EPO’s boards of appeal which Battistelli is illegally attacking to make them afraid of him?”

Well, they still complain about it and the scapegoat (judge) is losing everything.

“It’s not just an insult to workers’ intelligence but to Europe as a whole. Are we rewarding corrupt people for their corruption?”It’s almost as though Battistelli just tries to drive everyone crazy with ludicrous awards for his many abuses if not crimes. There’s another one of those coming soon. Battistelli will have his name stamped on an EPO building where his staff jumped out the building (same country).

It’s not just an insult to workers’ intelligence but to Europe as a whole. Are we rewarding corrupt people for their corruption?

EPO insiders aren’t happy. These people are trying to just keep cool and maintain their sanity for a few more weeks, assuming António Campinos will be a major change (which we doubt). “The Future,” one of them told us, is what they all have in mind as “there aren’t may opportunities to have a good laugh when thinking of the EPO.”

It gets even worse as the thug prepares for departure. It’s outrageous if not laughable, depending on one’s mood.

“For sites like IAM to actively participate in all this says a lot about Joff Wild and his crew.”“However,” told us this person, “the daily life at the EPO gives many occasions to mediate. I recently rediscovered the song The future by Leonard Cohen. The lyrics fit Battistelli as from July 1st like a glove. I meditate.”

Better try to relax for a few more weeks as Battistelli reaps rewards that he arranged for himself, writes whitepapers about himself, and pretends that he’s the literal king of the Netherlands (at least for a day).

This is by far worse than anything that Sepp Blatter has ever done. For sites like IAM to actively participate in all this says a lot about Joff Wild and his crew.

The EPO’s ‘Expert’ Georg Weber is Still Advocating Software Patents in Europe (But He Disguises Them Using Buzzwords)

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 10:01 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Georg Weber
Photo source

Summary: The EPO’s overzealous support for software patents continues unabated while the European Parliament looks the other way; this is part of the plan to expand patent scope in Europe and flood the continent with low-quality patents (causing a ruinous litigation boom like in China)

THE MANAGEMENT of the EPO does not obey very basic laws, so why obey patent law? Or honour European Parliament? Or even the German parliament (or Bavarian authorities) for that matter?

“As long as one works for Battistelli, one will never be punished or held accountable for anything.”This core problem, which is lawlessness, prevails and runs deep inside the EPO these days. As long as one works for Battistelli, one will never be punished or held accountable for anything. Extrapolated immunity? These people just protect one another and if one snitches on a colleague in management there’s risk of retaliation; sooner or later, like in the Mafia, people start hiring from their own family to assure blind loyalty or sometimes hire famous criminals whom they have moral leverage over. This is today’s EPO.

Just like last year (and later in the same year), in the very same event, Georg Weber promotes software patents. He knows the law and he understands the problem, but using new buzzwords Georg Weber is promoting the same abomination again. As the EPO put it a few hours ago: “EPO expert Georg Weber is speaking at #CEBIT18 about patents for #Industry40.”

“…like in the Mafia, people start hiring from their own family to assure blind loyalty or sometimes hire famous criminals whom they have moral leverage over. This is today’s EPO.”Industry 4.0, ICT, CII, 4IR and other marketing nonsense can be viewed as surrogates for software patents. The EPO recently organised a conference using the "AI" buzzword; it was all about software patents. Google is filing software patent applications aplenty, even on other people’s work as we noted yesterday. There’s this new article titled “Google’s DeepMind Files AI Patents,” which reminds us that “AI” is growingly becoming a loophole of choice by which to patent software. Also see yesterday’s article about “AI”, pushing that same old software patents agenda using the “AI” buzzword, courtesy of the man behind Microsoft’s (and prior to that IBM’s) patent blackmail strategy, Marshall Phelps.

“Industry 4.0, ICT, CII, 4IR and other marketing nonsense can be viewed as surrogates for software patents.”The EPO keeps shuffling between buzzwords. The EPO now links to this page (warning: epo.org link) in which the EPO is (as usual) avoiding the word “software” when it comes to patents (but it still grants ‘algorithm monopolies’ which go well beyond copyrights).

To quote that page about Weber’s talk:

Patents are a controversial topic in ICT, but they play an important role. Whatever your views on patents, if you work in an innovative field, you need to know about them.

If you can understand the pros and cons about patenting versus secrecy or an open-source approach, or the interaction between standards and patents, you will be in a better position to take the right strategic decisions for your innovations. And if you know where to find information on other people’s patents, you will be able to use that information to your advantage.

He (or they, i.e. the EPO collectively) says “controversial topic” because he knows that he’s referring to software patents when he says “ICT”. Don’t fall for the buzzwords because several times last year he explicitly said that he supported software patents and insisted on it. The thinly-veiled spin won’t work anymore.

“Don’t fall for the buzzwords because several times last year he explicitly said that he supported software patents and insisted on it.”This is really dangerous because EPO patent maximalists/extremists like Battistelli are using UPC as a Trojan horse by which to bring software patents to every nation in Europe (bypassing the national patent laws). They want to impose a ‘unitary’ patent on algorithms, which bypasses several burdens, such as litigation in the actual target’s (accused party’s) country; that also leaps past the national laws/restrictions. Why would that ever be allowed? Who even decided on this? Short-sighted or corrupt politicians (or clueless, having never bothered to even read what they vote on) allow a bunch of law firms, notably Team UPC, to write their law in another country.

The Dennemeyer Group has just published this promotional piece titled “The Validation Of European Patents Can Be Very Expensive.” To quote:

The validation of European patents can be very expensive. Budgetary constraints may hinder, limit or influence the selection of the different states where a user may wish to secure protection. The lack of visibility over the applicable translation regimes and procedural requirements often makes it difficult to reach a cost effective, tactical and strategic decision.

The Dennemeyer validation web application offers you access to a method for validating a European patent in your preferred states based on a given budget.

By relying on different parameters, for example, the geographical location, and/or the applicable translation regimes and indicators such as gross domestic product or most frequently designated countries, you can speed up the decision making process, reduce the likelihood of errors and align the costs with your planned budget.

Further down there it says (quotes) “notably in view of the forthcoming unitary patent system.”

“To recapitulate, what these people hope to accomplish/obtain here is a ‘unitary’ law that throws out all those laws in pertinent nations that disallow software patents, among other ‘pesky’ (to litigation) things.”Really? Who says forthcoming? The UPC is very much stuck and has been stuck for about a year with no impending resolution, just lockdown/lockout at the FCC.

To recapitulate, what these people hope to accomplish/obtain here is a ‘unitary’ law that throws out all those laws in pertinent nations that disallow software patents, among other ‘pesky’ (to litigation) things. The EPO is a very potent threat to technology all across Europe. Cui bono? A bunch of law firms of course…

Battistelli’s EPO is Outdoing North Korea When It Comes to Propaganda and Abuses Against Staff

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 2:20 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Battistelli fire and fury

Summary: Battistelli’s ‘scorched Earth’ approach — his sole legacy at the EPO — has left many workers in mental breakdowns (if not dead), but to celebrate the ‘Battistelli years’ three weeks before the end of his term the Office issues new propaganda material (pertaining exclusively to the Battistelli years, 2010 to 2018) while Battistelli-leaning media offers ‘cover’

THE EPO has just issued a ‘Battistelli whitepaper’ (‘peak propaganda’ we might as well call it).

It’s accompanied by this distasteful Benoît Battistelli puff piece (warning: epo.org link) and a tweet which says: “Modernising the EPO for excellence and sustainability – a summary of our achievements 2010-2018 can now be downloaded from our website…”

“Is it already too late to hold Battistelli accountable while he’s still in Office? Probably. That’s what happened with Sarkozy.”The EPO now calls turning itself into a den of corruption with literal criminals in charge an “Achievement”. This is like seeing North Korea in “patent office” form. Already widely ridiculed by Moreno and various other EPO observers, this ‘report’ is a classic example of hogwash. The EPO should come under a criminal investigation for hundreds of abuses/counts, but it is effectively immune from prosecution and the international community doesn’t want to rattle this snake. Is it already too late to hold Battistelli accountable while he’s still in Office? Probably. That’s what happened with Sarkozy.

The Corcoran story which we took note of yesterday helps demonstrate that merely talking about Team Battistelli’s very serious abuses causes endless abuse to oneself. “If this turns out to be correct,” one insider wrote yesterday, “it would be another very black day in the history of the European Patent Office…”

Just like in the most authoritarian countries, people who speak out truth/justice get punished severely, sometimes even killed. This is the culmination of many EPO scandals and ILO does not seem to care.

Meanwhile, not a simple word in IP Kat. Not anymore; no interest, obviously, as that does not suit the new agenda of the blog and its new 'owners', who yesterday made event recommendations.

“Just like in the most authoritarian countries, people who speak out truth/justice get punished severely, sometimes even killed.”They apparently have no time to write about EPO scandals but plenty of time and space to write about European Patents (EPs), as they did yesterday. This very long article mentions patents on life tied to a fake ‘charity’ (actually guarding monopoly on life). “The Court of Appeal were similarly in no doubt that Regeneron would “suffer irreparable harm” if Kymab were to commercialize antibodies arising from the Gates foundation collaboration,” it said, “and that Kymab’s successful collaborations represent lost opportunities to Regeneron.”

Managing IP, another Battistelli-leaning site, wrote about EPs yesterday, taking note of a case in France. It stated that “[t]he Tribunal de Grande Instance of Paris delivered the injunction against Teva’s generic version of Exforge (valsartan/amlodipine), which has been patented by Novartis at the EPO (EP2322174).”

Imagine how much worse things would get if UPC became a reality. It’s all about denying access to medicine.

“They don’t seem to care how many people are killed as long as their agenda gets served (financial agenda of course).”Meanwhile, over at IAM (another Battistelli-leaning rag), Timothy Au doubles down on their attacks on a study from IP2Innovate, instead citing something we have never heard of before, a “4iP Council”, with its front page showing only one feature: “Yann Ménière, Chief Economist, European Patent Office” (Battistelli’s right-hand (French)man).

From the summary:

A new paper analysing the potential threat posed by patent assertion entities (PAEs) in Europe has argued that concerns that companies will be a target for widespread litigation abuse are both overstated and unfounded. Released last week, the report from the 4iP Council – which is authored by Igor Nikolic of University College, London – takes a close look at the IP litigation environment in Europe, specifically in relation to PAEs – which are described as companies that monetise patents, but do not practise on them.

This person was only mentioned by Bristows, citing IAM (“This also shows, as pointed by Richard Lloyd from IAM”), so we suppose this is part of Team UPC’s lobbying, which relies on denying the UPC’s effect on patent trolling in Europe. At “4iP Council”, the EPO and EUIPO (headed by António Campinos) are cited extensively, so it seems like somewhat of a think tank of patent maximalists.

All in all, what we’re seeing here is a propaganda war waged by Battistelli, his paid-for rags, and Team UPC. They don’t seem to care how many people are killed as long as their agenda gets served (financial agenda of course).

IPBC, a Patent Trolls-Funded Event of IAM, is Advancing the Attacks on Section 101/Alice

Posted in America, Deception, Patents at 1:34 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Agenda up for sale

Cheque writing

Summary: Andrei Iancu preaches to the litigation ‘industry’ in an event (lobbying opportunity) organised by the patent trolls’ lobby, IAM

THE patent trolls’ lobby, IAM, has received plenty of money from patent trolls (in Europe as well, e.g. Sisvel among others). It’s all right there in the “Sponsors” page for IPBC. Even Microsoft and several of its trolls and/or front groups (we can count at least six right there) are paying IAM. Just remember that IAM’s authors have their hands tied; they know where the money comes from and what to deliver in return, e.g. in terms of bias or agenda.

So when USPTO Director Iancu goes to speak at IPBC we more or less know the audience he speaks to. He too knows the audience. Yesterday morning Joff Wild (IAM’s editor) said:

In a couple of hours, the educational part of the event begins with a keynote presentation from USPTO Director Andrei Iancu. That will be followed by a debate on the motion “This house believes that despite recent negative developments, the United States remains and will continue to be the driving force of the global patent market”.

Iancu’s talk was mentioned by Watchtroll last night and Mr. Lloyd (IAM), who has been lobbying Iancu, helps the bashing of Section 101. From the event’s rather long report:

Iancu on dysfunctional 101 – For his keynote speech to open this year’s IPBC Global, USPTO Director Andrei Iancu addressed one of the meatiest and most problematic issues facing the US patent system. As any market observer knows, determining what is patentable under section 101 of the US statute has been the focus of constant review by the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Both, according to many stakeholders, have only added uncertainty to the eligibility debate. Iancu has hinted a number of times in public before that he thinks there are major issues with 101 and eligibility. Today, though, he put his cards squarely on the table and made clear that he does not believe the current state of affairs is sustainable. In tackling the issue head on Iancu asked whether Thomas Edison’s original phonograph would have survived the kind of patentability analysis that applications are today subject to at the USPTO itself and in the courts. Although Edison’s truly ground-breaking invention did receive a patent back in 1878 and in less than three months, Iancu suggested that fast-forward to today and similarly disruptive technology might have trouble getting through the two-step Alice test. “For many modern technologies,” he said, “we are nowadays going through a tortured exercise that asks as a threshold question: Do we want to prevent a patent even if the invention is perhaps entirely novel, completely nonobvious, enabled and well-claimed?” He went on to point out that that question is proving extremely difficult to answer: “Inventors and their lawyers, examiners, district court judges and Federal Circuit judges are all struggling on a daily basis trying to figure out what is in and what is out.” To help solve some of their struggles, Iancu suggested that the approach should be simplified. “In the end, as we go through the process under the current statute, we should not over-complicate, and we ought not to twist ourselves into a pretzel on every single case,” he insisted. While much of the recent focus by the courts and stakeholders has been on the state of 101, Iancu pointed out that there were other sections of the statute – namely sections 102, 103 and 112 – which were designed to filter out questionable patent applications. To that end, he suggested that the patentability analysis return to its original filter: “Is the patent merely on a defined building block of scientific or technological work, or is it instead on a practical application of it?” To help make his point he referred back to Justice Thomas’s decision in the Alice case which urged that the Supreme Court’s ruling should be narrowly construed “lest it swallow of all of patent law”. While there are growing calls for Congressional action to re-write section 101 – and several IP groups including IPO, AIPLA and the ABA’s IP section – have proposed possible changes to the statute, it was notable that Iancu used his speech to emphasise that the tools to fix the problem already exist. It was a message that met with many nodding heads among the delegates and meant that this year’s IPBC started with an undoubted buzz about a shift in the US patent market. (RL)

In short, as we expected all along, Iancu is like a ‘mole’ of the patent litigation ‘industry’ (which he himself came from). But he’s not a judge and he does not decide on law or even caselaw. Iancu can badmouth Section 101 all he wants, but if he waters it down and courts then invalidate an even greater proportion of patents granted by the USPTO, the Office will simply doom itself and Iancu be viewed as an utter failure.

Curiously enough, IAM does not mention Battistelli who was supposed to be a keynote speaker, promoting software patents at the EPO. We might soon know what’s going on. He’s still listed as a speaker in the “Speakers” page, but maybe he opens the last day’s session (i.e. today). We’ll say more about this corrupt thug in our next post.

06.10.18

Do Know Evil? Then Stop Patenting Software, Google

Posted in Deception, Google at 9:55 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Google is patenting algorithms (sometimes not even its own)

Google patent

Summary: Complaints that Google is claiming credit for other people’s work and then patenting that, in effect ‘pulling an Edison’ to stockpile questionable patents while occasionally resorting to patent aggression

LAST year someone told us the story of how Google had used Alex Converse to patent someone else's work. This was particularly disturbing not just because of prior art but also because of patent scope.

“It would be bad if Google ever got granted any patent on anything related to asymmetric numeral systems (ANS) because it’s an algorithm.”Well, the originator of the method speaks out again. Jarek Duda was making some headlines last year and now he’s back. Rather than walk away and apologise Google seems to be doubling down on its bad practice, which involves patenting software:

When Jarek Duda invented an important new compression technique called asymmetric numeral systems (ANS) a few years ago, he wanted to make sure it would be available for anyone to use. So instead of seeking patents on the technique, he dedicated it to the public domain. Since 2014, Facebook, Apple, and Google have all created software based on Duda’s breakthrough.

But now Google is seeking a patent that would give it broad rights over the use of ANS for video compression. And Duda, a computer scientist at Jagiellonian University in Poland, isn’t happy about it.

Google denies that it’s trying to patent Duda’s work. A Google spokesperson told Ars that Duda came up with a theoretical concept that isn’t directly patentable, while Google’s lawyers are seeking to patent a specific application of that theory that reflects additional work by Google’s engineers.

How is that even patentable? The Google-hostile Mr. Gross said a few days ago, “guess which big co had NO trouble getting clearly Alice-ineligible applications rubberstamped at PTO while Director Lee was in charge? GOOGLE of course! this filing on 2 “modes” of AV operation would have been sh*tcanned by anyone else under 101 as “abstract idea”…” (image copied at the top)

“Generally speaking, especially in light of Alice, there’s no room for patents on algorithms in the patents repository.”Maintaining that conspiracy theory that Google is behind everything, these people would have us believe that Google enjoys special treatment. It would be bad if Google ever got granted any patent on anything related to asymmetric numeral systems (ANS) because it’s an algorithm. Generally speaking, especially in light of Alice, there’s no room for patents on algorithms in the patents repository. Do Know Evil, Google?

Still ‘Pulling a Berkheimer’ Almost 4 Months Down the Line

Posted in America, Deception, Patents at 4:09 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

R.I.P.

Summary: Refusing to let go or leave behind an opportunity to bash patent invalidations, the patent microcosm just keeps bringing up Berkheimer v HP ad infinitum

When the Federal Circuit delivered a judgment on Berkheimer the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) did not seem to mind as much as the patent extremists minded; Berkheimer just wasn’t a very major case, so Iancu's comments revealed whose side he was on. Watchtroll says that the “USPTO asks Federal Circuit to Vacate, Remand 101 Case to Board in Light of Berkheimer,” but as we noted earlier today (and will show later today), this is the exception rather than the norm. They’re cherry-picking. Berkheimer is very rarely brought up in today’s patent cases (rulings/opinions/determinations/judgments/arguments).

A week and a half ago (on May 31st) there was a case related to this. Dechert LLP was trying to ‘pull a Berkheimer‘ (we say 'pull', but they say things like “Berkheimer effect”) in order to shed uncertainty and doubt about many decisions to invalidate patents at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board as well as the Federal Circuit. From their summary:

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit refused rehearing en banc of two significant decisions regarding patent-eligibility under § 101 (Aatrix and Berkheimer) on May 31, with a majority of active judges on the court affirming that the patent-eligibility inquiry, though a question of law, implicates subsidiary questions of fact. The effect of these cases will be to make it substantially more difficult to invalidate patents as being directed to patent ineligible abstract ideas or natural laws before trial. There was substantial uncertainty as to whether the earlier panel decisions would be adopted by the full Federal Circuit, but that uncertainty has now been partly resolved.

As we showed last weekend, they had explicitly expressed reluctance to deal with that case/issue any further. Berkheimer is just some perceived ‘lifeline’ or ‘rope’ to patent maximalists, such as the anti-PTAB site Anticipat. It mentioned Berkheimer 4 days ago when it said:

Since the two weeks since we predicted that the PTAB would start to dramatically change its outcomes of rejections under Section 101, we have seen no such change. Since then, recap emails have mostly shown affirmances (only 7 reversals of 86 total Section 101 decisions = 8% reversal rate). But a decision in yesterday’s recap email shows precisely the kind of rejection analysis that is expected to become more mainstream at the PTAB.

Ex Parte Galloway et al (PTAB May 22, 2018) reversed the judicial exception rejection under Section 101 because of a lack of evidence. The panel, consisting of Donald E. Adams, Demetra J. Mills, and Ulrike W. Jenks, found that the Examiner had not provided evidence to support a prima facie case of patent ineligible subject matter.

The panel cited to Berkheimer in support of an apparent defective step 2 analysis: “The Examiner has not established with appropriate factual evidence that the claimed method uses conventional cell counting methods.”

They’re again cherry-picking while openly admitting (as highlighted above) that they were wrong. Berkheimer has virtually no bearing/significance. As we said many times before, judges have left Berkheimer behind and the only ones who keep bringing it up are the patent maximalists.

It’s time to leave Berkheimer in the past and stop ‘pulling a Berkheimer‘ every other day/week.

06.09.18

Shawn Ambwani (Unified Patents) Refutes the US Chamber of Commerce on Patents, But the Patent Trolls’ Lobby (IAM) Uses Him to Trot Out Yet More Misleading Propaganda

Posted in Deception, Google, Patents at 2:49 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Having run out of factual/legitimate arguments, they nowadays resort to nutty conspiracy theories about Google

IAM logo and friends

Summary: Coming to grips with the strengthening of patents (quality) in the United States, those who rely on low-quality patents for blackmail purposes fire back at opponents of patent trolls and some persist with the crazy conspiracy theory that claims “Google” is behind everything

THE SCOTUS-complying USPTO will have to narrow down patent scope or risk being repeatedly embarrassed by the Federal Circuit (for having granted patents in error, reducing confidence in US patents).

Unified Patents, which we support, keeps demonstrating that some notorious US patents (used extensively for litigation or shakedown) are in fact bogus patents. It has just happened again to Roaring Brook Advisors, which certainly looks like a patent troll to Unified Patents. There was a bounty (they now offer those) and here’s the outcome:

Unified is pleased to announce the PATROLL crowdsourcing contest winner, Rohit Sood, who received a cash prize of $2000 for his prior art submission for U.S. Patent 6,909,359, allegedly owned by Roaring Brook Advisors, LLC, a suspected NPE. The ’359 patent generally relates to a medical notification device that may be worn as a wristwatch. To help the industry fight bad patents, we have published the winning prior art below.

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) came to the rescue yet again, combating bad patents of Silver State Intellectual Technologies. To quote Jain:

On June 8, 2018 the Board granted Silver State Intellectual Technologies’ request for adverse judgment and cancellation of all challenged claims in IPR2017-01198 filed by Unified Patents. This request comes after the PTAB’s decision to institute trial (and mere weeks before the Board’s anticipated final decision) on all claims of US 8,538,498 directed to an information and control system for use in a vehicle capable of communicating with remote servers through a communications network.

As one might expect, Unified Patents has come under attack from patent extremists who are connected to trolls. We gave some examples of these attacks before. It certainly seems like patent quality is a scary concept to some people and Unified Patents is a convenient ‘whipping boy’.

Recently, the patent trolls’ lobby (IAM) worked hard to deny and discredit a study from IP2Innovate, refusing to accept the simple fact that patent trolls are a growing problem in Europe. IAM is IP2Litigate. This is basically IAM’s job; they’re the voice of patent trolls. Recently came a ‘study’ they could actually embrace, not because it was rooted in facts but because the message suited the bogus narrative trotted out by the litigation ‘industry’. These patent maximalists were just trying to improve their profits by lying to officials with a bogus 'ladder' that IAM would soon boost along with Watchtroll and even Iancu himself.

Something a little surprising happened yesterday because on the face of it IAM permitted a refutation by Unified Patents’ Shawn Ambwani. “The authors of a much-quoted ranking that records a big drop in the standing of the US patent system have serious questions to answer about their methodology,” said the tweet. Sounds promising, right?

Patent maximalist Richard Lloyd precedes Unified Patents’ views with the usual nonsense. He dismisses this by promoting the controversial ‘study’ and attacking others’ studies, like one about patent trolls in Europe (IP2Innovate). This is how Lloyd writes, in essence attacking the very text he’s about to copy-paste:

In recent years much has been written and spoken about the relative decline of the US patent system recorded by the Global Innovation Policy Center’s “IP Index”. While in IP generally, the Index states that the US remains in number one place overall, its patent score has slipped. Last year the US lost its number one ranking, falling to 10th, level with Hungary. This year, while the US patent score went up, it still slipped two places.

The centre is an affiliate of the US Chamber of Commerce and its analysis of the American patent system has been seized on by various members of the patent community who are highly critical of recent changes introduced by both the courts and Congress. But should the index be relied on as an accurate measure of relative global standing?

We have been highly critical of how data has been used and abused with regard to patents in both the US and elsewhere over the years. For example, decidely dodgy claims have been made about the activities of NPEs over the years to justify patent reform in the US – something that is now spreading to Europe. Patents are a subject that legislators know little about and because of that the way data is presented really matters.Given how important innovation policy is, decsions have to be based on reality not on spin. And that applies to all sides in the argument.

According to Unified Patents’ Shawn Ambwani and Jonathan Stroud there are serious question marks over the methodology used by ththose who compile the rankings. These, they say, should be addressed before the index is used by anyone to advocate for a particular position.

How many people will ever read further? Lloyd just used this as an opportunity for lobbying, which is basically what he does in the US (under the guise of “journalism”).

“Shawn Ambwani is chief operating officer and Jonathan Stroud is chief IP counsel at Unified Patents,” it says at the bottom, but many paragraphs at the top are the lobbyists’ own.

Here’s what Ambwani said (excerpt):

The index also lacks context. The GIPIC starts its analysis by asking: “Does a given economy’s intellectual property system provide a reliable basis for investment in the innovation and creativity lifecycle?” But it never addresses or defines those terms; if innovation, investment and economic benefit aren’t defined in the index, how are they measured?

The report ostensibly spends substantial effort developing methodology and scoring to compare countries based on self-selected “baselines” on the pro-enforcement policies of the GIPC, but it does not show how its scoring correlates to or reflects “investment in the innovation and creativity lifecycle”. There is no suggestion, much less proof, that the US economy has suffered at all, much less at the hands of patent policies. There is also no evidence connecting the eight indicators to historical “investment”. The correlation between IP enforcement to economic benefit for US companies or the US economy (absent equal detriment to other US companies) have yet to be shown by any quantitative measurement.

Until innovation can be demonstrably related to the scores in the index, it remains little more than a transparent lobbyist’s tool. The first step toward repairing credibility would be to demonstrate that the scores affect innovation before trying to measure them for the future; that is, unless the purpose of the index is really just to provide talking points to lobbyists and policy hawks to support the ease of patent monetisation against other US companies.

We already wrote some responses to this, but we don’t have the ‘fire power’ or ‘access’ of well-funded (by trolls and law firms) lobbyists. They keep brainwashing USPTO officials (more on that later this weekend) and spreading ridiculous conspiracy theories, insinuating that patent law is improving just because of “Evil” Google (the latest headline from Steve Brachmann, published on June 8th, is “Google Changes Its Code of Conduct After Years of Being Evil Towards Patent Owners”). What have they got to show for it? The core paragraph is this: “To accuse Google of operating with malevolent intent in recent years in order to serve its own corporate interests. First of all, consider Google’s ample financial largesse to D.C. politicians around the time that the America Invents Act (AIA) was signed into law. This includes the $800,000 contributed to former President Barack Obama’s 2012 election campaign (making it the third-largest contributor to the Obama campaign), the nearly $900,000 contributed to federal candidates running in 2012 for the House and the Senate (which was split 49 percent to Democrats and 50 percent to Republicans) and the $18 million total lobbying expenditures during 2012, the eighth-largest federal lobbying total among all entities. If spending money to influence political debate towards unjust ends is evil, Google’s been guilty of that for years.”

What about law firms? And pharmaceutical companies? And countless others that are patent maximalists? What about technology companies other than Google? Google is like a drop in the ocean compared to the whole, but never let sites like Watchtroll (or IAM for that matter) digest reality, facts etc. that threaten loyalties with their own funding sources.

Data From the USPTO Almost Confirms Suspicions That People Named in Patents Are Likely Unrelated (Nothing to Do With These Patents)

Posted in America, Deception, Patents at 1:20 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

And it’s only getting worse and more severe over time

On too much of a good thing

Summary: Dennis Crouch on the growth in the number of supposed ‘authors’, citations/priorities, and the copy-paste culture of patent law firms (introducing patent applications which approach 1,000 pages in length, over-encumbering examiners)

BACK when I was writing and (peer) reviewing papers we used to joke about papers with dozens of authors. Surely it’s impossible for all of them to have actively participated in the research and the typing of a paper, but it was mutually agreed that one person would enlist everyone else as “author” and others would recipricate, artificially inflating people’s citation score (as measured by number of papers authored or co-authored). Nowadays it’s quite rare/hard to find published academic work with just one author on it. It was a lot more common the past, but perhaps with scoring mechanisms becoming digitised and easy to game/rig (knowing the formula) practices have generally ‘evolved’ to help one get promoted.

“Nowadays it’s quite rare/hard to find published academic work with just one author on it.”Just like what happens in academia/scholarly papers, people now game the patent system by throwing lots of names (“the whole Office” is what we used to call that) into patent applications (like paper “submissions”) and there may therefore be an illusion of greater participation. People are inflating their egos by having their names ‘slapped’ onto more and more patents, whose overall number (patents granted per year) rises as well.

“Back in the 1970s and 1980s,” Crouch notes, “most patents listed only a single inventor. Since then, the percentage of one-inventor patents has steadily dropped while larger teams (3+ inventors) have flourished.”

“Some CEOs of very large companies, such as Steve Jobs (extremely unlikely to have participated in drafting of patents), get listed in perhaps a thousand patents.”The graph is quite telling. It also explains a lot. Some CEOs of very large companies, such as Steve Jobs (extremely unlikely to have participated in drafting of patents), get listed in perhaps a thousand patents.

Another new chart from Crouch “shows the percentage of issued utility patents that claim priority back to a prior U.S. patent application – either a prior non-provisional (via continuation, continuation-in-part, or divisional application) or to a provisional application. Data goes through May 31, 2018.”

Last year we explained how law firms reusing texts and broadening their templates over time would likely mean an increase in the number of cited patents, cases etc. The ‘maturity’ of many patents is likely ‘faked’ to some degree; a lot of that is a copy-paste job. They conflate/mistake quantity for quality, failing to realise (or deliberately ignoring the fact) that information overload merely discourages the reader and therefore devalues the whole.

“Last year we explained how law firms reusing texts and broadening their templates over time would likely mean an increase in the number of cited patents, cases etc.”This isn’t intended to generally bash the patent system but merely to point out that there’s a real problem which needs tackling. To demonstrate just how bad it has gotten (overwhelming examiners for sure), IAM now speaks of an EPO patent application that is almost a thousand pages long (which reminds us of Microsoft’s bogus ‘standard’, OOMXL, with over 6,000 pages). What is this? A joke? One heck of a copy-paste job? “What is quite possibly the longest patent application ever submitted continues on its merry way to grant,” IAM wrote, saying that “Ericsson has recently received a positive international preliminary report on patentability from the European Patent Office on a PCT filing submitted last year that describes a detailed 5G architecture reading on a wide range of applications with varying requirements and characteristics. It purports to set out higher bandwidth, lower latency, better reliability, longer battery life and less interference than anything contained in the prior art.”

How is an examiner even supposed to assess such a thing? We heard similar stories from the USPTO (and covered these), but now we see this in Europe as well. Patents are not books (saturating the index/search results) and examiners oughtn’t be shy to reject patents based on length. Concision matters.

« Previous Page« Previous entries « Previous Page · Next Page » Next entries »Next Page »

RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channels: Come and chat with us in real time

New to This Site? Here Are Some Introductory Resources

No

Mono

ODF

Samba logo






We support

End software patents

GPLv3

GNU project

BLAG

EFF bloggers

Comcast is Blocktastic? SavetheInternet.com



Recent Posts