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

03.19.18

Blocks and Paywalls Won’t Protect the Patent Trolls’ Lobby From Scrutiny/Fact-Checking

Posted in Deception, Patents at 12:01 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

IAM blocking

Summary: Joff Wild and Benoît Battistelli have much in common, including patent maximalism and chronic resistance to facts (or fact-checking)

THE EPO is well known for its censorship (of its union, of its staff representatives, of this site and many other things). They’re aggressive authoritarians (the management) and they lie routinely; they just don’t want to stand corrected.

“They’re aggressive authoritarians (the management) and they lie routinely; they just don’t want to stand corrected.”A few days ago we noticed that IAM had introduced a new kind of paywall, one which was ‘built’ around its blog, too (traditionally the paywall was reserved for other sections). This is new and I am guessing they don’t want critics to see what they are writing (mostly nonsense and patent propaganda). That says a lot about IAM, whose piece about the EPO (from half a day ago) we mentioned a couple of hours ago. They know they’re deflecting/lying, so they want not to be held accountable. IAM previously blocked me (before realising how futile a measure it was as it does not prevent me from seeing and rebutting their stuff). From now on it’s going to get a lot harder to know what they say to their subscribers (the patent microcosm, trolls etc.), but we’ll try our best. A few days ago they wrote about Microsoft's former General Manager of Outbound Licensing (patent extortion basically), who joined Sonos less than a year ago and is now leaving:

Senior licensing executive Tanya Moore is leaving Sonos after little over a year at the audio business. Her departure comes as something of a surprise given that the company has continued to enjoy considerable success in its litigation against rival speaker manufacturer Denon and looked set to capitalise on its strong IP position in the rapidly…

We rely on IAM to track some of these moves. These people whom they worship and whitewash are typically the worst patent bullies, so we try to keep abreast of such moves. Around the same time IAM also wrote a euphemisms-filled piece about patent shakedown in Southeast Asia, with sentences such as these:

There is a lot more IP creation going on in this region than patent filing and enforcement statistics might suggest. And that leaves plenty of scope for technology-based deals. As more patent-oriented companies like Japan’s IP Bridge continue to explore partnerships with local firms, creative and patient deal-making will be crucial.

Translated into crude English (bar the euphemisms:

There is a lot more patenting going on in this region than patent shakedowns and lawsuits might suggest. And that leaves plenty of scope for extortion and ‘protection’ money. As more patent trolls like Japan’s IP Bridge continue to explore patent settlements with local firms, aggressive and prolonged threat-making will be crucial.

IAM is quite a funny site in all sorts of ways. But we find it valuable for keeping track of trolls (which IAM obviously glorifies). We’ll try our best to get past the paywalls and still challenge the nonsense, such as their recent attacks on a study demonstrating insurgence of patent trolls in Europe.

03.18.18

UPC/Battistelli Booster IAM Blames Brexit Rather Than EPO Abuses

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 10:42 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

IAM spoon-feeds Battistelli annually

Battistelli and IAM

Summary: While the EPO is collapsing due to mismanagement the boosters of Team Battistelli would rather deflect and speak about Brexit, which is itself partly motivated by such mismanagement

THE EPO is in trouble. Ignore the spin which is known as “Annual Report” and does not take into account depletion of work (layoffs will come soon, quite inevitably, for the first time ever). EPO recruitment of Brits had gone down by 80% and the UPC isn’t coming (for about half a dozen very important reasons, not just Brexit); the German press too now joins the British press (3 articles so far) in talking about the petition regarding patent quality (new article by Stefan Krempl, who is familiar with EPO affairs).

Thorsten Bausch has just published the last part of his series called “The EPO’s Vision,” in which he says: “…we need to talk about (a) the intended task or purpose and (b) the extent to which time or effort is well used, when a patent is searched and examined by the European Patent Office” (EPO).

“Amid all this, the patent trolls’ lobby (IAM) bemoans the UK’s lack of participation in the EPO, having been paid by the EPO’s PR agency to promote the UPC.”As we said over the weekend, the European Patent Office ceased being a patent office; it’s more like a patent-printing machine now, unregulated and reckless beyond belief. Staff is suffering while management (executives) floods its own bank accounts. It’s utterly despicable and it doesn't look like European authorities intend to do anything.

Amid all this, the patent trolls’ lobby (IAM) bemoans the UK’s lack of participation in the EPO, having been paid by the EPO’s PR agency to promote the UPC. The editor of IAM wrote yesterday: “If you do incline to this view, patent data backs you up. Take, for example, the European Patent Office’s recently released annual report for 2017. This showed that UK-based entities accounted for just 3% of applications the office received last year. That put the UK in seventeenth position in terms of patent applications per million of population.”

“…EPO scandals contribute to anti-EU sentiments — whether justifiably or not — and those who care about the Union should do a lot more to tackle EPO abuses.”Further down he says “we all know that patents do not equate to innovation.” (but IAM does often say so, equating patents to innovation)

Either way, the point of this IAM post was to express that same old dissatisfaction over Brexit (to be clear, I am strongly against Brexit too) and having watched this closely over the past couple of years, it seems clear that their motivations aren’t quite the same as everybody’s. In fact, the clear absence of coverage about EPO scandals says a lot. Had IAM been objective (which it clearly isn’t; check its lists of sponsors), it would realise that EPO scandals contribute to anti-EU sentiments — whether justifiably or not — and those who care about the Union should do a lot more to tackle EPO abuses.

PTAB Hatred is So Intense Among the Patent ‘Industry’ That Even Scammers Are Hailed as Champions If They Target PTAB

Posted in America, Deception, Patents at 12:23 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Michael Shore

Summary: The patent microcosm is so eager to stop the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that it’s supporting sham deals (or “scams”) and exploits/distorts the voice of the new USPTO Director to come up with PTAB-hostile catchphrases

THE patent reform in the United States is very real; it’s effective. The USPTO makes it a lot harder to pursue software patents (unless they’re disguised as something different — a subject we shall cover and tackle separately).

An anti-PTAB site of the patent microcosm currently tries to frame PTAB’s opposition as “[p]harmaceutical patent owners”, but in reality it’s just greedy law firms that oppose PTAB. It mentioned PTAB’s Chief Judge Ruschke the other day after he had once again responded to critics.

Likely in response to these concerns, Chief Judge Ruschke announced the results of an Orange Book-listed Patent Study during his “Chat with the Chief” on March 13, 2018. The meeting presentation slides can be found here. During the chat, the Chief Judge also revealed the results of an expanded panel study, which we will analyze in a future post. For the Orange Book study, the PTAB classified a petition as challenging an Orange Book-listed patent if, unsurprisingly, the patent was listed in the Orange Book when the petition was filed. The data provided was through the end of the fiscal year 2017, which ended on September 31, 2017. We will look at three of the questions asked by the Office in this study.

The author, Andrew Williams, concluded as follows: “In any event, this study by the Patent Office is certainly interesting. It does go a long way to allaying the fears of NDA holders. Nevertheless, considering that an IPR is a lose-or-draw proposition for any patent holder, and that Orange Book-listed patents are so valuable to NDA holders, this may come as little comfort to the community. Instead, anything that disrupts the balance struck by Hatch-Waxman is not going to be seen as favorable, no matter how the actual numbers have been borne out.”

The patent microcosm is attempting to guard an old (antiquated and collectively undesirable) status quo — one in which patent trolls thrived, software patents had legal ‘teeth’, and lawsuits were abundant. IAM, the patent trolls’ lobby, continues to amplify if not promote scammers and then appeals to SCOTUS for help. The author of this new piece is a patent extremist with a long history of promoting trolls and software patents.

“The USPTO is not a for-profit organisation. It exists to service those entitled to some protection in exchange for publication.”Unfortunately we have gotten used to it. All we have here is IAM, the patent trolls’ lobby, which attacks PTAB and attempts to influence/incite Justices against IPRs. IAM is toxic, but it enjoys free speech rights (even if that speech is funded by nefarious elements).

With the context being a recent IAM 'interview' (more like PTAB bashing, or an IAM piece using Andrei Iancu to smear PTAB), we at least know who orchestrates much of the propaganda. The CCIA responded the other day as follows:

Director Andrei Iancu has been making the rounds since his confirmation. In a recent interview, he suggested that “[t]here is, for sure, a perception problem in the IP community with the PTAB” and that “when you have a perception problem you have a real problem in the sense that if the IP community loses faith in what you do then it loses faith in the reliability of the system.”

Director Iancu is right. When you have a perception problem, that can create an actual problem. But instead of looking to the IP community, which has far more widely varying views than the interview gives credence to, I’d look at the Patent Office to see the real impacts.

[...]

The post-grant proceedings created by the AIA—post grant review, inter partes review, and covered business method—were designed to allow the Patent Office to correct its own errors when it issues a patent that never should have issued. Part of this process is allowing interested parties to locate prior art the examiner never located.

But part of the process is allowing parties to correct errors made by the examiner in the art they did find. Examiners miss things when they search, but they also miss things once they’ve found a reference. That’s exactly why 325(d) says that the PTAB “may take into account” if the prior art was previously at the office.

Not “must take into account” or “can’t institute”, but “may take into account.” The statute itself recognizes that sometimes examiners misunderstand or misapply art.

Well, the Patent Office (USPTO) would be wise to listen to actual companies rather than law firms. At the moment the impression we are getting is that the USPTO’s reputation is improving. If Iancu wants to be remembered positively, he’ll maintain the positive elements and reject those who pursue patents just for the sake of having more patents or making more money from the patent-granting process. The USPTO is not a for-profit organisation. It exists to service those entitled to some protection in exchange for publication.

03.13.18

Battistelli Likes to Describe His Critics as ‘Nazis’, Team UPC Will Attempt the Same Thing Against UPC Critics

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 3:29 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Related: Team UPC Calls Critics of the UPC Idiots, Deletes Their Comments, and Blocks Them (they also call UPC critics “trolls”)

SS EPO

Summary: Demonising one’s opposition or framing it as “fascist” is a classic trick; to what degree will Team UPC exploit such tactics?

THE “Nazi” theme at the EPO is unfortunately a frequently-occurring one. It’s not because of the staff but because of Team Battistelli. The Conservative politician, Battistelli, has the audacity to tell French politicians (on the record even) that his opponents are “Nazis”. SUEPO, the witch-hunted judge and others are just being painted with the “Nazi” brush. Sick ‘revenge’ for the anonymous letter comparing Lutz to a Nazi? Never mind the inconvenient truth that the roots of EPO aren't too far apart from Nazism?

Either way, we are beginning to see a pattern. We hoped it would stop or go away, but it’s not. As expected, Team UPC is attempting to frame opposition to UPC as a “Nazi” or “alt right” thing. Bristows did this. Now another UPC booster does it by writing: “Parliamentary debate on German acts implementing UPC and UP forced by German alt right and anti-EU party AfD to take place on 15/3 at 5:35pm as last agenda point of that day. Result should be in official minutes and Plenarprotokoll available the next day.”

Some sources of ours already warned that such desperate tactics may sooner or later be attempted. Either painting UPC sceptics as Eurosceptics or something even worse.

JUVE’s editor, who recently associated UPC opposition with AfD, is now giving Battistelli a platform in which Battistelli is lying again (about UPC). It’s that same old “real soon now” and “later this year” — something they have repeatedly done for many years. To quote the article: (in German only)

Benoît Battistelli ist überzeugt: Das UPC und damit das EU-Patent kommt schon bald. Er erwarte erste Anmeldungen von EU-Patenten bereits Ende 2018, spätestens aber Anfang 2019, sagte der Präsident des Europäischen Patentamtes (EPA) anlässlich der Jahrespressekonferenz. Am Mittwoch legte das EPA in Brüssel die Zahlen für 2017 vor. Demnach stiegen sowohl die Anzahl angemeldeter als auch die der erteilten Patente auf ein Rekordniveau.

Watch out for these dirty tactics of false prophecies and comparing one’s opposition to Nazis. It’ll probably intensify later this week. It wouldn’t shock us if Team UPC at one point attempted to paint the complainant as part of some Nazi/Russian plot, seeing (or hearing) that they’re already spreading false rumours about someone secretly funding that complaint.

03.12.18

EPO Patent ‘Growth’ Not Achieved But Demanded/Mandated by Battistelli, by Lowering Quality of Patents/Services

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 6:08 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Is the ‘EPO factory’ still an office or a production line?

EPO factory
Picture modified; original by Greenpeace Switzerland/Flickr, CC BY-NC-ND

Summary: Targets at the EPO are not actually reached but are being imposed by overzealous management which dries up all the work in a hurry in order to make examiners redundant and many European Patents worthless

WHAT good is a patent granted in error? Ask the USPTO, whose patents are being dropped like flies by US courts these days. These patents are typically useful only as long as they don’t land in courts or on PTAB’s lap, e.g. by targeting small businesses that cannot afford IPRs or lawsuits (or can settle more cheaply than pursue a challenge). That’s just what patent trolls are exploiting.

“Battistelli does not want to talk about quality and he seems to be already coordinating ‘studies’ to lie about that too (we covered that before).”Last week we wrote about quality of patents being lowered and 'discounts' being used to encourage more applications, then fiddle with the media to spread spin. SUEPO’s position on this is rather revealing and it was only mentioned in this one article. Here’s the relevant part (emphasis added):

However, despite the EPO’s record number of patent grants, recent turmoil at the office has led to concerns about patent quality.

According to an internal memo from the Staff Union of the EPO (SUEPO), at the end of 2017, official targets were altered from 400,000 ‘products’ to 415,000.

Products are granted only for a few actions that an examiner is expected to perform: a patent search, a patent grant, or a patent refusal. Examiners are awarded points, which determine whether employees have reached their individual and collective targets.

SUEPO said that lofty and ever-changing targets could lead to negative consequences for staff health and patent quality.

A source close to SUEPO said that the EPO point system is “perverted” as it “does not reward the issuing of a very solid patent after a thorough search, but, on the contrary in the current work climate where fear of reprisal plays a huge role, it has become an unhealthy incentive to support the mass-production of (low-quality) patents”.

The source said: “SUEPO has abundantly written on the question of quality: it considers that the very high production pressure put on the EPO staff for so many years (with ever increasing targets) is not only bad for the health of staff but cannot be neutral when it comes to the quality of the work done.”

“This report is not a truly independent audit since it is produced internally by EPO staff under the supervision of Battistelli.”

The source added: “On the question of quality which is a crucial subject for the future of the EPO, SUEPO would advise all interested IP stakeholders to read this recent article by Dr Thorsten Bausch.”

Battistelli does not want to talk about quality and he seems to be already coordinating ‘studies’ to lie about that too (we covered that before). Lies are up for sale, commissioned by the highest bidder. See this morning’s tweet. It’s not a competition (like the Olympics). There are no trophies. Sometimes less is better. But the EPO is in the business of patent maximalism right now (rather than quality of patents, which the EPO used to be renowned for).

“The EPO is so defunct; but at the same time it’s immoral enough to corrupt media and academia (at the expense of applicants), so people are rarely told about the terrible state of the EPO and the EPO’s immorality.”This morning the EPO also boosted IAM. Don’t they realise how bad it looks for both of them (EPO and IAM)? Battistelli is very much in an ‘incestuous’ relationship with this patent trolls’ lobby. They are preparing so-called ‘studies’ together and he will soon keynote an IAM event, in which IAM will help spread the lies about “quality”, engage in promotion of software patents and so on.

The EPO is so defunct; but at the same time it’s immoral enough to corrupt media and academia (at the expense of applicants), so people are rarely told about the terrible state of the EPO and the EPO’s immorality. Nobody holds the EPO accountable in the legal sense or even the public opinion sense. IP Kat stopped doing that after the EPO had blocked the site and perhaps invoked yet more sanctions. IP Kat wasn’t the exception, either. Battistelli turned the EPO into a bully organisation; bullying both inwards and outwards. Soon, as a result of that, Europe might be flooded with bullies better known as patent trolls.

When China embraced patent maximalism (over a million patents per year!) we saw no opposition to it because expressions like “I oppose” (or object/disagree) are increasingly being banned in China. As for the EPO, it too has just peaked in terms of censorship. Even staff representatives are being gagged, not just unions.

China now grapples with an epidemic of patent trolls; Europe also, but IAM helps the EPO deny that.

03.10.18

Alice/§ 101 is Improving the Quality of Patents in the United States and Patent Law Firms Are Panicking

Posted in America, Deception, Patents at 12:29 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

If code, then invalid patent

Code

Summary: Patent maximalists in the United States not only freak out over Alice but also distort the outcome of recent court cases (Federal Circuit) in order to make it seem as though Alice is going away

THE likelihood of receiving software patents from the USPTO is decreasing. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) nowadays gets involved in mere patent applications, not just patent grants or already-granted patents. We gave many examples of that last month and earlier this month. We suppose that PTAB is going to break another record, whereas reliable sources say that the number of patents granted by the USPTO will have decreased by year’s end. It’s not a bad thing but a sign of improved patent quality/scrutiny.

“We suppose that PTAB is going to break another record, whereas reliable sources say that the number of patents granted by the USPTO will have decreased by year’s end. It’s not a bad thing but a sign of improved patent quality/scrutiny.”Look at Taiwan. It has a very strong economy (a lot stronger than China’s). According to this post/rant from IAM, the number of patents in Taiwan is decreasing, not increasing, unlike China with SIPO. Lessons for EPO and USPTO? It’s OK to grant fewer patents, the important thing is quality, not quantity. It’s always about quality, not numbers. China amasses patents by the millions, but that doesn’t mean China is ahead. Litigation is China in soaring and it’s not necessarily a good thing (unless you work for a law firm). In Taiwan the number of granted patents has been decreasing for a number of years, so there’s a trend. Nobody seems to be upset about it except the patent trolls’ and maximalists’ lobby (IAM). Here is what it wrote:

New figures released by the Taiwan IP Office show that mainland Chinese firms are playing a greater role than ever in the local patent environment. Both resident and non-resident firms upped their filing rates in 2017 as the island managed to reverse several years of falling applications. Among the biggest corporate TIPO users, invention patent filings increased by nearly 25%.

The last year in which Taiwan patent applications increased year-over-year was 2012, when they reached a peak of 51,189. The headline figure from 2017 was well below that figure – coming in at 46,122 – but it did represent 5% growth over a 12-month period. Both resident and non-resident applicants were more active.

IAM keeps speaking about “growth”, but a growth of what? Monopolies? One can easily grant millions of monopolies overnight. Would that be a positive thing? Would that add value to the economy and improve people’s lifestyles? Of course not.

“One can easily grant millions of monopolies overnight. Would that be a positive thing? Would that add value to the economy and improve people’s lifestyles? Of course not. “We were watching with scepticism and restrained disdain this latest nonsense from Bilski Blog, best known for Alice spin and promotion of software patents. These Big Litigation lobbyists (Fenwick & West) are, as usual, using cases that aren’t about software patents to promote an illusion/lie. Christopher King even names Core Wireless (GUIs, not algorithms). But these lies are profitable to them. To quote the core basis for the flawed hypothesis (the headline says “Thawing in the 3600s? An Updated Look at Allowance Rates Post Alice”):

Although even with the increases in 2017 the allowance-to-abandonment ratios are still far below their pre-Alice levels, the statistics suggest that a sea change may have begun, with the PTO starting to loosen somewhat in the wake of a series of pro-eligibility cases such as Enfish, BASCOM, McRO, Thales, Trading Technologies and Visual Memory. More recent pro-eligibility cases such as Finjan, Core Wireless, Berkheimer and Aatrix will presumably further bolster this trend.

A lot of these cases aren’t about software!

But just as we expected, facts don’t matter to these people. Here’s Amol Parikh from McDermott Will & Emery mentioning Core Wireless in relation to software again (title says “Concrete Solution to Computer Problem Is Patent Eligible”).

“A lot of these cases aren’t about software!”Then there’s yesterday’s lie from the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). These cases aren’t about software patents and hardly about Alice (wrong case for the subject at hand), but then again AEI is a very nefarious front group, so this kind of slant is expected.

It names Aatrix and Berkheimer — two cases which we recently emphasised (almost a dozen times in a dozen articles) were not about software. To quote AEI:

First, in Berkheimer v. Hewlett-Packard, the Federal Circuit upended a lower court’s entry of summary judgment — a pre-trial legal ruling — that the patent (for processing and archiving files in a digital asset management system) was ineligible under Alice.

[...]

Just a week later, in a similar case, Aatrix v. Green Shades Software, the Federal Circuit again vacated a lower court’s early rejection on eligibility grounds, this time of a patent on “designing, creating, and importing data into a viewable form on a computer so that a user can manipulate the form data and create viewable forms and reports.”

This is misleading, but their goal is to comfort applicants and cushion applications, urging for more of both. They just want lots and lots of software patents at a time when they’re simply a waste of time and money (but monetary gain to lawyers).

“They just want lots and lots of software patents at a time when they’re simply a waste of time and money (but monetary gain to lawyers).”Watch this new article from LeClairRyan’s Gunnar Leinberg and Bryan Smith. These patent extremists are really very nervous about Alice, as it dooms their hopes of profit from software patents. “Drafting Strategies to Avoid Subject Matter Eligibility Issues and to Minimize the Risks of Having a Section 101 Dismissal Based on Recent Federal Circuit Decisions” is the title of their article. They’re just trying to work around § 101 (rather than simply accept it, which would be the rational thing to do).

How about Patently-O with “What are the Rules for Assessing Patent Eligibility?”

In Front Row Tech. v. MLB Advanced Media, the patentee has filed a petition for writ of certiorari – asking the Supreme Court flip the lower court rulings on its sports-data-app patents.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly (for years) rejected such petitions for writ of certiorari. It’s not interested in revisiting a subject it already dealt with nearly 4 years ago.

Over at Watchtroll, the most extremist of patent advocacy sites, an event’s introduction started thusly: “Is there hope for Alice? What recent Federal Circuit decisions mean for drafting and litigating software patents in the U.S…”

“The Supreme Court has repeatedly (for years) rejected such petitions for writ of certiorari. It’s not interested in revisiting a subject it already dealt with nearly 4 years ago.”Maybe they meant “Is there hope for bypasing Alice?” rather than “Is there hope for Alice?”

Perhaps they live in a mythical planet where Alice no longer matters at all. Maybe that’s how they try to seduce people to attend another lobbying event. Watchtroll meanwhile (selectively) recalls Google losing at PTAB, under the headline “A Google Opponent Actually Wins an IPR Battle with the Tech Giant” (conveniently never covering any of the cases where Google’s IPRs were successful).

Let’s just face the facts; Google tackles low-quality patents with assistance from PTAB. Who other than patent attorneys (like Watchtroll) stands to lose from elimination of patents that oughtn’t have been granted?

“Their motivations are tainted by their sheer greed and their judgment is clouded by desire rather than reason.”Kluwer Patent Blog recalled Arendi’s case against Google some days ago. “The Patent Trial and Appeal Board correctly determined that all 79 claims of a patent related to a computerized method for identifying and substituting information in an electronic document were invalid for obviousness,” said the summary. Maybe Watchtroll should write a little more about such cases.

The bottom line is, Alice isn’t really challenged in any meaningful way, but people who make a living by ‘selling’ the illusion that software patents are worth pursuing always find excuses to claim otherwise. Don’t listen to them. Their motivations are tainted by their sheer greed and their judgment is clouded by desire rather than reason.

IAM Only Ever Seems Happy When There’s Patent Aggression and Patent Trolls

Posted in America, Deception, Patents at 10:27 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

IAM on Intellectual Ventures

Summary: An analysis of IAM’s output from this past week; it’s yet more of that litigation lobbying, slanted in favour of aggressors and trolls, as usual

THE “troll-boosters”, as Professor James Bessen calls them (having done years of research into patent trolls in the US), aren’t exactly objective. They say virtually nothing about EPO scandals, they viciously attacked the USPTO‘s Director after she had reformed things (later to be replaced by a patent microcosm person, Mr. Iancu), and their joy is derived from patent lawsuits. Research does not interest them (they gleefully bash it instead) and they also focus on whitewashing trolls. They do reputation laundering even for massive trolls like Intellectual Ventures, which they treat like celebrities.

“Research does not interest them ([they gleefully bash it instead) and they also focus on whitewashing trolls.”This Saturday we prefer to focus on the US; as we noted in our previous post, the US Senate is cracking down on the scam perpetrated by Michael Shore, whom IAM crowned “IP personality of 2017″ back in January. Makes one wonder what kind of people IAM adores; many of the others in this list, as we noted back then, are patent trolls.

A couple of days ago IAM published this sponsored (ad) “international report” about the scam. To quote:

The panel determined that, regardless of whether tribal immunity applies to inter partes review proceedings, the proceedings “can continue even without the Tribe’s participation in view of Allergan’s retained ownership interests in the challenged patents” (page 4). Dispensing with executed documents such as assignment agreements recorded with the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) while simultaneously stating that they are not commenting on whether the agreements constitute a “sham transaction”, the panel went so far as saying that “the proceedings can continue because Allergan is the true owner of the challenged patents” (page 19). It cited a Federal Circuit ruling where a “party that has been granted all substantial rights under the patent is considered the owner regardless of how the parties characterize the transaction that conveyed those rights” (Speedplay, Inc v Bebop, Inc (211 F3d 1245 (Fed Cir 2000))).

To IAM’s credit, it hasn’t gone to the extremes Watchtroll oftentimes does; as we’ll show later, Watchtroll is back to attacking judges at PTAB. It’s pretty ugly. There are even racist cartoons of judges. IAM has never, as far as we can remember, attacked judges. It attacks other things though.

“To IAM’s credit, it hasn’t gone to the extremes Watchtroll oftentimes does; as we’ll show later, Watchtroll is back to attacking judges at PTAB.”The patent trolls’ lobby, IAM, wrote this “exclusive” puff piece regarding the acquisition of many patents by InterDigital (at a rather low price point!), a publicly-traded patent troll. It then wrote a similar puff piece regarding Uber.

Last but not least, the patent trolls’ lobby was cheering for software patents-based aggression, as expected all along (IAM was a major booster of this strategy of BlackBerry for a number of years). They’re eager to see more of it:

Now Blackberry has embraced monetisation, the only question is who follows Facebook as a licensing target

[...]

The lawsuit that Blackberry filed against Facebook alleging that the social media giant and its subsidiaries WhatsApp and Instagram infringe seven of its patents shows one thing very clearly: the Canadian company is deadly serious about IP monetisation.

Ever since it realised that its best days as a device maker were behind it and turned its attention to the possible value in its patent portfolio, Blackberry has been busy knuckling down to make its patents sweat.

As if that’s what patents are for? Making them “sweat”?

“From what we’re able to gather in social (control) media, IAM is primarily boosted (links, likes, retweets) by patent trolls and their affiliates such as patent attorneys.”We wrote about this lawsuit some days ago and there’s still a lot of articles about it (must have been hundreds in English by now and moreover everyone I speak to seems to know about this lawsuits already). It still receives some new coverage, e.g. [1, 2].

To better understand IAM look at its funding sources (subscribers, event sponsors etc.) and remember that it’s not really a news site but lobbying disguised as “analysis”, “blog”, “international report”, “industry report” and so on. From what we’re able to gather in social (control) media, IAM is primarily boosted (links, likes, retweets) by patent trolls and their affiliates such as patent attorneys. They get their money’s worth.

03.08.18

Japanese and Korean Companies Don’t Pursue Patent Litigation and They’re Doing a Lot Better Than China

Posted in America, Apple, Asia, Deception at 11:13 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

China as a nation does not demonstrate the value of patent maximalism (unless you’re a lawyer looking for a quick buck/yuan)

Wiring
Quantity alone is a rather poor measure of value

Summary: China and its neighbours to the east are far from friends (contrary to shallow beliefs that are ubiquitous in the West) and their different patent policies serve to show that, if anything, patent restraint pays off

THE Japanese market and JPO made the news quite a few times recently, initially because of SEP policy and then some Japanese companies. IAM, the patent trolls’ lobby, did everything it could to spin what had happened (we wrote some rebuttals) and right now it downplays — yet again — the patent trolls (IAM still calls them “NPEs”) problem by looking at a country which barely has any. Earlier this week IAM wrote:

In their heyday, NPEs often saw companies from Japan with big product businesses as easy prey: they were conservative, defensive and did not like confrontation; so accuse them of patent infringement and the likelihood is that they would pay to make the threat of litigation go away. That’s why Japanese businesses were always towards the top of the rankings as defendants in NPE suits.

Japan and Korea are mostly victims of trolls from abroad, not domestic trolls. It’s hard to even think of any famous trolls from Japan and Korea.

“Japan and Korea are mostly victims of trolls from abroad, not domestic trolls.”Last week Canon made the news because it had become aggressive with patents in the US (which is rare), only a few months after Canon had joined OIN, which is incidentally a bullies’ club (some of its largest members are aggressive with patents). The total number of lawsuits/defendants was revealed by IAM when it wrote that “Canon’s big US patent attack last week is unlikely to represent a new licensing strategy, but other recent suits filed by Japanese companies State-side may well indicate changing views.”

From the blog post it turns out that the approximated number, 50, was pretty close:

In all, 48 firms are named in an ITC complaint Canon filed on 28th February – 14 of these are corporations domiciled in China, Hong Kong or Macau. According to a representative patent complaint, the defendants import replacement toner cartridges which are compatible with Canon and HP brand laser printers. In turn, Canon has asserted at least seven cartridge-related US patents against each respondent at a range of district courts, in states including Delaware, California, Arizona and Texas. It is very unlikely that Canon has any desire to grant these types of entities a revenue-bearing licence. Instead, the chances are that it would rather see them shut out of this particular sector to protect its cartridge business.

A few days ago in a press release [1, 2] they called themselves “Canon U.S.A.” in order to sound American (they’re Japanese). They should rename/rebrand as “Canon Litigation”, for that’s what they’re reduced to now.

Meanwhile in China, where there’s a patent trolls epidemic (nobody would deny it at this point), blame is being put by US patent maximalists. Everything they dislike is being blamed in China (by default) as if only China competes with the US. In reality, it’s similar to the constant Russia-blaming tactics (in defense, not economic aspects). And it’s getting boring. It has gotten so boring in fact that we stopped tracking particular patent maximalists whose output is constant China blaming, China envy etc. Here’s one of them stating: “If the next generation of American children want to be engineers or scientists, they will have to learn Mandarin” (complete nonsense!).

This sort of alarmist propaganda has become very commonplace among patent maximalists. Their agenda is pretty obvious to see. They basically say, “hey, look at China rising; that must mean that its lenient patent system is behind all that and therefore we must undo all the reforms and grant patents by the millions!”

Over at Watchtroll several days ago (Sunday) there were two articles about patents, one in which Paul Morinville continued the China obsession (as if the US only has patents and nothing else) and David Kline bemoaned the price of patents: (they’re pretty cheap in China, which devalues the very concept of a patent)

Making the patent system inexpensive invited everyone’s participation. In the words of Englishman John Standfield, quoted in an 1880 issue of Scientific American: “The cheap patent law of the United States has been and still is the secret of the great success of that country.”

This leads to China-style saturation of patents and ultimately devaluation thereof. Do we really want that? Scarcity of patents is what makes them worth pursuing and keeping. Abundance of patents may be China’s ‘hack’ for discrediting accusations that it is “stealing”, “ripping off”, “pirating”, “knocking off” and so on. China just floods the market with patents, irrespective of the long-term consequences.

The same author (as above) later defended patent trolls, so we pretty much know where he comes from and where he chooses to post (Watchtroll is just about the most extremist site in the patents domain). As we shall show in a few days, Watchtroll is back to attacking judges. It’s getting pretty ugly again.

Last but not least, consider where Yahoo’s founder (Yang) came from. He was born in Taiwan as Yang Chih-Yuan and he created a massive US corporation with hard work and technical edge. Microsoft destroyed his company (which he attempted to save amid Microsoft’s sabotage) and now the patents are up for sale. As it turns out, Samsung has just wasted money on a pile of software patents that are likely not valid after Alice. As IAM put it earlier today:

Altaba, the holding company that was formed to sell off former Yahoo! assets, has transferred a patent portfolio to Samsung Electronics, in what looks to be its second small-scale disposal.

USPTO records show that the transfer was made in late February. The assignment includes nine US patents and two applications. If there are any foreign counterparts involved, they’re not mentioned in the documentation. A brief review of the titles suggest that they cover inventions related to augmented reality (AR) technologies (“Reconfiguring reality using a reality overlay device”; “Virtual notes in a reality overlay”).

The move is the first made by Altaba since it brought in former RPX executive Paul Reidy to lead its patent monetisation effort last December. It comes five months after Altaba’s first patent disposal in September, which saw Eureka Database Solutions, an affiliate of Dominion Harbor Group, pick up 25 patent assets related to search. It is unclear whether that deal was brokered by Houlihan Lokey, the firm originally appointed to find a buyer for the whole portfolio

Samsung is generally not aggressive with patents, so we’re assuming that it pursues patent peace or cross-licensing with the above acquisition. With the exception of China and perhaps also Singapore, east/southeast Asia isn’t renowned for patent aggression. Considering the financial prosperity in Japan and South Korea (China is low on a per capita basis), that ought to give the US something to think about. Is patent maximalism desirable at all?

« 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