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


Kluwer Patent Blog is Down/Sabotaged, But UPC and EPO Spin Carries on in Other Sites

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 4:50 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Kluwer blog issues

Summary: An outline of some of the very latest deception surrounding the EPO and Team Battistelli’s failed UPC coup

“Kluwer blog problems,” a reader reported to us, were encountered this morning. We were able to reproduce (screenshots above). “I don’t know if you have noticed,” this reader said, but “Kluwer blog seems to be in trouble. It has been set back to February 2017 at the moment (when entering via http://kluwerpatentblog.com/), http://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com does not work at all and leads to an error message (“Error establishing a database connection”).”

“Looks like they got cracked/disk corrupted/DB corrupted. Wonder how recent a backup they have,” I responded. If accessed at the moment it says “Down for maintenance.”

As longtime readers of ours know, we have been very critical of Kluwer because of its constant UPC propaganda (culminating last year with truly misleading headlines). As Juve put it this week (Christina Schulze’s article), UPC is in serious trouble this year. Here is a purely automated translation of the introduction (perhaps SUEPO will publish a translation of the whole some time soon):

UPC complaint: Karlsruhe expands soundings, proceedings are delayed

A decision on the constitutional complaint against the Unified Patent Court (UPC) is delayed again. The reason is that in October the Federal Constitutional Court asked three other organizations to comment. This extends the deadline for the 22 previously requested by the Karlsruhe judges for comments organizations from late October to late in the year.

We repeatedly wrote about Bristows uttering their lies in Kluwer Patent Blog (now mostly published anonymously) and deleting comments they don’t like about the UPC. They got caught. Yesterday Team UPC (Bristows) continued to conveniently ignore the simple fact that UPC is NOT compatible with Brexit and issued yet another one of those blog posts, with talking points they have been attempting to interject into British media. A member of staff of theirs has additionally just published this SEP promotion courtesy of Christopher Weber (Kather Augenstein), another UPC booster. Who are they kidding? We wrote about the subject of SEP many times before, well before we talked about EPO scandals. It’s not exactly surprising that the same people who lobby for the UPC also promote patent aggression and trolls. If we are harsh on these people, it’s because they deserve it. They represent a threat to Europe.

The Unitary Patent has essentially died (even some patent ‘industry’ insiders openly state so), but the EPO, as usual, feels free to lie about it if/as long as it helps Team Battistelli (Mr. Battistelli and his cronies).

Yesterday it wrote: “The Register for the #unitarypatent protection will have the same structure & functionality of the European Patent Register.”

The word “will” insinuates inevitability. There’s no such thing.

It is worth noting that it certainly looks like the Battistelli-friendly PR ‘squad’ is now trawling comments in The Register, trying to tell the author incorrect things about Battistelli, who is sinking into serious scandals that can entail accountability.

As for IP Kat? It’s as dead as can be as far as EPO criticism is concerned. People no longer know if their comments will be accepted, so fewer people bother (and perhaps some don’t get their comments published at all). Names of people can no longer be mentioned, but the following new comment got through. It said: “The current top 3 most visited articles all concern the EPO” (the very topic that IP Kat suppresses discussions about)

Here is the full comment:

Perhaps it is also worth considering who this blog is actually directed at rather than who reads it? The current top 3 most visited articles all concern the EPO and will attract many readers among EPO staff – particularly given the oppressive regime there which acts against free discussion. The Ipkat is a public and anonymous forum, in fact a proxy meeting place for some. But of course the Ipkat is more than just an EPO discussion board. So, for that reason I’m sure a little balance is required, particularly in terms of monitoring content.

Good luck Merpel. You can please some of the people….

It certainly seems like using bribes, threats and maybe even AstroTurfing the EPO now engages in information warfare; that extends to UPC, too.


IP Kat Peddles Patent Trolls and Software Patents Agenda

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 10:22 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Stephen Jones of CIPASummary: Patent maximalist agenda at IP Kat makes the blog worse than benign; we take stock of some of the latest examples

THE censorship at IP Kat is bad enough; it’s even worse than the self-censorship (unwillingness to ever cover EPO scandals). But few people speak of the site’s UPC promotion, advocacy for patent trolls in Europe, and even worse things. Now that CIPA is metaphorically "in the house" (Stephen Jones), this ‘Kat’ does little to promote moderation (the only “moderation” it understands is a euphemism for comment censorship).

Just the other day, IP Kat posted for Fenwick & West (the software patents boosters). This was placed in the blog by the pro-patent trolls, pro-UPC, pro-software patents writer from Bristows. It’s framed as a TC Heartland analysis, but it’s actually agenda-setting. And it’s clear to see whose agenda. The case of Cray was mentioned here before and there is lots to be said about it other than what IP Kat says. Very disappointing.

“Now that CIPA is metaphorically “in the house”, this ‘Kat’ does little to promote moderation (the only “moderation” it understands is a euphemism for comment censorship).”Around the same time this same clique also acted as a megaphone of AIPPI, speaking of “IP protection for graphical user interfaces (GUIs).” By “IP” they mean patents, not copyrights or anything like that. To quote this post, “the statement that GUIs “should generally be capable of protection by patents” perhaps implies that software should not, per se, be unpatentable subject matter, insofar as GUIs are ultimately embodied in code (sometimes in the broader sense of firmware). The patentability of computer-implemented inventions was, however, the topic of a separate and specific AIPPI resolution at the same conference.”

So says a longtime proponent of software patents, such as a patent on progress bars (not a joke!) in Europe. Stop patenting these things. GUIs are already covered by means other than patents. Similarity can be easily demonstrated visually. It’s not code (callback functions).

“GUIs are already covered by means other than patents.”Just the other day, PC Gamer (popular site) said: “Software patents are controversial in and of themselves, simply because while most agree that creators deserve rights over their ideas, there’s often only one way to do things in software and the speed at which things move mean that a patent is more likely to hobble innovation than promote it—which is after all the intended point of the system in the first place. For example, have you ever wondered why game installers don’t give you a mini-game to play instead of just a boring progress bar? It’s because Namco snagged that in the 80s, preventing anyone else from doing it until late 2015.”

It is widely recognised among software developers that software patents are nothing but a nuisance. Why would anyone still promote this? Well, firms like Bristows and writers at IP Kat are not programmers; none of them! Yet they occasionally try to tell programmers what programmers need. That’s a problem. To makes matters worse, they obfuscate it using terms like “IP” (including the blogs’ name, IP Kat).

“The term “IP” should generally be avoided altogether; the same goes for the blog IP Kat, which we see very little value in nowadays.”How about this days-old article from IAM, titled “Non-core divestments in pharma could herald an increase in IP-rich deal making” (by “IP” they just mean patents).

The propaganda term “IP” is intentionally misleading, attributing physical properties and virtues to things that have neither. “Given how central intellectual property is to the life sciences,” IAM asserts. What a loaded statement. Copyright? Trademarks? Patents? Secrets? What or which is it?

The term “IP” should generally be avoided altogether; the same goes for the blog IP Kat, which we see very little value in nowadays. IP just means Internet Protocol.

Even One of the UPC’s Biggest Boosters, Wolters Kluwer, Admits UPC is in Trouble

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 8:05 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Last year: Kluwer Thinks People Are Clueless About the Unitary Patent System and Pretends It’s Business as Usual

Wolters Kluwer

Summary: The Unified Patent Court (UPC), also commonly referred to as “Unitary Patent”, is in serious trouble, and the main remaining proponent that’s still in denial about it is Bristows (UK), which keeps disseminating misleading claims

A FEW days ago we wrote about Bristows interjecting UPC jingoism into the media. Even the EPO has given up on it by now; it rarely mentions the UPC anymore (not a word for weeks, until yesterday’s tweet; I’ve told them “[t]he UPC is dead and telling people otherwise is misleading them”).

“Why do they keep trying to float that pipe dream?”Max Walters wrote 3 days ago: “For those who are interested this is the committee that will scrutinise the #UPC (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2017.”

“Will scrutinise something which is not even compatible with Brexit,” I replied to him. Why do they keep trying to float that pipe dream? Many of them have something to gain from it and we know at whose expense.

Brexit aside, there are even more profound barriers in Germany, the epicenter of this envisioned system that comes crashing down.

“Brexit aside, there are even more profound barriers in Germany, the epicenter of this envisioned system that comes crashing down.”Even the loudest UPC proponents (Twitter username “UPCtracker” in this case) can be spotted as saying: “Interesting: May DE Constitutional Ct want to decide old actions (re EPO BoA) prior to complaint on UPC due to overlapping issues (if any)?”

This was responded to by another UPC booster, Alex Robinson, who said “This would certainly seem to make sense if the EPO issues are relevant. Anyway, as they were filed first, shouldn’t they be decided first?”

Either way, this can take years to be decided (just wait and watch) and EPO scandals have become part of the matters at stake.

“Do not believe the media if or when it says that the UPC is coming soon. A lot of this qualifies as what nowadays gets fashionably labeled “fake news”.”Wolters Kluwer’s Christine Robben has promoted the article in question. It alludes to a month-old recording which we mentioned last week and Robben asked: “When will the UPC & the Unitary Patent (UP) become available?”

Loaded question, Robben. It might never become “available” (she promotes “products” for them , so wording like this comes naturally). From the article itself:

The FCC will first have to decide whether Stjerna’s complaint will be admitted for a decision. Article 93a of the Act on the Federal Constitutional Court says a complaint must be admitted a) in so far as it has general constitutional significance, b) if it is appropriate to enforce the rights referred to in Article 90(1); (…). According to Article 90 (1): Any person claiming a violation of one of his or her fundamental rights or one of his or her rights under Article 20(4), Articles 33, 38, 101, 103 and 104 of the Basic Law by public authority may lodge a constitutional complaint with the Federal Constitutional Court.

According to an FCC spokesman, ‘a date for decision has not been scheduled yet’, but it will probably be somewhere in the first half of 2018. If the FCC decides not to admit the complaint, the German ratification procedure can resume, the Bundespräsident can sign and Germany can complete all formalities by depositing its instrument of ratification with the secretariat of the EU Council. After the so-called ‘period of provisional application’ of the UPCA, during which all preparations for the UPC will be completed, the court could probably open its doors in the second half of next year.

So now we are getting a better idea of what’s inside the complaint; disregard the comments, which are dominated by trolls and troll feeders for the most part, as usual (as of late).

Do not believe the media if or when it says that the UPC is coming soon. A lot of this qualifies as what nowadays gets fashionably labeled “fake news”.


University College London (UCL) Becomes Part of the Patent Fanatics Lobby, Supported by the EPO’s PR Firm FTI Consulting

Posted in Deception, Europe, Microsoft, Patents at 12:25 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Toxic to academia, not just to media

Image source

Summary: An ongoing pattern of stacked panels, echo chambers, distorted (paid or threatened) media and endless lobbying for aggressors’ agenda even when they come from another continent and look to cause trouble

THE EPO‘s management — for those who forgot or simply don’t know — paid over a million euros to a US-based PR firm called FTI Consulting. We leaked the details a couple of years back. FTI Consulting had already earned notoriety for all sorts of reasons. Its clients are evil. It does reputation laundering for evil people.

This firm quickly thereafter helped set up a UPC lobbying event in the US, sponsored and supported by the EPO, with IAM getting all the money.

“This firm quickly thereafter helped set up a UPC lobbying event in the US, sponsored and supported by the EPO, with IAM getting all the money.”It’s like one big club and stakeholders are unwittingly paying for all the champagne. Battistelli takes them for fools and treats his staff like dunces.

An hour ago we became aware of this upcoming event in University College London (UCL), which I used to work with. The title of this event is “Patents in Telecoms and the Internet of Things,” but Dennis Crouch dubbed it “British Invasion in DC”. It’s actually quite the opposite as DC lobbyists ‘invade’ London to push US corporations’ agenda, maybe meet some public officials on the way in order to lie to them about UPC etc.

“It’s notably supported/sponsored by the EPO’s PR firm, FTI Consulting, and David Kappos with his employer.”So lobbyists are now coming from the US to London, with a software patents agenda, UPC, patent trolls, and just about all the toxic things. It’s all right there and they’re even disclosing this nefarious agenda. They also disclose who’s behind this. A key participant is Microsoft’s arsenal for patent trolls, Nokia. They will be speaking about “Update on The Unitary Patent Court” and “Injunctions – Europe and the rest of the world” (pretty much overlaps UPC). It’s all about multinational corporations banning small rivals, typically European SMEs. They even have lobbyists for software patents in there and Qualcomm, a FRAND [sic] abuser, is a key participant. They’re looking to gain something from it. Also participating are lawyers who represent a lot of patent trolls. We know their track record. It’s notably supported/sponsored by the EPO’s PR firm, FTI Consulting, and David Kappos with his employer. Yes, he’s attending. He is a lobbyist for software patents.

“Did they really expect nobody to notice what sort of cabal is attending and what agenda they’re pushing right here in England?”The list of topics is self-explanatory. They are promoting the agenda of “Patent Assertion Entities” (euphemism for trolls), “FRAND Disputes” (euphemism for patent thickets), and speak of “Who should decide FRAND terms when parties cannot agree?”

There’s also “Competition and Policy Towards Standard Setting”, “The Internet of Things I – Legal and Economic Licensing Issues” and “The Internet of Things II – Practical Licensing Issues” — a subject that we covered here recently in relation to the EPO. Did they really expect nobody to notice what sort of cabal is attending and what agenda they’re pushing right here in England?

UPC is Collapsing, But Bristows LLP is Pushing Propaganda Into the Media, Which Gives Misleading News

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 1:44 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Related: Bristows LLP Tries Hard to Maintain the Illusion That UPC is Alive, Using Media Placements and Paid Plugs

Bristows EPO

Summary: Bristows, a villainous firm with a truly bad record on truth, has managed to get WIPR to paint a rosy picture of the UPC, which is essentially going nowhere

TEAM UPC has a long track record of lies, half truths, complete fabrications, and spin. This is why we had to closely scrutinise this latest post from Bristows, which was proud to say was spreading (like a cancer). “Magazine #wipr quotes us in their article,” it said, “UK lawmakers selected to scrutinise UPC legislation…”

Translation: #wipr did a puff piece for us, to push the UPC agenda.

Looking for actual substance, they are quoting a lot of old stuff which predates the current deadlock. Is this nicely-constructed and covertly-contributed propaganda by Team UPC? To quote the article: “Along with the bill to be scrutinised by the committee, this Scottish SI will give effect to the PPI and allow the UK to ratify the protocol and also the UPC Agreement, according to a statement by law firm Bristows.”

So they are basing this on a firm with a history of fabrication and come up with a misleading headline which goes even further than the original blog post: “UK lawmakers selected to scrutinise UPC legislation”

There is a reminder there at the end which says: “The UK, alongside Germany and France, is one of three countries whose signature is mandatory for the UPC to take effect.”

That alone indicates (considering the complaint in German and Brexit) that UPC won’t happen.

We have become so accustomed to this kind of spin from Team UPC. They have totally lost legitimacy.

Meanwhile, according to the the latest EPO journal (epo.org link, just announced by EPO which said: “The Official Journal 10/2017 is now available online”), Tunisia validation is just a month away. To quote: “Validation of European patents in Tunisia (TN) with effect from 1 December 2017″

Several weeks ago we published documents related to this. It’s a dodgy project of Battistelli, which loves to do it in former French colonies. He also does this in former Portuguese colonies nowadays, including the Brazilian patent office. Yesterday there was this post about the PPH program and it said: “Following the implementation of PPH Pilot programs with the USPTO, the JPO and the PROSUR countries, the Brazilian PTO just announced a new pilot program for fast-track examination of patent applications with the European PTO.”

This is all about rushing examination some more. It’s as bad as PACE and UPC in some sense (maybe Early Certainty too). They put lawsuits ahead of patent quality, as if justice matters less than successful litigation.

As we noted a few days ago, in the EPO the patent quality has collapsed, so fees are being decreased (on decreasing demand) by Battistelli. In Russia, by contrast, the opposite is happening.

One should be truly worried that the EPO now views itself less like a patent office and more like a litigation centre (e.g. PPH) and a ramp for UPC. Thankfully, however, UPC is collapsing. Don’t believe the lies.


The Patent Trolls’ Lobby is Upset About TC Heartland, Tries to Belittle Its Impact While Promoting Software Patents

Posted in America, Courtroom, Deception, Patents at 6:10 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

The US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) made history by overturning the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC)

TC Heartland v. Kraft
Reference: TC Heartland v Kraft

Summary: A roundup of recent takes and spin surrounding the decision of the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS), in which is was ruled that lawsuits in the Eastern District of Texas can be shifted to other venues (closer to the alleged infringements, typically involving dubious software patents)

THE impact of TC Heartland (2017, SCOTUS) has been spectacular. So far we’ve been hearing about a 60% decline in patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas. That’s just the beginning!

The patent trolls’ lobby is understandably unhappy. Earlier today David Newman (Chair of Gould & Ratner’s Intellectual Property Group) wrote in Watchtroll that “TC Heartland decision follows the trend of eroding patent holder rights,” but actually what he meant to say was that SCOTUS fixes patent practice, bringing it into closer alignment with what the patent system was supposed to be all along (before it got profoundly debased). TC Heartland is here to stay and people like Newman might not. Jobs like his are becoming obsolete and he too might soon become redundant. If you’re a patent troll, then sure, TC Heartland is terrible news.

“If you’re a patent troll, then sure, TC Heartland is terrible news.”TC Heartland was also covered a few days ago by Patently-O (like Watchtroll, albeit less rude). If US courts like Gilstrap’s can just ignore SCOTUS on matters such as patents, then we’re in serious trouble. Here is what Patently-O said: “The E.D.N.Y. denied Yahoo’s motion to dismiss, holding (on oral decision): (1) that Yahoo had waived its right to challenge venue; and (2) that TC Heartland did not change the law (since Fourco has been the controlling law all along).”

It might be too early to say just to what degree the SCOTUS decision will enable venue challenges. The decision is less than half a year old and it also took Alice years to ‘mature’ — to the point where the USPTO might soon abolish software patents altogether.

In another new post regarding TC Heartland Dennis Crouch was nitpicking to help patent trolls. It certainly, based on the subtext, sounded like an effort to find exception to the norm and say that “TC Heartland defines residence at the state level, but 1400(b) requires a district-by-district focus — “the judicial district where the defendant resides.””

It later noted that “the whole point of TC Heartland was to focus attention on the patent venue statute and away from these more general definitions.”

“It might be too early to say just to what degree the SCOTUS decision will enable venue challenges.”I’m not a law professor, but I know enough about TC Heartland to say that its main/net impact will be the ability to relocate away from the likes of Gilstrap. Unless a company trades primarily in the Eastern District of Texas, it will be incredibly difficult to drag it down there (also unless the defendant is unaware of the consequences of letting it be). We have already seen how Gilstrap got ‘slapped down’ by higher courts, for refusing to let cases depart from the Eastern District of Texas (in defiance of SCOTUS).

Maybe we are being a tad harsh on Patently-O, but this year (more than in past years) it’s openly attempting to help the patent trolls and even linking to sites like Watchtroll, which watch out for the trolls’ interests. Sometimes even the software patents lobby or the patent troll Dominion Harbor receive links. What a neighbourhood for Crouch to have… Dominion Harbor is currently cherry-picking cases to try to scandalise Alice/Section 101. Look at the sorts of people who promote this; the software patents lobby. As for Watchtroll, it is still lobbying for software patents and pushes aggressively against Alice, in essence trying to get the law thrown aside, as usual. It even stated a few days ago in a tweet: “”Amicus Support needed for 101 case @ SCOTUS. Should claims be invalidated only on the pleadings? Important question.”

“The bottom line is, there’s a strong push for patent trolls’ ‘rights’, for the ‘right’ to patent abstract ideas, and for biased judges to rule on these matters in order to maximise profits around their court venue.”Patently-O is still a relatively good source (less radical than most) for some insights and days ago it published this figure about “patent size”. It was an automated analysis of patents’ scale, plotted based on pretty big data sets. For some patents, the composition can be just as shallow as putting together numbers and citations (from reusable templates), resulting in longer patent texts even when the substance is low and quality/merit is questionable.

The bottom line is, there’s a strong push for patent trolls’ ‘rights’, for the ‘right’ to patent abstract ideas, and for biased judges to rule on these matters in order to maximise profits around their court venue. Hardly noble causes. These are just things to watch out for.

AIPLA, Watchtroll (the Trolls’ Lobby) and Other Pressure Groups Are Still Trying to Eliminate/Weaken PTAB and Section 101

Posted in America, Deception, Patents at 10:58 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Related: IBM, IPO, AIPLA, ABA and Other Lobbying/Front Groups of the Patent Microcosm Are Trying to Change US Law for Software Patents

David Kappos as lobbyist
Lobbyists such as David Kappos are trying hard to destroy the integrity of the Office for the sake of the litigation ‘industry’

Summary: The American Intellectual Property Lawyers Association (AIPLA), a front group of people who profit from mass litigation, is pressuring politicians and USPTO officials to reduce the quality of patents, remove barriers to frivolous lawsuits, and generally put the interests of prosecutors/trolls ahead of the interests of technologists

YESTERDAY we covered some of the good news regarding the USPTO, including the rumoured abolition of software patents, as a whole.

As we stated at the time, there’s a reactionary lobby, namely that of the patent microcosm. Recent developments in the patent system may render them obsolete. It is important to see their reaction in order to better understand what they plan to do next.

AIPLA is a group of saboteurs who manipulate the law to encourage patent litigation (i.e. maximise profit for lawyers). That’s litigation at our expense (for them to pocket).

The other day Managing IP published a long series of posts for AIPLA. These were all puff pieces, starting with this interview of AIPLA’s president, who is described as “associate patent counsel at Johnson & Johnson, where she has worked since 2000. She joined AIPLA in 1995 and has done stints on the Professional Programs Committee, the Board of Directors (from 2004 to 2007) and the AIPLA Fellows.”

So basically, AIPLA is now run by a massive multinational company and it is trying to water down Alice/Section 101, as the following part of the puff piece reveals:

Seeking consensus on Section 101

One example of AIPLA reconciling disparate views has been its work on patent eligibility under Section 101 of the Patent Act.

AIPLA executive director Lisa Jorgenson believes Section 101 problems remain the number one issue on members’ minds.

“Our members tell us that the Section 101 issue is still the most important issue for them,” says Jorgenson. “They are very concerned about the current uncertain state of the law. We believe this has discouraged investment in US-based research and development activities.”

In another post in this series they ask a loaded question (“When should the USPTO intervene in PTAB appeals?” is the headline) even though PTAB ought to work independently, just like the EPO’s appeal boards (BOA). To quote: “The USPTO intervenes in less than a quarter of appeals of PTAB decisions to the Federal Circuit. Nathan Kelley, USPTO deputy general counsel for intellectual property law, recently shed some light on when and why the office chooses to do so” (it ought to stay out of it altogether).

The patent fanatics’ groups (like AIPLA) are reportedly lobbying politicians to destroy PTAB (i.e. restore patent insanity) and they are looking for allies in Congress:

In speeches at the AIPLA annual meeting, Senators Patrick Leahy and Orrin Hatch listed a number of areas they are targeting in Congress, while Hatch said he was concerned about the effects of IPR proceedings on Hatch-Waxman cases

We are going to write more about that later on. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) is basically ensuring reduction in abusive litigation; there’s nothing wrong with that unless one is in the business of litigation. Here we have one of Watchtroll’s latest attacks on PTAB. which is yet another attack on technology itself. The trolls’ lobby just hates science and labels those who actually do science “big tech infringers”.

Meanwhile, as it turns out, in the above event there were pressuring the USPTO to stop PTAB. The term “PTAB improvements” was used, but by improvement they mean watering down. Here we have fanatical lobbyists pressuring USPTO to enrich them by weakening PTAB:

Joseph Matal, who is performing the duties of USPTO director, gave a speech discussing the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, including upcoming USPTO guidance on Aqua Products, how the precedential General Plastic opinion will reduce serial attacks on the same patent, the evolving 325(d) jurisprudence, and two PTAB cases he thought have a shot of being taken up by the Supreme Court

Matal has evidently come under great pressure from these lobbyists, having already seen how his colleague Michelle Lee got bullied out of her job. He is currently being sued as well (Aqua Products, Inc. v Matal among other cases and here’s an update on that).

We certainly hope that PTAB won’t be weakened or watered down. Given a growing number of petitions it ought to be expanded.


Patent Trolls’ Enablers Celebrate and Lobby for Patents on Software, React in Fury When Google Gets Some

Posted in America, Deception, Google, Patents at 10:40 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Trolly-O Patently-O

Summary: Apparently, according to the patent microcosm, Google runs the world and software patents are very evil only when Google gets them

THE patent trolls’ lobby has never been consistent. It cherry-picks and habitually contradicts itself (here is one of the cherry pickers asking for help).

Generally speaking, the US “Patent Office has recently made it much more difficult to secure software patents,” to quote this article from a few days ago. It’s common knowledge now; the real media (not sites of patent law firm) talks about it. Here’s the full paragraph:

For example, drones that fly overhead and apps that access information on consumers’ smartphones both raise questions of privacy and infringement of consumers’ rights, he said. Meanwhile, the Patent Office has recently made it much more difficult to secure software patents.

“The patent trolls’ lobby has never been consistent.”The other day we saw the patent trolls’ lobby resuming its misguided witch-hunt that seeks to blame Google for all this (often because of Michelle Lee). This was soon mentioned by Lisa M. Brownlee, Benjamin Henrion, and software patents boosters who love picking on Google. See the software patents propagandist (Patent Buddy) who call it “Unbelievable!!” that “Receiving a Sequence of Symbols” is deemed to be patentable by the USPTO (not courts). They all cite a post from Dennis Crouch. It just helped demonstrate lack of quality control/oversight at the USPTO (something for PTAB to tackle perhaps) because it is granting software patents that should clearly be rejected. “In addition to its gaping abstract idea problems,” Crouch explained, “the patent claims priority to a collection of more than one hundred (100) provisional patent applications – 2004 priority date.”

“It just helped demonstrate lack of quality control/oversight at the USPTO (something for PTAB to tackle perhaps) because it is granting software patents that should clearly be rejected.”IAM too decided to poke by saying: “Perhaps @EFF could have a look at this controversial new Google patent. A candidate for Stupid Patent of the Month?” (it linked to a site of a patent troll, Dominion Harbor).

It’s this rant about Google, which other contributors (to this troll’s site) exploited to say that EFF is “the lapdog [which] will have to get clearance first from their corporate master before being allowed to pretend to bite the hand that feeds them” (as if EFF is a “lapdog” of Google).

“This is the kind of rubbish that encouraged harassment of Michelle Lee and led to her resignation.”What’s worth noting here is that the patent trolls’ lobby is happy to single out Google, attacking Google alone over software patents. So they love software patents, but deem these evil only when they’re Google’s? This is the kind of rubbish that encouraged harassment of Michelle Lee and led to her resignation. These same bullies also attempt to frame me as some kind of “Google shill”. They see “Google” in everything they don’t like!

On another day this same person complained that patents on software were being rejected. To quote: “PTAB reaches peak crazy: tells patent applicants dont bother passing Director guidelines for 101, we ignore them: https://e-foia.uspto.gov/Foia/RetrievePdf?system=BPAI&flNm=fd2015007596-10-24-2017-1 …”

So make up your mind, trolls (and their enablers). Are you in favour of software patents or not? Because they’re all equally ludicrous and should not be granted.

« 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




Samba logo

We support

End software patents


GNU project


EFF bloggers

Comcast is Blocktastic? SavetheInternet.com

Recent Posts