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

05.22.16

IP3 Demonstrates That Today’s Patent Systems Devolve Into a Conglomerates’ Game, Won’t Protect the Mythical Small Inventor

Posted in Google, IBM, Patents at 2:26 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

This increasingly globalised system is not for the “small guy”

A small guy

Summary: Multinational corporations bring together their shared interests and steer the increasingly-inseparable patent systems according to their needs and goals, but has anyone even noticed?

For anyone who still thinks that patents are designed to protect the small guy/gal and/or his/her small company/ies… well, maybe this was true a long time ago. The USPTO moved in a bad direction quite some time ago and the EPO, led by Battistelli and his goons, trots in the same direction, notably (but not only) with the UPC. People’s rights and people’s wealth are under constant attack so that corporations’ power and wealth can increase and make way to greater dominance in an increasingly globalised world (overcoming environmental regulations, bypassing minimum wage laws, diminishing working conditions and so on). Just see what I.S.D.S. is all about when assessing the real motivation of TPP or TTIP (not just the forces behind them, those who prefer secrecy due to fear of public reaction). It’s class war, that’s what it boils down to.

Earlier this month and a month ago we wrote about Creative’s attempt to ban a lot of Android devices (at import level). TechDirt finally wrote about it just before the weekend:

It wasn’t enough that Creative Labs/Creative Technology spent March 24th suing almost every big name in the cell phone business for patent infringement. These lawsuits, all filed in the East Texas patent troll playground, asserted the same thing: that any smartphone containing a music app (which is every smartphone produced) violates the patent it was granted in 2005 to use in conjunction with its mp3 players. “Venue is proper” because smartphones are sold in Texas, even if the plaintiffs are located in California and Singapore, respectively.

That wasn’t all Creative Technology did. It also filed a complaint with the US International Trade Commission seeking to block the import of smartphones from manufacturers like Sony, LG, BlackBerry, Samsung, etc. under the theory that every imported phone contains patent-infringing software. The ITC has opened an investigation of Creative’s allegations, which will at least hold off any potential import blocks until it reaches a decision. The ITC’s summary of Creative’s patent claims clearly shows how broad the patent’s potential coverage is — and (inadvertently) why it should be invalidated.

[...]

Google has decided it’s not going to wait around for the ITC or east Texas courts to come to the wrong conclusions. It’s gone on the offensive, seeking declaratory judgment that it does not violate Creative’s broad patent. Every company sued by Creative on March 24th sells Android phones that contain Google’s “Play Music” app. On behalf of its customers (and its own Motorola Mobility, which was also sued), Google wants Creative’s BS patent’s power neutered.

We already remarked on Creative’s real ‘business’ at present. This isn’t a case of David v. Goliath but more like Troll v. Google. This troll has an old brand and recognised name (in technology circles), so it’s easy to lose sight of what’s happening here. MPEG-LA operates similarly on behalf of giants like Microsoft and Apple.

“This troll has an old brand and recognised name (in technology circles), so it’s easy to lose sight of what’s happening here.”Incidentally, and probably without direct correlation to the above, some days ago the patent lawyers’ sites began floating ‘news’ about IP3 (new name, not a new thing), e.g. [1, 2]. The latter said: “This blog recently covered Google’s Patent Purchase Program, here and here. Google basically offered to consider purchasing submitted patents. The Program is back, but this time expanded with a new group of players under the title, “IP3 by Allied Security Trust.”

We wrote about this before, but it has just been expanded and rebranded (or renamed, to put it more politely). Here is what IAM (patent maximalist) wrote: “In many ways IP3, the new patent selling platform backed by the likes of Google, Apple, Ford, Microsoft and IBM that was announced on Wednesday, is a product of its time. It’s hard to imagine, say five years ago, Google and Apple jumping into bed together on anything patent-related – or for companies in very different industries pooling resources in the way they have for IP3. But today is different: with the smartphone wars almost at an end and everyone talking about convergence, IP3 reflects the more cooperative, partnership-based approach to IP strategy that a growing number of operating companies insist is their new ethos.”

“They just want more mega-corporations to coalesce and use their collective power for protectionism and a sort of cross-licensing with extra edge (battling small plaintiffs which target the well-funded cabal).”Notice the size of the backers and mind who they target with IP3. Is this the fairy tale which the patent systems’ biggest proponents try to tell us about when they defend further scope expansion and sharp increases in the number of patents? As if the more patents we have, the more ‘lone inventors’ are ‘protected’? Consider the cost of application, renewal, litigation, etc. It’s very prohibitive. Here goes IAM again, in its initial report about this: “A group of major patent-owning companies – Google, Microsoft, Apple, IBM, Ford, Cisco and Facebook among them – have banded together to form the Industry Patent Purchase Program – or IP3 – providing patent owners with a streamlined way of selling their IP. The new initiative has been developed in conjunction with AST which will play the central role in administering the project. In effect it is the second iteration of Google’s Patent Purchase Promotion, which the search giant launched last summer and which saw it buy up a number of patents in a price range of $3,000 to $250,000.”

Can I join too? I have no patents, but I too would like this special/magical ‘protection’. The press release about IP3 is a big load of nonsense which is “Calling All Patent Owners”, so people like myself are obviously excluded. They just want more mega-corporations to coalesce and use their collective power for protectionism and a sort of cross-licensing with extra edge (battling small plaintiffs which target the well-funded cabal). What kind of arsenals are they pooling together?

“What all the above stories have in common is that they show patent empowerment by large corporations, their consortia, their trolls (or ‘pools’ like MPEG-LA) and at whose expense?”Speaking of Google, which is the key company in IP3, see the new article “Tech and Auto Firms Join Google-Led Patent Purchase Program” and recall what we recently wrote about the hoard of software patents on driving (not a new concept). Watch how Google is now stockpiling driving patents, as reported last week by dozens of publications, e.g. [1, 2, 3, 4] (very limited list as an exhaustive one would be vast).

Google, unlike IBM, never suffered massive layoffs (not yet anyway), but would it become a patent aggressor like IBM recently became (using software patents)? Every company collapses sooner or later. No company exists for an eternity. See what happened to Nokia‘s mobile patents (Microsoft instructed Nokia to give these to Google-hostile trolls).

“This is highly regressive and it corrodes the spirit of the so-called ‘intellectual property’ system we are told to respect.”Dr. Glyn Moody has this new article about a patent we mentioned the other day. It shows just how far IBM’s patent lust has gone. To quote Moody: “Stories about copying turn up a lot on Techdirt. That’s largely as a consequence of two factors. First, because the Internet is a copying machine — it works by repeatedly copying bits as they move around the globe — and the more it permeates today’s world, the more it places copying at the heart of modern life. Secondly, it’s because the copyright industries hate unauthorized copies of material — which explains why they have come to hate the Internet. It also explains why they spend so much of their time lobbying for ever-more punitive laws to stop that copying. And even though they have been successful in bringing in highly-damaging laws — of which the DMCA is probably the most pernicious — they have failed to stop the unauthorized copies. [...] We’ve already seen Microsoft’s Protected Media Path for video, a “feature” that was introduced with Windows Vista; it’s easy to imagine something a little more active that matches the material you want to view or listen to against a database of permissions before displaying or playing it. And how about a keyboard that checks text as you type it for possible copyright infringements and for URLs that have been blocked by copyright holders? There is a popular belief that the computer in Stanley Kubrick’s “2001: A Space Odyssey” was named “HAL” after IBM, by replacing each letter in the company name with its predecessor. That’s apocryphal, but with this latest patent application IBM is certainly moving squarely into HAL territory. ”

Yeah, some ‘innovation’…

And we all surely benefit, right?

From patent aggressor IBM, according to this new IAM report, a notorious character moved to Rovi (another patent aggressor) and now he lands inside HEVC Advance, which is a patent troll [1, 2] (IAM dares not say this term, so it would say only “PAE” or “pool”). Remember who is behind HEVC Advance. No ‘lone inventors’ at all. To quote IAM: “Technicolor – previously known as Thomson – has long been a leading media and entertainment business with a strong R&D focus, and has one of Europe’s biggest technology and patent licensing operations – first developed under the leadership of IP Hall of Famer Béatrix de Russé. In 2013, Boris Teksler was brought in to lead the company’s technology operation, with a remit that included IP; and when Teksler departed in June 2015 he was replaced by Stéphane Rougeot, who has now also left the company. As if that was not enough, for much of 2014 and early 2015, the Technicolor board was involved in a bitter dispute about the company’s future direction with shareholder Vector Capital. That has now been settled.”

What all the above stories have in common is that they show patent empowerment by large corporations, their consortia, their trolls (or ‘pools’ like MPEG-LA) and at whose expense? The same mythical character which the patent system was presumably created to protect. This is highly regressive and it corrodes the spirit of the so-called ‘intellectual property’ system we are told to respect.

05.15.16

[ES] Compañías Grandes Que Se Están Convirtiéndo Trolles Amenazan a Linux, Tratan de Embargar Importaciónes

Posted in GNU/Linux, Google, IBM, Microsoft, Patents at 4:57 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

English/Original

Article as ODF

Publicado en GNU/Linux, Google, IBM, Microsoft, Patents at 11:17 am por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Las patentes de software atacan de nuevo

La creencia no es sustitúto de la aritmética.”

Henry Spencer

Sumario: Batállas legales que largamente envuelven a Android (y por extensión Linux) son notados en los medios esta semana porque hay una solicitud para su prohibición (interdicto)

Hay una creciénte tendencia en economías que están yendo para abajo porque crecimiénto infinito es imposible y los monopolistas luchan para compensar sus pérdidas y sobreponérse a nuevas fronteras. A las compañías que alguna vez produciéron productos asombrósos no les queda nada pero patentes, así que recurren a chantáje de patentes y tratan de escurrir a otras compañías de sus ganancias. Observen como, en medio de grandes despidos, IBM esta atacándo compañías legítimas usando patentes de software en estos días, ganándose títulos como “el Más Grande Troll de Patentes del Mundo”. IBM se considera una victicma y dijo: “IBM, una reliquia de las firmas tecnológicas del siglo 20, ha recurrido a usurpar la propiedad intelectual de las compañías nacidas este milenio.” ¿Puede alguién confíar IBM con la OIN más? IBM no es un aliado creíble, es un animal encorralado asustado de no emplear un medio millón de personas como solía. ‘Pobrecito’ IBM…

No sólo compañíás que pretendes ser todo por Linux hacen esto. Una de estas compañíás es Creative, de la que hablamos el otro dia. Como un nuevo artículo lo puso, “Creative se levanta de los muertos para tratar de destruir a Android” y para citar:

¿Recuerdas Creative? En la década de 2000, la empresa tuvo su gran periodo, ya que sus reproductores de MP3 Zen fueron los anti-sistema alternativo al iPod. En estos días, la empresa con sede en Singapur en su mayoría hace auriculares para juegos y altavoces de la computadora – nada que ver con los teléfonos inteligentes, en otras palabras. Pero gracias a una denuncia presentada en contra de todos los fabricantes de teléfonos Android grande, Creative ha declarado la guerra a Android en silencio.

La queja presentada contra un quién es quién de los teléfonos inteligentes Android: Samsung, LG, HTC, Blackberry, Sony, ZTE, Lenovo y Motorola. El tema en cuestión es reproductores de música: todos los teléfonos tienen ellos, y Creative tiene una patente que piensa está siendo violada. En concreto, todos los teléfonos son capaces de “reproducción de archivos multimedia almacenados seleccionados por un usuario desde una visualización jerárquica.”

Android Police escribió que “Creative Quiere Prohibir a la Mayoría de Telefonos Android Phones de los EE.UU por una Supuesta Infracción de Patentes” y para citar unos párrafos:

Creative no es un nombre que se oye tan a menudo en la electrónica de consumo en estos días. La firma con sede en Singapur es conocida por la fabricación de productos de audio, incluyendo la línea de Zen de reproductores multimedia. Creative ha presentado una queja ante la Comisión Internacional de Comercio (ITC), alegando que, básicamente, todos los fabricantes de teléfonos Android está infringiendo sus patentes de Zen al mostrar su música. Se quiere que todos sean prohibidos, pero lo que realmente quiere es el dinero.

La queja se dirige a ZTE, Sony, Samsung, LG, Lenovo, Motorola, HTC y BlackBerry. La cuestión es cómo todo el mundo ve a las canciones y álbumes en un sistema de menú jerárquico muestra, que dice que es un invento suyo. Se fue detrás de Apple por lo mismo hace una década y, finalmente, consiguió un acuerdo de $ 100 millones. Si el CCI está de acuerdo con Creative, que podría conducir a la prohibición de dispositivos infractores, lo que sería una gran cantidad de teléfonos.

Ahora recuérden a Microsoft, un ¿ socio de Creative? No hay un cese al fuego a su chantaje de patentes como reporto hace poco. La parte de Google en Motorola teléfonos móviles viene a la mente, vean este nuevo reportaje que demuestra que Microsoft todavía esta atacándo a Linux/Android con patentes de software (mientras al mismo tiempo afirma “amar a Linux). Para citar a Reuters (reporte corto): “La patente de Microsoft Corp en camino para mostra que un web brows todavíá esta subiéndo contenido no es inválida, una corte de apelaciónes de los EE.UU dijo este Martes en vista del desafío de Motorola Mobility y Google Inc.

“Un panel de tres jueces de la Corte de Apelaciones de EE.UU. para el Circuito Federal falló a favor de Microsoft y sus abogados Klarquist Sparkman, la afirmación de un fallo de la Patente de EE.UU. Oficina de Marcas y que se negó a cancelar una parte clave de la patente. El panel no se dio por razones de su decisión, que se produjo dos días después de los argumentos orales en el caso.”

Por lo que Microsoft está todavía acosándo a Motorola y Google (es decir, Android) y al mismo tiempo dice que “ama a Linux”. Tiene sentido, ¿verdad? Mandatos no sólo buscados por Creative (recurrir a la ITC como lo hizo Microsoft hace cerca de una década con el fin de bloquear un rival al este de Asia); Es probable que sólo estrategia de crecimiento en Estados Unidos, a juzgar por estos nuevos artículos escritos por bufetes de abogados de Canadá y Brasil [1, 2] para ser incluído en IAM principios de esta semana.

ITC investigará a Samsung y Sony por reclamos de patentes” dice otro nuevo titular. ¿Quién se beneficia de esto? Para citar:

La Comisión de Comercio Internacional (ITC ) ha dicho que va a iniciar una investigación sobre fabricantes de teléfonos inteligentes como Sony, Samsung, ZTE y LG por la presunta violación de patentes.

En un comunicado en su página web, la ITC dijo que su investigación se centraría en “dispositivos electrónicos portátiles con la capacidad de reproducir archivos multimedia almacenados”.

Lenovo, Motorola, HTC y BlackBerry pueden destinarse también en la investigación.

La investigación de la sección 337 se basa en una denuncia presentada por Creative Technology con sede en Singapur y Creative Labs, con sede en Milpitas, California, en Marzo.

Creative solía ser amable en la década de 1990, pero ahora es notoria por su acoso a Linux (hay conexiones con Microsoft e Intel). Además de esta controvertida medida de Creative nos hemos enterado que el propio troll de patentes de Ericsson que todavía está activo en el Reino Unido y al parecer permanecera en la Corte de Patentes del Reino Unido en lugar de la Corte de Apelación Competitiva , basado en el informe de ayer, que dice: “Para cualquier persona se mantenga al tanto, la disputa de patentes de mamut en Unwired Planet v Huawei y Samsung continúa a lo largo de un trueno a paso. La última decisión del Tribunal de Patentes de la saga abordó la cuestión de si los problemas de competencia – posiblemente la parte más jugosa del caso – podrían ser transferidos a la Competencia Appeal Tribunal (CAT)? A finales de abril, el Sr. Justicia Birss respondió a esta cuestión, la decisión de que las cuestiones deben permanecer en la División de la Cancillería [2016] EWHC 958 (Pat).”

Permanecemos completamente comprometidos con el rastreo meticulóso de estas amenazas al Free software, incluyendo Android, ya que las patentes de software no son compatibles con el Free software como Linux. Cuando estas patentes comienza a sobrepasar las fronteras Europeas nos damos cuenta que la enfermedad se esta esparciéndo en vez de ser contenida (e.g. debido a Alice en los EE.UU). Hay mucho en riesto.

05.12.16

Large Firms Which Are Becoming Troll-Like Threaten Linux, Try to Embargo Imports

Posted in GNU/Linux, Google, IBM, Microsoft, Patents at 11:17 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Software patents strike again

“Belief is no substitute for arithmetic.”

Henry Spencer

Summary: Legal battles which primarily involve Android (and by extension Linux) are noted by the media this week because there is a request for bans (injunction)

THERE is a growing trend in downturn economies because infinite growth is impossible and monopolists strive to make up for losses by overstepping new boundaries. Companies that once produced awesome products have nothing left but patents, so they resort to patent shakedowns and try to claw in other companies’ revenue. Watch how, amid massive layoffs, IBM is attacking legitimate companies using software patents these days, earning itself labels like "the World's Biggest Patent Troll". IBM’s victim said: “IBM, a relic of once-great 20th century technology firms, has now resorted to usurping the intellectual property of companies born this millennium.” Can anyone trust IBM with OIN anymore? IBM is not a credible ally, it’s a cornered animal afraid of not employing like half a million people anymore. ‘Poor’ IBM…

Not only companies which pretend to be all about Linux do this. One such company is Creative, which we wrote about the other day. As one new article put it, “Creative rises from the dead to try and destroy Android” and to quote:

Do you remember Creative? In the early 2000s, the company had a brief period of being cool, as its Zen MP3 players were the anti-establishment alternative to the iPod. These days, the Singapore-based company mostly makes gaming headsets and computer speakers — nothing to do with smartphones, in other words. But thanks to a complaint filed against every big Android phone manufacturer, Creative has quietly declared war on Android.

The complaint is filed against a who’s-who of Android smartphones: Samsung, LG, HTC, BlackBerry, Sony, ZTE, Lenovo and Motorola. The issue at hand is music players: all the phones have ’em, and Creative has a patent it thinks is being infringed on. Specifically, all the phones are capable of “playing stored media files selected by a user from a hierarchical display.”

Android Police wrote that “Creative Wants To Ban Most Android Phones From US Over Alleged Patent Infringement” and to quote some paragraphs:

Creative is not a name you hear as often in consumer electronics these days. The Singapore-based firm is known for making audio products, including the Zen line of media players. Creative has filed a complaint with the US International Trade Commission (ITC) alleging that basically every maker of Android phones is infringing its Zen patents by displaying your music. It wants them all banned, but what it really wants is money.

The complaint targets ZTE, Sony, Samsung, LG, Lenovo, Motorola, HTC, and BlackBerry. At issue is how everyone shows you songs and albums in a hierarchical menu system, which Creative says it invented. It went after Apple for the same thing a decade ago and eventually got a $100 million settlement. If the ITC agrees with Creative, it could lead to a ban on infringing devices, which would be a lot of phones.

Now, remember Microsoft, a partner of Creative? There is definitely no patent ceasefire as publicly claimed some months ago. Google’s stake in Motorola’s mobile business in mind, see this new report which shows that Microsoft is still attacking Linux/Android with software patents (while claiming to “love Linux). To quote Reuters (short report): “Microsoft Corp’s patent on a way to show that a web browser is still loading content is not invalid, a U.S. appeals court said on Tuesday in the face of a challenge by Motorola Mobility and Google Inc.

“A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found in favor of Microsoft and its Klarquist Sparkman attorneys, affirming a ruling by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office that refused to cancel a key part of the patent. The panel did not give reasons for its decision, which came just two days after oral arguments in the case.”

So Microsoft is still going after Motorola Mobility and Google (i.e. Android) and it says it “loves Linux”. Makes sense, right? Injunctions were sought not only by Creative (resorting to the ITC as Microsoft did nearby a decade ago in order to block an east Asian rival); it’s probably just growing strategy in America, judging by these new articles authored by law firms from Canada and Brazil [1, 2] to be pinned at IAM earlier this week.

“ITC to investigate Samsung and Sony over patent claims” says another new headline. Who benefits from this? To quote:

The US International Trade Commission (ITC) has said it will launch an investigation into smartphone makers including Sony, Samsung, ZTE and LG over alleged patent infringement.

In a statement on its website, the ITC said its investigation would centre on “portable electronic devices with the capability of playing stored media files”.

Lenovo, Motorola, HTC and BlackBerry will also be targeted in the investigation.

The section 337 investigation is based on a complaint filed by Singapore-based Creative Technology and Creative Labs, based in Milpitas, California, in March.

Creative used to be OK in the 1990s, but it’s now notorious for its poor treatment of Linux (there are Microsoft and Intel connections). In addition to this controversial move from Creative we have also just learned about Ericsson's own patent troll that is still active in the UK and will apparently stay in the UK Patents Court rather than the Competition Appeal Tribunal, based on yesterday’s report which says: “For anyone keeping tabs, the mammoth patent dispute in Unwired Planet v Huawei & Samsung continues to thunder along at pace. The latest decision from the Patents Court in the saga addressed the question as to whether the antitrust issues – arguably the juiciest part of the case – could be transferred to the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT)? At the end of April, Mr Justice Birss answered that question, deciding that the issues should remain in the Chancery Division [2016] EWHC 958 (Pat).”

We remain committed to meticulous tracking of these threats to Free software, including Android, as software patents are inherently not compatible with Free software such as Linux. When such patents start to overstep the European border we just know that this disease keeps spreading rather than contained (e.g. owing to Alice in the US). There is so much at stake.

05.10.16

IBM is Not a ‘Patent Troll’ But Increasingly, Over Time, Troll-Like

Posted in IBM, Patents at 1:03 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

When products aren’t selling those who have amassed patents weaponise them and tax the rivals’ products

Ginni Rometty

Photo source (modified slightly): The 10 Most Powerful Women in Technology Today

Summary: Groupon, which has come under a software patents attack from IBM, strikes back and spin sites like IAM keep denying that the term “patent trolls” means anything at all

EARLIER this year we chastised IBM for attacking companies using software patents. What became mainstream news today is “Groupon counters IBM over software patents.” We found many articles about it this morning [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8] and they indicate that IBM’s victims are fighting back. IBM’s ‘blowback’, so to speak, did not sink the stock or anything like this [1, 2], but surely this will generate negative press for IBM.

“We don’t call IBM a “patent troll”, but some pundits do (John Dvorak for instance called them the biggest patent troll).”When thugs like IBM attack using software patents (whilst actively lobbying for them) they essentially put pressure on other companies, including those not enamoured with/fond of patents, to file for ‘defensive’ patents, perpetuating the problem. Now that IBM is openly attacking legitimate companies using such patents (and surely extorts others) one can hope that IBM will go bankrupt fast, or alternatively appoint a new CEO who doesn’t choose to be a bully. Some pundits now call IBM a "patent troll", which definitely harms IBM’s reputation and ruins the brand.

If anyone among our readers chooses to cancel a contract with IBM (one probably should) or refuse/reject their marketing people, tell them it’s due to patent aggression as this can definitely help change their policy. Looking for someone to blame for IBM going rogue, lobbying for software patents and attacking legitimate companies using software patents? Blame Manny Schecter as well, not just the CEO. He’s the company’s patent chief and he has been rather outspoken as of late against any nation which rejects software patents.

We don’t call IBM a “patent troll”, but some pundits do (John Dvorak for instance called them the biggest patent). Some also call Yahoo a potential “patent troll”, so IAM — partly funded by patent trolls — attacks them. To quote IAM: “While we wait to see how potential acquirers value the IP, some in Silicon Valley are getting worked up about just what might happen to those patents. Last week the well-known tech journalist and author Steven Levy published a piece on his Backchannel blog which asked, “Will Yahoo become a patent troll?””

“Microsoft even has a standalone patent troll entity called “Microsoft Licensing”, putting aside all sorts of satellites and other patent trolls is uses to blackmail rivals.”It’s not news that IAM is a trolls denialist. To quote the concluding paragraph: “There will no doubt be many more column inches – on this blog and elsewhere – written on the Yahoo sale before it reaches its conclusion. Hopefully it will give members of the patent and investor communities an opportunity to discuss just how a public company – failed or otherwise – should properly value its intangible assets particularly in the current climate. But please, whatever happens, lets leave the troll moniker out of it.”

As we have seen in the case of Nokia after Microsoft had hijacked it, Nokia patents could be passed to patent trolls who later also paid IAM (literally, the same troll in the case of MOSAID). In today’s IAM output one can also see/learn that it has “been widely reported in Chinese-language (and, increasingly, English-language) media over the past few days that Huawei may be receiving hundreds of millions of US dollars in patent licensing fees from Apple.” Given what Nokia has done to Apple and what Apple has done (and is still doing) to many Linux-centric companies, it’s hard to find any sympathy for any of these companies. They put patents before products as time goes on and sales of actual product are harder to make (Apple has suffered a significant decline recently). While we never called companies like IBM, Yahoo, Nokia or Apple “trolls”, some people do call them that and to a certain degree it’s indeed trolling given how they position themselves. Microsoft even has a standalone patent troll entity called “Microsoft Licensing”, putting aside all sorts of satellites and other patent trolls is uses to blackmail rivals.

05.05.16

IBM Comes Under Growing Scrutiny for Increasingly Acting Just Like a Patent Troll Amid Layoffs

Posted in IBM, Law, Patents at 8:51 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

The ‘Microsoft syndrome’ strikes or spreads to IBM, its cross-licensing buddy

Ginni Rometty

Photo source (modified slightly): The 10 Most Powerful Women in Technology Today

Summary: Deservedly if not belatedly too, more and more pundits come to recognise the rogue element which is IBM, having promoted software patents all around the world, utilised software patents aggressively (to attack/marginalise/tax rivals), lobbied the government to antagonise the Supreme Court’s decision on Alice (using former IBM staff which it had somehow snuck into the USPTO), created bogus solutions to the side effects (such as patent trolls) and so on

“Patent Trolls have already begun to try & discredit the FTC PAE Report & it’s not even been released yet,” Anti-Software Patents wrote earlier this week. All this while the software patents lobby trash-talks SCOTUS (and one particular Associate Justice in particular), PTAB, an Australian report against software patents etc. As we showed here in recent days, IBM played a major role in this lobby. Are they thugs or trolls? Or both maybe?

“Patent Trolls have already begun to try & discredit the FTC PAE Report & it’s not even been released yet”
      –Anonymous
“PTABWatch”, a blog of patent lawyers (Marshall Gerstein & Borun LLP) now evokes David Kappos again (his lobbying is now funded by massive patent aggressors including Apple, IBM, Microsoft etc. but he came from IBM) and to quote the relevant portion: “In a recent speech at a Federal Circuit Judicial Conference, David Kappos, former Under Secretary of Commerce and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, suggested § 101 should be abolished because recent case law in this area has resulted in “a real mess.” Like many practitioners, Mr. Kappos reiterated that courts can ensure basic concepts are not patented while protecting innovation by applying other areas of patent law to make sure patents are novel and non-obvious. Consistent with Mr. Kappos’s criticisms of the developing case law on § 101, Sequenom recently has sought the Supreme Court’s review of the Federal Circuit’s application of § 101 in the Ariosa decision, and many companies and industry organizations have filed amicus briefs supporting Sequenom. What will happen remains to be seen, but there is a growing and significant consensus (among practitioners at least) that something needs to be done at a higher level to clean up this “real mess.” Until such time, this blog will keep a close watch on the developments of decisions relating to §101 in IPRs and how patent eligibility is being viewed at the PTAB and the courts.”

It should be clear that the same forces which lobby for software patents often, unsurprisingly, oppose patent reform. Pieter Hintjens, who has not much time left to live, reminisces: “well, they were just lying. IBM was the one that broke the US patent system to allow software patents.”

“IBM was the one that broke the US patent system to allow software patents.”
      –Pieter Hintjens
“IBM says software patents drive OSS development,” he recalls (from a 2009 article). We never forgot that.

Now that IBM openly attacks companies using software patents John C. Dvorak publishes the article “IBM Is the World’s Biggest Patent Troll” in which he says:

IBM’s real value is with the R&D folks who have helped IBM top the list of companies with the largest number of US patents granted year after year. This has never stopped growing. Last year it was 7,355 patents granted for IBM (followed by 5,072 for Samsung and 4,134 for Canon, with a big drop-off after that to Qualcomm with 2,900 and Google with 2,835).

The patent system is out of control since many of these patents are idiotic software algorithm or blocking patents, designed to keep others away from certain technologies. The point, though, is that IBM has been leading this pack for over two decades and shows no signs of slowing down. That is unless you think 7,355 is slowing down from its 2014 tally of 7,534 patents. In 2013, it secured a mere 6,809.

These numbers are outrageous when you stop to consider that patents were intended to protect small inventors and companies. Now the system is used to dominate that small fry. Good work, USPTO.

Many of IBM’s current patents are about data analytics and so-called cognitive computing, like Watson. It in turn collects “over” a billion dollars a year from licensing, which sounds low to me. I say this because on its licensing page, IBM claims to have 250,000 experts who will work with you to find the right patents for your company.

Those experts likely generate at least $100,000 in business each every year, which I think is conservative. You do the math and that’s $25 billion. This makes sense when the company claims to drop $6 billion into R&D each year. In fact, it would not surprise me if most of its revenues were from licensing, and far more than $25 billion. IBM’s overall revenues are around $82 billion.

With puff pieces like this new one about IBM, no wonder few people care to have noticed what IBM recently turned into (amid layoffs).

“Just last week, the Federal Circuit declined to fix this problem, leaving it up to Congress or the Supreme Court to act.”
      –EFF
Patent trolling is a very serious problem in the US and CAFC, which brought software patents to the US, refuses to stop these trolls [1, 2]. The trolls typically use software patents. Here is an MIP report about it and here is the EFF expressing frustration over it: “As the law stands now, patent owners have almost complete control over which federal district to file a case in. That’s a major problem. It lets patent owners exploit significant differences between courts, an advantage that the alleged infringers in patent suits don’t have. It effectively leads to outcomes being determined not by the merits of a case, but rather by the cost of litigation. Just last week, the Federal Circuit declined to fix this problem, leaving it up to Congress or the Supreme Court to act.”

“Mossoff just can’t help attacking the messenger for trying to stop patent trolls.”Trolls’ apologists aren’t idle either right now. Consider Adam Mossoff, who works for some kind of patent maximalism think tank (“The Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property at Mason Law promotes the scholarly analysis of IP rights and the creative innovation they make possible,” by its own description), so it’s not too shocking that he keeps protecting patent trolls, attacks their critics, and now picks on the EFF. Mossoff just can’t help attacking the messenger for trying to stop patent trolls. This isn’t a new thing from him.

“How to Kill a Patent Troll” is a new article which speaks about what patent trolls are and then promotes the IBM-connected RPX as the solution. It’s not the solution at all. To quote portions from this article:

Anecdotally, NPEs are trolls. But Cohen, Gurun, and Kominers wanted some hard proof. For that, they turned to data from RPX Corporation, which maintains a database on NPE litigation going back to 1977. (RPX also offers its clients a novel and slightly odd solution to patent trolling: It buys patents from NPEs before they start suing others for licensing fees. RPX asserts they are not themselves patent trolls.)

Both the RPX data and other sources make it clear that NPEs are predominantly trolls, mainly because of who NPEs go after: cash-rich tech companies. Cohen, Gurun, and Kominers calculate that the likelihood of getting sued by an NPE is roughly 16 percent among companies with the most cash, roughly double the baseline rate. By comparison, the likelihood of getting sued by a practicing entity—that is, a company that actually worked to create its patents—is less than five percent. NPEs are also more likely to sue firms with small legal teams and those dealing with other lawsuits. In other words, they go after companies with the biggest wallets and the fewest available minutes.

They conveniently neglect to mention that RPX is now a powerhouse of huge ‘patent trolls’ such as IBM. Not good advice at all… this is even more useless than OIN, which was also (co-)created by IBM and was originally led by IBM staff, Jerry Rosenthal.

04.26.16

[ES] El Nuevo Impulso Finánciado por Microsoft Para Reforzar las Patentes de Software en los EE.UU., Apoyado por los Sospechosos Usuales (La Sagrada Familia) Mientras que Microsoft Cada Vez Más Lucha Como Compañíá Productiva

Posted in IBM, Law, Microsoft, Patents at 6:13 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

English/Original

Article as ODF

Publicado en IBM, Law, Microsoft, Patentes at 12:13 pmam por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz

IBM también cae en este criterio, en todos sus puntos (cabildeo, financiamienteo, y despidos aspirándo convertirse en una compañíá de orientación licensiadora)

Lamp

Sumario: Una mirada al esfuérzo de trae una resurgencia de las patentes de software en los Estados Unidos (con un clarísimo rol de Microsoft en él) y la fundación/conf ianza de Microsoften las patentes de software como arma contr Linux/Android porque las ganancias de Windows se están secando y el Windows Phone está al borde del colápso
“Esfuerzo concertado presionándo al Congreso para eliminar las elegibilidad de restricciones de la Sección 101″

ELobjetivo de TECHRIGHTSha girado últimamente* de la EPO hacia la § 101 (en los EE.UU.), en una reacción proporcionada a una nueva clase de asalto a la § 101 de antiguo Director of the USPTO, David Kappos, y aquellos que le pagan su salario para hacerlo (La Sagrada Familia: Microsoft, IBM, Apple, HP, entre otros). Es difícil ignorar el cablildeo de un cada vez más codicióso David Kappos, solventado por la industria de patentes de software (La Sagrada Familia) para aquellos que no se hayan dado cuenta.

Como elProfessor Dennis Crouch lo puso el otro dia: “Esfuerzo concertado presionándo al Congreso para eliminar las elegibilidad de restricciones de la Sección 101″

Este es un esfuerzo para legalizar las patentes de software sin ningún tipo de restricciónes. Quieren que creamos y/o aceptemos que las grandes (mega) corporaciones on más importantes que la Corte Suprema de Estados Unidos y simplemente dejar de lado lo que ella pronunció. “Esa es la sugerencia,” Crouch agregó, “tal vez un límite en “las ideas abstractas como tales.”

¿El cierre de los agujeros que deje la EPO (“como tal”)? Como Benjamin Henrion del la EFF dijo, “no como tal, por favor.”

Recuérden quien está finánciado a Kappos para que cabildee/presione por las patentes de software.

Parece que ambosIBM y Microsoft están en Manióbras”

Recuérden quien está finánciado a Kappos para que cabildee/presione por las patentes de software. Incluso nuestros viejos ‘amigos’ de IAM escribieron: “Parece que ambosIBM y Microsoft están en Manióbras.”

Lo que tenemos aquí es más información (1) de que hay un “Esfuerzo concertado presionándo al Congreso para eliminar las elegibilidad de restricciones de la Sección 101″. Y (2) “Parece que ambosIBM y Microsoft están en Manióbras.”

Talvez el “nosotros” no es IBM pero IBM asociado con su antiguo empleado, quien se convirtió en Director de la USPTO y ahora un cabildero financiado por IBM contra Alice.

No sólo nosotros hemos estado viendo esto y escribir sobre ello. Una gran cantidad de estas maniobras o “esfuerzo concertado” son impulsadas por Gene Quinn y sus pro-patentes de software en círculos de IP Watchdog. Hace unos días, escribieron acerca de las patentes de automóviles de conducción (poniendo en algoritmos de lo que las personas han hecho/usado por generaciones), señalando: “Es en este ambiente que Eagle Harbor Holdings, LLC (EHH), de Rolling Bay, WA, está tratando de trazar un curso hacia adelante sobre la venta de una cartera de patentes relacionadas con los vehículos conectados y coches autónomos. A partir de esta semana, EHH será la búsqueda de posibles compradores para una cartera con 74 activos totales, incluyendo 42 patentes concedidas y 17 familias de patentes.”

¿Qué Deberíamos Hacer Con Alice?
Un artículo más revelador fué titulado: ¿Qué Deberíamos Hacer Con Alice? (Nosotros como en IBM)

Escribimos acerca de esta perorata de Schecter la semana pasada y esto es lo que IP Watchdog escribe: “En la mañana del martes 19 de abril de 2016, Manny Schecter, que es el principal asesor de patentes de IBM, hizo una presentación de apertura en los Insights Innography conferencia de 2016 en Austin, Texas. El título de su presentación fue sencilla y directa: ¿Qué debemos hacer con Alice”?

Hay una fuerte y creciénte cabildeo por las patentes de software financiado por las corporationes en los EE.UU.

Talvez el “nosotros” no es IBM pero IBM asociado con su antiguo empleado, quien se convirtió en Director de la USPTO y ahora un cabildero financiado por IBM contra Alice. A juzgar por tweets relacionados con el presente (Gen Quinn quien me bloqueó en Twitter no por que haya sido grosero, sino debido a que perdió el argumento, pero todavía puedo ver lo que hace y escribe), estos propagandistas han creado una especie de alianza anti-Alice y algunos son pagados directamente (Kappos por ejemplo), así como indirectamente. No es amor al chancho sino a los chicharrones. Vale la pena recordar que Schecter y Quinn son cercanos (compadres diríamos nosotros).
Vean cómo incluso Martin Goetz (proponente de las patentes de software por mucho tiempo, junto a Quinn) se une a este esfuerzo de presión en IP Watchdog. Esto no es una coincidencia, ¿verdad? Hay una fuerte y creciénte cabildeo por las patentes de software financiado por las corporationes en los EE.UU. en este momento. Más luz necesita ser derramada en esta campaña y estamos contentos de ver que incluso Crouch (Patently-O) así como IAM no pueden negar esto. Los conglomerados de agresión de patentes (por ejemplo, la mencionada Sagrada Familia), junto con sus abogados de patentes, obviamente, tratan – y tratarán – de hacer fracasar la decisión de SCOTUS contra las patentes de software, pero inteligentemente esconden su papel con el fin de evitar o minimizar la inercia.
”Protegiéndo GUIS con Patentes de Diseño”
El primero de estos ataques, suficiéntemente revelador, vino del antiguo Consejero en Jefe de PatentesChief de Microsoft. El mismo incorrégible/noreformable Microsoft que todavía cabildea y paga a cabilderos para recuperar los colmillos de las patentes de software.”
Alla en MIP, hace unos dias, este artículo aconsejó a compañías a perseguir patentes de diseño (“protegiendo GUIS con patentes de diseño”) cuando las patentes de software sean rechazadas. Para citar al sumario: “la protección útil de patentes para las invenciónes de software ha sido severamente limitada desde la decisión Alice. Tracy-Gene G Durkin considera una alternativa: proteger GUIS con patentes de diseño” (simplemente otra clase de patentes de software, el cual podría muy pronto ser inválidas con intervención de SCOTUS tambiém).

“Estos casos clave ofrecen una oportunidad significativa para establecer aclaraciones muy necesarias.”

Crouch de Patently-Oreconoció que Hay un esfuerzo concertado presionándo al Congreso para eliminar las elegibilidad de restricciones de la Sección 101″. y parece como si este sitio se ha convertido en un campo de batalla § 101, en medio de esta nueva campaña de presión, basado en tres artículos muy recientes. Éste sobre “el significado del § 101 en un post invitado por Jeffrey A. Lefstin, Profesor de la Universidad de California, Hastings College of Law, y Peter S. Menell, Profesor de la Universidad de California, Berkeley en la Escuela de Derecho.

Actualmente tener muchas patentes tiene un efecto negativo en la industria, a menos que uno hable de la industria de los abogados de patentes.”

Otra acerca de § 101 proviene de un abogados de patentes, a saber, “Bruce Wexler [...] y Edwin Mok [...] Su práctica se centra en los litigios sobre patentes y ensayos.” (En otras palabras, se beneficiarían del derribo de Alice y un cambio de § 101).
El primero de estos ataques, suficiéntemente revelador, vino del antiguo Consejero en Jefe de PatentesChief de Microsoft. El mismo incorrégible/noreformable Microsoft que todavía cabildea y paga a cabilderos para recuperar los colmillos de las patentes de software. Ahora consigue una plataforma para su cabildeo. Para crédito de Patently-O hay al menos una divulgación de tres artículos. Lo que el ex asesor de patentes en jefe de Microsoft dijo fue: “Estamos en un momento crítico en la definición del alcance y aplicación correcta de la Sección 101. A menos que el poder judicial delinee un marco más claro para permitir la protección de patentes significativa en áreas como la biotecnología y software en el que Estados Unidos tiene sido un líder en tecnología, los EE.UU. podrían perder rápidamente su ventaja competitiva en estas industrias vitales.”
Su problema no es clarificar; ellos simplemente están molestos que les están negando patentes en las cortes o en la oficina de patentes.”

Esas son mamadas. Actualmente tener muchas patentes tiene un efecto negativo en la industria, a menos que uno hable de la industria de los abogados de patentes. También dijo: “Si bien no creo que todavía es tiempo de adoptar medidas legislativas, llamadas recientes para la abolición de la Sección 101 en su totalidad y la insatisfacción con la aplicación de la prueba de Mayo/Alice está alcanzando un nivel crítico. Estos casos clave ofrecen una oportunidad significativa para establecer ”aclaraciones” necesarias. En caso de que esta oportunidad se puede perder, es difícil ver cómo una intervención del Congreso puede ser evitado.”

Lo para ellos significa “clarificaciones” (estrategia usada por Kappos) es su eliminación. Su problema no es clarificar; ellos simplemente están molestos que les están negando patentes en las cortes o en la oficina de patentes.
“Las ventas de Lumia disminuyeron un 73%, Tiene una venta sólo de 2,3 millones de unidades en total.”
Windows mobile está prácticamentemuerto.”
Mientras tanto, juzgando por las últimas noticias de Microsoft, sus acciones cayeron como una roca después de los decepcionantes resultados (también disminuyen en la tributación/impuestos de patentes) que conducirá a aún más despidos, como señalamos aquí el viernes. IAM salió con con el titular “Microsoft informa un declive en dinero proveniente de Android y pueda tener que mirar a Asia para cerrar la brecha“. “Microsoft no da a conocer los números de licencia”, escribió IAM “, pero algunos han estimado que la empresa podría estar haciendo la mayor cantidad de $ 6 mil millones cada año a partir de monetizar activos de patentes que las reclamaciones se leen en el sistema operativo Android de Google.” estos son meramente especulaciones, como hemos venido diciendo aquí durante años. Microsoft también utiliza las patentes de coacción, no sólo gravar el dinero, por lo que hay un costo oculto/ganancia del chantaje patentes/extorsión/extorsión (IAM defiende este chantaje a pesar de la Ley RICO). No es difícil ver por qué Microsoft recurrió a estas tácticas feas. Como este nuevo artículo dice: “Sobre la base de la información proporcionada en el informe trimestral reciente de la compañía, los ingresos de la compañía de la división móvil registró un descenso del 46%. Además, en los últimos tres meses, su teléfono inteligente, Lumia, disminuyó sus ventas en un 73%, vendiéndo sólo 2,3 millones de unidades en total.”
“Cazadores de Talentos de Microsoft Buscan Gente de Linux”
En vez de hacer algo de valor Microsoft actualmente opera como un parásito dentro de anfitrión’, sea Android o lo que sea.”
Windows mobile está virtualmentmuerto. Es un muertohombrecaminando. Se le mantiene vivo por malguíadas especulaciónes que pueda recuperárse, pero ni siquiera infiltrándo y destruyendo Nokia contribuyeron a ello. En vez de hacer algo de valor Microsoft actualmente opera como un parásito dentro de ‘anfitrión’, sea Android o lo que sea. Cuando se trata de GNU/Linux en el desktop, Microsoft está tratando de convertirse en su anfitrión para (devorar) GNU/Linux. la extorsión de Microsoft de Linux a través de las patentes de software no obstante, hay un nuevo grupo de artículos (basado en el Canal de Microsoft 9) acerca de cómo logra devorarlo [1, 2, 3] y también aprendemos que Microsoft intenta devorar a los empleados del competidor, simplemente como lo hizo a Borland (vea los artículos “Microsoft está contratando gente de Linux para una secreta unidad de código abierto” y “cazadores de talentos de Microsoft buscan gente de Linux para su secreta unidad de código abierto“). De acuerdo al portavoz de Microsoft (Ina Fried), todo está bien y Microsoft “viene en paz” (cobertura engañosa usualmente). Como una red de noticias conectada a Microsoft lo puso: “. Esta idea proviene de un par de citas dado a volver reportero/citar de Ina Fried esta semana” Fried es más como Microsoft PR desde sus días de CNET, casi no es una reportero objetivo y también una autor de la propuesta de largo plazo de la agresión de patentes de Microsoft. Ella solía ser la principal portavoz de la CBS de Microsoft, le asigna la sección “Microsoft”, donde también habló mal habitualmente Linux. Así que esto parece como otro ejercicio de relaciones públicas.

Mientras Microsoft impulsauna acción antimonopolio contra Android y utiliza las patentes contra Android se supone que debemos creer que hay paz ahora. Para citar: “Microsoft ha discutido mucho con socios de hardware de Google acerca de las supuestas violaciones de patentes de software asociados con el uso de Android, un sistema operativo móvil de código abierto impulsado por Google.”

Mientras Microsoft impulsa una acción antimonopolio contra Android y utiliza las patentes contra Android se supone que debemos creer que hay paz ahora.

¿A acabado esto alguna vez? NO

Microsoft Ha Estado Cazando Furtivamente Completas Linux Distribuciones A Traves de “Sociedades” Con Aquellas Compañíás”

Alla en FOSS Force, Christine Hall afirma que “Microsoft Se Está Convirtiéndoe El Nuevo Pero Exitóso, Novell” (la comparación es débil).

“Microsoft Ha Estado Cazando Furtivamente Completas Linux Distribuciones A Traves de “Sociedades” Con Aquellas Compañíás” Hall nota. No ha cambiado nada desde entonces.

Fraudulentamente Obtuvo Patentes y Matoneó A Competidores para dominar el Mercado

“Microsoft puede ahora ser persiguiéndo las patentes de Yahoo, años después de haber destruido afectivamente la empresa (Microsoft recuerdan cómo ‘robó’ las patentes de Novell después de la demolición de la compañía).”

Microsoft puede ahora ser persiguiendo las patentes de Yahoo, años después de haber destruido afectivamente la empresa (recuérden comoMicrosoft ‘robó’ las patentes de Novell después de la demolición de la compañía). Comprar estas patentes on sería tan caro ahor porque, como este nuevo artículo lo pone: “La decisión Alices de 2015 de la Corte Suprema de los EE.UU, “evisceró los métodos de negocios de patentes de varias compañías y daño muchas patentes de software,” dijo la firma.”
¿Cuántos más proyectos y las empresas tienen que ser destruidos antes de que sea ampliamente entendido que Microsoft es malicioso y no se puede confiar en él? Históricamente, y especialmente en la última década (desde que el acuerdo Novell), Microsoft ha utilizado patentes para intimidar a los rivales y monopolizar el mercado, al igual que OptumInsight **. No debería ser sorprendente que detrás de las escenas y detrás de proxies Microsoft ha estado presionando a los reguladores europeos por FRAND (esencialmente patentes de software) en las normas, poner en marcha una acción antimonopolio contra Android (que está matando el monopolio de Windows), y ahora está pagando a Kappos la promoción de las patentes de software en los EE.UU.. ¿Se supone que debemos creer Microsoft ha cambiado realmente? No sean cójudos por favor.

_________
* El ciclo de noticias también ha respondido a la cambio en la atención, con un nuevo artículo señalando que: “La Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos esta semana se negó a revisar la decisión de una corte de apelaciones federal para reactivar un veredicto por violación de patente $ 45 millones en contra de Limelight Networks Inc.” Este es que afecta también a las empresas no tecnológicas, como de acuerdo con esto: “la decisión Genetic Technologies se une a una larga lista de otros casos que demuestran cómo los casos de la Corte Suprema de Mayo y Alice están creando cambios radicales en el sistema de patentes de Estados Unidos.” el uso de 35 USC § 101 para invalidar las patentes de software y la CBM, Samsung se encuentra Alice útil. Para citar: “Samsung presentó inicialmente una petición para instituir método de negocio cubierta (CBM) de revisión de patentes de la reivindicación 11 de la patente de EE.UU. Nº 8.033.458 en base a la afirmación de que la reivindicación 11 se dirige a la patente objeto inelegible bajo 35 USC § 101. Más tarde, Apple presentó una petición para instituir opinión CBM de la reivindicación 11, basándose en la misma planta, y Apple presentó simultáneamente una “Propuesta de Acumulación” de su nuevo caso presentado con el caso previamente establecido de Samsung. El PTAB concedió la petición de Apple y consolida los dos procedimientos “.
** Veán el nuevo artículo de “Arreglos Necesarios en Trifulca de Patentes de Software Medicas”
Un juez federal desestimó el viernes con permiso para modificar una demanda reclamando una empresa de análisis de datos de patentes obtenidas de forma fraudulenta y competidores intimidado a dominar el mercado de la organización de reclamaciones médicas de software.
Cueva Consulting Group, o CCGroup, demandaron OptumInsight en julio de 2015, acusando a la empresa de defensa de violaciónes, publicidad falsa y persecución maliciosa.
CCGroup dice Simmetry Salud Data Systems, adquirida por OptumInsight en 2003, mintió y omitió hechos cuando se solicitó y defendió las patentes con la patente de EE.UU. y la Oficina de Marcas.
Simmetry y más tarde OptumInsight llegó a controlar el 85 al 90 por ciento del mercado de software médico reivindicaciones mero tras demandar dos competidores por infringir sus patentes “mal habidas”, reclamó el CCGroup.
 

04.24.16

New Microsoft-Funded Push to Make Software Patents Stronger in the US, Backed by the Usual Suspects as Microsoft Increasingly Struggles as a Producing Company

Posted in IBM, Law, Microsoft, Patents at 12:13 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

IBM too fits these criteria, on all counts (lobbying, funding, and layoffs, aspiration to become patent licensing-oriented)

Lamp
Shady manipulations behind § 101

Summary: A look at the effort to bring about a software patents resurgence to the US (with clear Microsoft role in it) and Microsoft’s reliance on software patents as a weapon against Linux/Android because Windows profits dry up and Windows Phone is on the verge of collapse

“Concerted Effort to Push Congress to Eliminate the Eligibility Restrictions of Section 101″

THE TECHRIGHTS focus has shifted somewhat from EPO to § 101 (in the US) as of late*, in proportionate reaction to a new kind of assault on § 101 from former Director of the USPTO, David Kappos, and those who pay him to do so. It is too hard to ignore the lobbying from an increasingly greedy David Kappos, bankrolled by the software patents industry (Microsoft included) for and even others have noticed it.

“This is an effort to legalise software patents without any rigid exceptions.”As Professor Dennis Crouch put it the other day: “Concerted effort to push congress to eliminate the eligibility restrictions of Section 101.”

This is an effort to legalise software patents without any rigid exceptions. We are supposed to believe that large (mega) corporations are more important than the US Supreme Court and simply brush aside what the Supreme Court ruled on. “That is the suggestion,” Crouch added, “perhaps a limit on “abstract ideas as such”.”

Borrowing the loopholes of the EPO (“as such”)? As the FFII’s Benjamin Henrion put it, “no as such please.”

“Remember who is bankrolling Kappos to lobby for software patents.”

“It Does Look like Both IBM and Microsoft are on Manouevres”

Remember who is bankrolling Kappos to lobby for software patents. Even our longtime ‘friends’ at IAM wrote: “It does look like both IBM and Microsoft are on manouevres.”

This was said in relation to the above.

What we have here is further affirmation that (1) there is a “Concerted effort to push congress to eliminate the eligibility restrictions of Section 101.” (2) “It does look like both IBM and Microsoft are on manouevres.”

“Maybe the “we” isn’t IBM but IBM along with its former employee, who became USPTO Director and now an IBM-funded lobbyist against Alice.”It’s not just us who have been seeing this and writing about it then. A lot of these manouevres or “Concerted effort” are boosted by Gene Quinn and his pro-software patents circles at IP Watchdog. A few days ago they wrote about car-driving patents (putting in algorithms what people have done for generations), noting: “It’s in this atmosphere that Eagle Harbor Holdings, LLC (EHH), of Rolling Bay, WA, is looking to chart a course forward on the sale of a patent portfolio related to connected vehicles and autonomous cars. Beginning this week, EHH will be seeking out prospective buyers for a portfolio with 74 total assets, including 42 patents issued and 17 patent families.”

“What Should We Do About Alice?”

A more revealing article was titled “What should we do about Alice?” (we as in IBM?)

We wrote about this spiel from Schecter last week and here is what IP Watchdog writes: “On Tuesday morning, April 19, 2016, Manny Schecter, who is IBM’s chief patent counsel, gave a keynote presentation at the Innography Insights 2016 conference in Austin, Texas. The title of his presentation was simple and straightforward: What should we do about Alice?”

“There’s a strong and ever-growing corporations-funded lobby for software patents in the US right now.”Maybe the “we” isn’t IBM but IBM along with its former employee, who became USPTO Director and now an IBM-funded lobbyist against Alice. Judging by tweets related to this (Gene Quinn blocked me in Twitter not because I was rude but because he lost the argument, but I can still get around the block and see what he writes), these propagandists have created some kind of anti-Alice alliance and some are paid for it directly (Kappos for example), not just indirectly. It is worth remembering that Schecter and Quinn are also pretty close.

Watch how even Martin Goetz (longtime proponent of software patents, close to Quinn) joins this lobbying effort over at IP Watchdog. This can’t be a coincidence, can it? There’s a strong and ever-growing corporations-funded lobby for software patents in the US right now. More light needs to be shed on this campaign and we are happy to see that even Crouch (Patently-O) and IAM recognise this. The conglomerates of patent aggression (e.g. IBM and Microsoft) along with their patent lawyers obviously try to derail the SCOTUS decision against software patents, but they cleverly hide their role in order to avoid or minimise backlash.

“Protecting GUIs with Design Patents”

“The first in the series, interestingly enough, came from the former Chief Patent Counsel at Microsoft. That’s the same unreformed Microsoft which still lobbies and pays lobbyists to restore software patents’ teeth.”Over at MIP, just a few days ago, this article advised companies to pursue design patents (“protecting GUIs with design patents”) when software patents are denied. To quote the summary: “Utility patent protection for software inventions has been severely limited since the Alice decision. Tracy-Gene G Durkin considers an alternative: protecting GUIs with design patents” (just another kind of software patents, which might soon become invalid with SCOTUS intervention as well).

“These Key Cases Offer a Significant Opportunity to Establish Much-needed Clarifications”

Patently-O‘s Crouch acknowledged that there’s a “Concerted effort to push congress to eliminate the eligibility restrictions of Section 101″ and it looks as though his site has become a § 101 battleground, amid this new lobbying campaign, based on three very recent articles. This one about “the Meaning of § 101″ is a “Guest post by Jeffrey A. Lefstin, Professor, University of California, Hastings College of Law, and Peter S. Menell, Professor, University of California, at Berkeley School of Law.”

“Having too many patents actually has a negative effect on the industry, unless one speaks of the meta-industry of patent lawyers.”Another one about § 101 comes from a patent lawyers, namely “Bruce Wexler [...] and Edwin Mok [...] Their practice focuses on patent litigation and trials.” (in other words, they would profit from shooting down Alice and changing § 101).

The first in the series, interestingly enough, came from the former Chief Patent Counsel at Microsoft. That’s the same unreformed Microsoft which still lobbies and pays lobbyists to restore software patents’ teeth. It now gets a platform for this lobbying. To Patently-O‘s credit, there is at least a disclosure in all three articles. What the former Chief Patent Counsel at Microsoft said was: “We are at a critical juncture on defining the proper scope and application of Section 101. Unless the judiciary delineates a clearer framework for enabling meaningful patent protection in areas like biotech and software where America has been a technology leader, the U.S. could rapidly lose its competitive edge in these vital industries.”

“Their issue isn’t clarify; they’re just angry that they’re being denied patents either at the courts or at the patent office.”That’s nonsense. Having too many patents actually has a negative effect on the industry, unless one speaks of the meta-industry of patent lawyers. He also said: “While I don’t believe it is yet time to take legislative action, recent calls for the abolition of Section 101 entirely and dissatisfaction with application of the Mayo/Alice test is reaching a critical level. These key cases offer a significant opportunity to establish much-needed clarifications. Should this opportunity be missed, it is hard to see how Congressional action can be avoided.”

What they mean by “clarifications” (the strategy used by Kappos) is elimination. Their issue isn’t clarify; they’re just angry that they’re being denied patents either at the courts or at the patent office.

“Lumia, Has Its Sales Decreased by 73%, Selling Only 2.3 Million Units in Total”

“Windows in mobile is virtually dead.”Meanwhile, judging by the latest Microsoft news, the shares drop like a rock after disappointing results (also decline in patent taxation) which will lead to yet more layoffs, as we noted here on Friday. IAM went along with the headline “Microsoft reports Android royalties decline and may have to look to Asia to plug the gap”. “Microsoft does not release lined-out licensing numbers,” IAM wrote, “but some have estimated that the company could be making as much as $6 billion each year from monetising patent assets that it claims are read on by Google’s Android operating system.” These are purely speculations, as we have been saying here for years. Microsoft also uses patents for coercion, not just tax money, so there’s a hidden cost/gain from patent blackmail/extortion/racketeering (IAM defends this blackmail in spite of the RICO Act). It’s not hard to see why Microsoft resorted to these ugly tactics. As this new article puts it: “Based on the information provided in the company’s recent quarterly report, the company’s revenue from the mobile division saw a fall of 46%. Additionally, in the last three months, its smart phone, Lumia, has its sales decreased by 73%, selling only 2.3 million units in total.”

“Microsoft Headhunters Seek Linux Folk”

“Rather than make something of value Microsoft now operates like a parasite inside a ‘host’, be it Android or whatever.”Windows in mobile is virtually dead. It’s a dead ‘man’ walking. It’s only kept alive because of misguided speculations that there can be a rebound, but not even infiltrating and destroying Nokia contributed towards that. Rather than make something of value Microsoft now operates like a parasite inside a ‘host’, be it Android or whatever. When it comes to GNU/Linux on the desktop, Microsoft is trying to become the host of (devour) GNU/Linux. Microsoft’s extortion of Linux using software patents notwithstanding, there’s a new bunch of articles (based on Microsoft’s Channel 9) about how the devouring it achieved [1, 2, 3] and we also learn that Microsoft tries to devour employees of the competitor, just as it did to Borland (see the articles “Microsoft Is Hiring Linux Folks For A Secret Open Source Unit” and “Microsoft headhunters seek Linux folk for secret open source unit”). According to Microsoft’s mouthpiece (Ina Fried), all is well and Microsoft “comes in peace” (misleading coverage ensued). As a Microsoft-connected news network put it: “That notion comes from a couple of quotes given to re/code reporter Ina Fried this week.” Fried is more like Microsoft PR since her days at CNET, hardly am objective reporter and also a longtime proponent of Microsoft’s patent aggression. She used to be Microsoft’s main CBS mouthpiece, assigned the “Microsoft” section, where she also habitually badmouthed Linux. So this seems like another PR exercise.

While Microsoft pushes for antitrust action against Android and uses patents against Android we’re supposed to believe that there’s peace now. To quote: “Microsoft has long sparred with Google’s hardware partners regarding alleged software patent infringements associated with the use Android, a Google-fostered open source mobile operating system.”

“While Microsoft pushes for antitrust action against Android and uses patents against Android we’re supposed to believe that there’s peace now.”Has that ever stopped? No.

“Microsoft Has Been Poaching Entire Linux Distros Through “Partnerships” With the Companies”

Over at FOSS Force, Christine Hall asserts that “Microsoft’s Becoming the New, but Successful, Novell” (the comparison here is weak).

“Microsoft has been poaching entire Linux distros through “partnerships” with the companies,” Hall notes. Not much has changed since.

“Fraudulently Obtained Patents and Bullied Competitors to Dominate the Market”

“Microsoft may now be pursing Yahoo’s patents, years after affectively destroying the company (remember how Microsoft ‘stole’ Novell’s patents after demolishing the company).”Microsoft may now be pursing Yahoo's patents, years after affectively destroying the company (remember how Microsoft ‘stole’ Novell’s patents after demolishing the company). Buying these patents might not even be so expensive because, as this new article put it: “The US Supreme Court’s 2015 Alice decision, “gutted business method patents and damaged many software patents,” stated the firm.”

How many more projects and companies need to be destroyed before it’s widely understood that Microsoft is malicious and cannot be trusted? Historically, and especially over the past decade (since the Novell deal), Microsoft has used patents to intimidate rivals and monopolise the market, just like OptumInsight**. It shouldn’t be surprising that behind the scenes and behind proxies Microsoft has been pushing European regulators to put FRAND (essentially software patents) in standards, launch antitrust action against Android (which is killing the Windows monopoly), and is now paying Kappos to promote software patents in the US. Are we supposed to really believe Microsoft has changed?
______
* The news cycle too has responded to the shift in attention, with one new article noting that: “The U.S. Supreme Court this week declined to review a federal appeals court’s decision to revive a $45 million patent infringement verdict against Limelight Networks Inc.” This is affecting also non-technology companies, as according to this: “The Genetic Technologies decision joins a long list of other cases demonstrating how the Supreme Court cases of Mayo and Alice are creating sweeping changes in the US patent system.” Using 35 U.S.C. § 101 to invalidate CBM and software patents, Samsung finds Alice useful. To quote: “Samsung initially filed a Petition to institute covered business method (CBM) patent review of claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 8,033,458 based upon the assertion that claim 11 is directed to patent ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Later, Apple filed a Petition to institute CBM review of claim 11 based on the same ground, and Apple simultaneously filed a “Motion for Joinder” of their newly filed case with Samsung’s previously instituted case. The PTAB granted Apple’s Petition and consolidated the two proceedings.”

** See the new article titled “Fixes Needed in Medical Software Patent Spat”

A federal judge on Friday dismissed with leave to amend a lawsuit claiming a data analytics company fraudulently obtained patents and bullied competitors to dominate the market for medical claims organizing software.

Cave Consulting Group, or CCGroup, sued OptumInsight in July 2015, accusing the firm of antitrust violations, false advertising and malicious prosecution.

CCGroup says Symmetry Health Data Systems, acquired by OptumInsight in 2003, lied and omitted facts when it applied for and defended patents with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Symmetry and later OptumInsight came to control 85 to 90 percent of the medical claims grouper software market after suing two competitors for infringing its “ill-gotten patents”, CCGroup claims.

04.20.16

Corporate Lobbying for Software Patents in the United States and Against Alice, Against Patent Reform

Posted in Apple, IBM, Law, Microsoft, Patents at 9:09 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Billionaires and their think tanks too get involved

Manny Schecter
IBM pushing for software patents not just via lobbyists like former IBMer, David Kappos (on IBM’s payroll for lobbying now), but also IBM’s Manny Schecter (above). Photo credit: Esteban Minero

Summary: The law surrounding patents in the United States continues to be manipulated or at least lobbied on by large corporations such as IBM and Microsoft, as well as by think tanks such as CATO Institute

THE PAST few weeks were spent looking at the front group led by David Kappos, who is paid by software firms such as IBM, Microsoft, and more recently Apple, which evidently has a lot at stake (it has just settled a patent lawsuit and here are ten of the earliest reports we were able to find about this [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]). Kappos is trying to diminish if not demolish the impact of Alice so that software patents continue to do their damage (recall the lawsuits from Microsoft against Linux, Apple against Android, and IBM against various Internet companies as of late).

“Kappos is trying to diminish if not demolish the impact of Alice so that software patents continue to do their damage (recall the lawsuits from Microsoft against Linux, Apple against Android, and IBM against various Internet companies as of late).”IAM ‘magazine’, a proponent of this Kappos lobbying agenda (openly so), has just said: “As this blog and others have reported, there has been a general increase in patent activity in the auto sector in recent years, which has brought with it a rise in new infringement lawsuits and activity at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). However according to data recently released by Unified Patents, the number of lawsuits in the sector dropped last year, despite a rise in the overall number of new patent cases in the US. There were 126 new cases filed in 2015 involving carmakers and their suppliers. That was down from 154 in 2014 and 160 the year before.”

Drop in litigation is a good thing, unless one runs a litigious company that is suing rivals or threatening rivals in order to extract ‘protection money’ (settlement). Recent statistics suggest that a vast proportion of patent lawsuits are now being filed by patent trolls, who typically use software patents. According to the above, which refers to trolls using common euphemisms, patent trolls “still account for the lion’s share of new cases with 88 suits filed last year.”

“Drop in litigation is a good thing, unless one runs a litigious company that is suing rivals or threatening rivals in order to extract ‘protection money’ (settlement).”One patent propagandist offers support to his buddy at IBM, which is increasingly a patent aggressor/bully. He previously interviewed him. “IBM’s Manny Schecter,” he wrote, “giving keynote @Innography #Insights2016 today @ 11am CT on “What should we do about Alice?” A very good question!”

One approach embraced by Manny (so far) is rather simple; pay David Kappos, a former IBM employee, to lobby the system. It’s sort of weird that the question is, “What should we do about Alice?”

“One approach embraced by Manny (so far) is rather simple; pay David Kappos, a former IBM employee, to lobby the system.”That’s like asking, “what should we do about the Supreme Court?” IBM seems arrogant enough to attack or discredit the highest court via Kappos (IBM).

The same kind of quote comes from this tweet, which says “IBM Chief Patent Counsel @MannySchecter @Innography Insights – What Should We Do About Alice?” (to his pleasure, based on his response).

“Don’t let IBM, Microsoft, Apple etc. effectively buy the law by ‘buying’ former officials like Kappos.”The one good thing about David Kappos, Manny Schecter and various other proponents of software patents (or boosters of IBM’s patent aggression) is that they help demonstrate/highlight how corrupt the patent system is. One conspiring to shape one’s system by lobbying is not illegal, but to put one’s staff in key positions and to pay to change law may be. Don’t let IBM, Microsoft, Apple etc. effectively buy the law by ‘buying’ former officials like Kappos. It’s a mockery of a system that’s supposed to be shaped by public interests. Ask Manny Schecter how much money, other than lots of salaries, IBM has just paid Kappos to legalise/promote software patents in the US. Generally speaking, try to find out who’s paying to change the law and how much. Yesterday we became aware of a ‘Conservative’ (corporatist) think tank of the Koch Brothers (CATO) publishing a paper on patents (spring edition), downplaying the severity of the patent system’s problems [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9] to essentially defend patent trolls, which mostly come from (or to) Texas. This paper, based on the feedback, is widely liked by patent lawyers from Texas.

« Previous entries Next Page » 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