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

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.

04.19.16

Software Patents Decreasingly a Threat in the United States, But IBM and Microsoft Lobby for a Rebound

Posted in IBM, Microsoft, Patents at 8:11 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

David Kappos as lobbyist
Source: David Kappos interview with Intellectual Property Magazine (2010), modified by us

Summary: Software patents are not as scary as they used to be (because many are effectively found to be of no value, or ruled invalid by US courts), but patent aggressors including IBM and Microsoft work towards a software patents comeback, aided by well-connected officials such as David Kappos (above)

THE reality behind software patents in the United States (or patent policy in general) isn’t just shaped by the USPTO, which grants patents too sparingly, but also by the courts, which increasingly demonstrate that the USPTO isn't doing its job (which should be examination and thus elimination of weak applications).

“Judging by the Bilski case, it might take another decade before Alice is shaken at all (if at all).”According to this new examination of upcoming SCOTUS cases, there is no imminent challenge to Alice. Judging by the Bilski case, it might take another decade before Alice is shaken at all (if at all). “Following its April 15 Conference,” wrote Patently-O, “the Supreme Court denied certiorari in a set of cases, including Vermont v. MPHJ; Limelight v. Akamai; Hemopet v. Hill’s Pet Nutrition; and Tas v. Beachy. In its April 1 Conference, the Court denied cert in Retirement Capital v. US Bancorp. That case had questioned whether subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is a ground specified as a condition for patentability under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b)(2).”

It seems like very good news, unless you’re some patent lawyer or patent aggressor such IBM or Microsoft (they both pay the former Director of the USPTO to discredit SCOTUS rulings and restore the fangs of software patents by altering § 101). Over in Texas (capital of patent trolls, see yesterday's article to that effect) the press now bemoans Alice, i.e. the death of many software patents in the United States. The article was composed by patent lawyers (surprise surprise!) and it says:

Yes, we’re being a bit dramatic here but Alice has been killing patents, and especially software patents, at an impressive clip. In this case, Alice refers to the 2014 U.S. Supreme Court opinion Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank. In that opinion, the Court announced a new two-step process to determine whether an idea is patentable and, ever since, this two-step process has been applied by courts and the Patent Office to disallow patents at an unprecedented rate. Law360 calculated that courts are granting around 70 percent of Alice motions. In raw numbers, there were more patents killed in the 14 months after Alice than in the five years before it.

It all sounds like good news, unless one is a greedy patent lawyer, especially from a place like Texas. Decline in proactive activity which invalidates software patents in the US has just been reported by MIP. To quote: “A total of 118 petitions were filed at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in March, down from 150 in February but up on the 99 in January. In contrast, 145 petitions were filed in March 2015.”

“It all sounds like good news, unless one is a greedy patent lawyer, especially from a place like Texas.”Perhaps — and we are only guessing here — after Alice-led challenges (which ultimately killed patents at the knock of a gavel) more companies realise that software patents would not survive the courts anyway. It means that there’s less incentive to sue at all. Suing can lead to loss of patents. As MIP put it in another article, “Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) petition filing in the first three months of 2016 fell to its lowest quarterly figure for two years.”

What matters, however, is rate/ratio of invalidation.

So less than two years after PTAB’s formation it seems to have become less necessary because the core issue, which is patent scope (or quality), is being addressed/tackled by Alice.

FOSS Force, a site which deals with Free/Open Source software (FOSS) matters, has just run a poll about software patents and here is what it came up with (see charts in page). To quote the author: “In recent years software patents haven’t been nearly as much in the news as they once were. This is partly due to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Alice Corp. vs. CLS Bank which took a slew of patents off the table. Also, thanks to the efforts of companies such as Newegg to duke it out in court instead of rolling over and settling, many patents that had been successfully leveraged by the trolls for years have been invalidated.”

“Both are aggressive patent predators amid layoffs which threaten their very monopolistic existence.”It sure seems like things are improving in the US, but don’t take that for granted. Companies like IBM and Microsoft (or more recently Apple) hire lobbyists in an effort to restore the old state of affairs, enabling more patent extortion against small companies. Recall what Microsoft is still doing against FOSS distributors (using patents on software for coercion and taxation) and then consider IBM's controversial joining. Both are aggressive patent predators amid layoffs which threaten their very monopolistic existence.

As we noted here some days ago, having maliciously destroyed Yahoo, Microsoft might now go after Yahoo’s patents, which MIP says aren’t that expensive anyway. To quote: “It identified 2,000 US patents currently assigned to Yahoo that are active and in-force. Yahoo’s 2015 10-K reveals the company reported almost $300 million in gains related to patent sales between 2013 and 2015.”

As for IBM, there’s some new patent propaganda (just published for IBM marketing), femmewashing its patents and wrongly equating them with “invention”.

04.15.16

Nuevas Patentes de Software de Google, Microsoft y Apple, Más Cabildeo de David Kappos (Financiado por Microsoft y Apple)

Posted in America, Apple, Google, IBM, Law, Microsoft, Patents at 7:21 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

English/Original

Article as ODF

Publicadoen America, Apple, Google, IBM, Law, Microsoft, Patentes at 8:40 am por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz

David Kappos demuestra que las leyes están a la venta en los EE.UU. Incluso las leyes de patentes

David Kappos

Fuente: : David Kappos 2013 interview

Kappos PAI

Kappos a la cabeza de un grupo financiado por grandes corpóraciones pero conveniéntemente no fue llamada Partnership of Megacorporations

Sumario: Las patentes de software no van a desaparecer todavía simplemente porque compañías como las integrantes de la Sagrada Familia: Microsoft, Apple and IBM (de donde Kappos proviene) usan su dinero para cabildeo, esenciálmente comprando la legislación

EL otro día escribimos acerca depatentes sobre conducir, siendo el contexto (enparte)la iniciativa de Google, que hizo noticias la semana pasada, e.g. [1, 2, 3, 4]. Google está tratando de patentar el conducir [1, 2], lo que trae un montón de preguntas acerca de la esfera de patentes y arte previo, los seres humanos ya manejan carros y lo han hecho por muchos años). Sin dudar estas son patentes de software. Ellas afectan el área de mi investigación, la que es computer vision/machine vision (puramente software/mathematics), no señal de procesamiénto (hardware connotación en ello).

Si a Kappos le queda algo de dignidad, va a tener que esconderse debajo de una roca y no reforzar la percepción de que el sistema de patentes por el que trabajaba está profundamente corrupto.
De acuerdo a otras noticias (“Microsoft patents end-to-end encryption”), lala NSA es un pionero en vigilancia másivaquiere un monopolio en encryption [1, 2, 3, 4], en relación a un sistema operativo que es la antithesis de encryption (vigilancia másiva en tiempo real).
Mientras tanto, también nos enteramos que, un agresor de patentesconectado a Microsoft, continúaenjuiciando a Symantec. Como un defensor patentes de software lo puso: “Finjan Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: FNJN), padre de la filial de Finjan, Inc., anunció hace unas semanas que la prueba de Patentes y Junta de Apelación (PTAB) de los Estados Unidos de patentes y Marcas (USPTO) emitió la resolución final de los intentos de los de Symantec Corporation (NASDAQ: SYMC) para invalidar las patentes de 8 Finjan diferentes a través de la revisión de interpartes (IPR).

Por lo tanto, en este caso particular, la PTAB no eliminó las patentes de software, para variar. Motivo de celebración entre los abogados de patentes, pero ¿qué quiere decir de todos los demás? La agresión de patentes de Apple con las patentes de software sigue siendo, de acuerdo a esta noticia, una “cosa” ya que “esta última patente es más orientada a programas.” Muchas de las patentes de Apple ha estado usando para atacar a Linux (o Android) han sido las patentes de software o patentes de diseño, que son inherentemente similar a (o) un tipo de patentes de software.

Ahora que las patentes de software están generalmente bajo ataque y se enfrentan a una amenaza existencial en los EE.UU. (SCOTUS ya ha matado a muchos de ellas con Alice y pronto se podría hacer lo mismo con las patentes de diseño debido a la agresión de Apple) el ex Director de la USPTO, David Kappos, asoma su fea pelada cabeza de nuevo. Ahora trabaja como un grupo de presión para la Sagrada Familia: IBM, Microsoft, Apple, etc., y deshonra a la USPTO ya que actualmente recibe el dinero para cambiar las leyes a favor de susamos/clientes (que es una forma de “puertas giratorias” para la corrupción, girando/moviéndose de acuerdo a su influencias/conexiones con dinero). Como sitio este sitio de abogados acaba de ponerlo“El ex director de la Oficina de Patentes y Marcas de EE.UU., pidió el lunes por la abolición de la Sección 101 de la Ley de Patentes, que establece los límites de la materia patentable-elegibles, diciendo que decisiones como Alice en el tema son un” verdadero desastre “y amenazan la protección de patentes para las industrias clave de Estados Unidos. “lo que quiere decir con” verdadero desastre “es que crea incertidumbre para sus clientes/amos, como IBM, Microsoft y Apple (los que le sueltán la marmaja de dinero). Esto es una continuacion de algo que notamos aquí con anterioridad. Si a Kappos le queda algo de dignidad, va a tener que esconderse debajo de una roca y no reforzar la percepción de que el sistema de patentes por el que trabajaba está profundamente corrupto.

04.14.16

Codiciósos Acumuladores de Patentes de Software Caen en Picada en Los EE.UU

Posted in GNU/Linux, IBM, Microsoft, Patents, Samsung at 9:04 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

English/Original

Article as ODF

Publicado en GNU/Linux, IBM, Microsoft, Patents, Samsung at 10:58 am por el Dr.

Going down

Sumario: Casi dos años después de la histórica decisión Alice compañías que se embarcan de manera grade en las patentes de software (y regalías de patentes) están perdiéndo su preeminencia en elsistema de patentes de los EE. UU.
De acuerdo a este nuevo informe de IAM, Samsung es ahora el número 1 en las patentes de los EE.UU. (total). IBM está cayendo por la escalera con bastante rapidez en medio de despidos y vale la pena mencionar que IBM es ahora un agresor patentes. Ataca a las empresas legítimas, con las patentes de software como arma [1, 2] (estrategia de patentes típico de las empresas que estan en decadencia). Hablando de estas empresas, Microsoft está en el número 4 en su país de origen, tras haber perdido impulso no sólo como empresa (ahora en su mayoría una sanguijuela y parásito de patentes), sino también como un solicitante de patentes.

La buena noticia de todo esto es que, tradicionalmente, como muchos sitios señalan correctamente, las empresas coreanas no son agresivos con patentes. Samsung no es una excepción a esto. Además, que Samsung es una empresa productora (hardware), por lo que no muchos de sus patentes pertenecen al software. Samsung utiliza una gran cantidad de Linux en sus sistemas; en algunos casos se desarrolla sus propios sistemas operativos como Bada Tizen, o en lugar de confiar ciegamente en Android.

Otro informe IAM admitió que no era correcto. Habíá afirmado previamente que el troll de patentes de Ericsson se estaba cambiando el nombre/reformado de nuevo, pero esto resulta ser falso. IAM luego dice que algunas personas en Taiwan consideran hacer lo mismo (la creación de un troll propio, como el Licensing de Microsoft o Unwired Planet en el caso de Ericsson), pero sobre todo cita a las personas que se benefician de un litigio, no tecnólogos. Bueno, eso es clásico solamente de parte de IAM …

Mirando a algunos sitios centrados en patentes más creíbles, rápidamente nos enteramos de más de burbuja estallándo en este ámbito de las patentes. “La decisión del juez Dyk y unidos por el Juez Principal Prost y el juez Taranto afirma el despido de un tribunal inferior on-the-escritos de demanda por infracción de patentes de GTG,” dice Patently-O. “La celebración es que el procedimiento reivindicado para el análisis de ADN para el desequilibrio de ligamiento no es elegible para reclamar la manera más eficaz una ley de la naturaleza. La idea básica se deriva del descubrimiento de los inventores de que las regiones codificantes (exones) típicamente se correlacionan con “enlaces” ciertas regiones no codificantes (intrones). [...] GTG es una empresa australiana que había demandado previamente a unas pocas docenas de compañías por infringir la patentes 179. Las demandas se han reexaminado (a petición de Merial) y la patentabilidad confirmado.”

Actualmente, las patentesd de software no son tan potentes como solían ser (en las US courts/PTAB) lo muestran. Esperamos que las decisiones de los años venideros enviáran la señal de que hay poco/inexistente incentivo para las patentes de software, irrespectivamente de la laleniencia de la USPTO.

04.13.16

New Software Patents From Google, Microsoft and Apple, Plus New Lobbying From David Kappos (Paid by Microsoft and Apple)

Posted in America, Apple, Google, IBM, Law, Microsoft, Patents at 8:40 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

David Kappos demonstrates that laws are up for sale in the US, even patent laws

David Kappos
Source: David Kappos 2013 interview

Kappos PAI
Kappos-led group, funded by large corporations but conveniently not named Partnership of Megacorporations

Summary: Software patents are not going away just yet because companies such as Microsoft, Apple and IBM (which Kappos came from) use their money for lobbying, essentially buying legislation

THE other day we wrote about patents on driving, the context being (in part) Google’s initiative, which made the news this past week, e.g. [1, 2, 3, 4]. Google is trying to patent driving [1, 2], which brings up all sorts of legitimate questions about patent scope and prior art (humans already drive cars and have driven cars for many years). These are undoubtedly software patents. They affect my area of research, which is computer vision/machine vision (purely software/mathematics), not signal processing (hardware slant to it).

“If Kappos has any dignity left, he will go hide under a rock and not reinforce the perception that the patent system he worked for is deeply corrupt.”According to other news (“Microsoft patents end-to-end encryption”), the NSA surveillance pioneer wants a monopoly on encryption [1, 2, 3, 4], in relation to an operating system that’s the antithesis of encryption (mass surveillance in real time).

Meanwhile we also learn that Finjan, a Microsoft-connected patent aggressor, carries on suing Symantec. As a software patents proponent put it: “Finjan Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: FNJN), the parent of wholly-owned subsidiary Finjan, Inc., announced several weeks ago that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) issued the final rulings on attempts by Symantec Corporation’s (NASDAQ: SYMC) to invalidate 8 different Finjan’s patents through inter partes review (“IPR”).”

So, in this particular case, PTAB did not eliminate software patents, for a change. Cause for celebration among patent lawyers, but what does it mean to everybody else? Apple patent aggression with software patents is still, according to this news, a ‘thing’ as “this latest patent is more software orientated.” A lot of the patents Apple has been using to attack Linux (or Android) have been software patents or design patents, which are inherently similar to (or a type of) software patents.

Now that software patents are generally under attack and face an existential threat in the US (SCOTUS already killed many of them with Alice and it might soon do the same to design patents because of Apple’s aggression) the former USPTO Director, David Kappos, rears his ugly head again. He now works as a lobbyist for IBM, Microsoft, Apple etc. and disgraces the USPTO as he currently receives money to change laws in favour of these clients (that’s a form of “revolving doors” corruption, turning/converting his influence/connections into money). As this lawyers’ site has just put it: “The former director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on Monday called for the abolition of Section 101 of the Patent Act, which sets limits on patent-eligible subject matter, saying decisions like Alice on the issue are a “real mess” and threaten patent protection for key U.S. industries.” What he means by “real mess” is that it creates uncertainty for clients of his, such as IBM, Microsoft, and Apple. This is a continuation of something that we noted here before. If Kappos has any dignity left, he will go hide under a rock and not reinforce the perception that the patent system he worked for is deeply corrupt.

04.12.16

Software Patents Hoarders Going Down in the United States

Posted in GNU/Linux, IBM, Microsoft, Patents, Samsung at 10:58 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Going down

Summary: Nearly two years after the historic Alice decision companies that rely a great deal on software patents (and patent royalties) are losing their prominence in the US patent system

According this new IAM report, Samsung is now number 1 in US patents (total). IBM is falling down the ladder rather quickly amid layoffs and it is worth mentioning that IBM is now a patent aggressor. It attacks legitimate companies, with software patents as a weapon [1, 2] (typical patent strategy of failing companies). Speaking of failing companies, Microsoft is at number 4 in its home country, having lost momentum not only as a company (now mostly a leech and patent parasite) but also as a patent applicant.

The good news about all this is that traditionally, as many sites correctly point out, Korean companies are not aggressive with patents. Samsung is no exception to this. Morever, Samsung is a producing company (hardware), so not so many of its patents pertain to software. Samsung uses a lot of Linux in its systems; in some cases it develops its own operating systems such as Bada or Tizen, rather than blindly rely on Android.

Another IAM report admits that it was wrong. It previously claimed that the patent troll of Ericsson was being renamed/reshaped again, but this turns out to be false. IAM then says that some people in Taiwan consider doing the same thing (creating a troll of their own, like Microsoft Licensing or Unwired Planet in the case of Ericsson), but it mostly quotes people who profit from litigation, not technologists. Well, that’s just IAM…

Looking at some more credible patents-centric sites, we quickly learn of more bubble-bursting in this area of patenting. “The decision by Judge Dyk and joined by Chief Judge Prost and Judge Taranto affirms a lower court’s dismissal on-the-pleadings of GTG’s patent infringement claim,” says Patently-O. “The holding is that the claimed method for analyzing DNA for linkage disequilibrium is ineligible for as effectively claiming a law of nature. The basic idea stems from the inventors discovery that coding regions (exons) typically correlate with “linked” certain non-coding regions (introns). [...] GTG is an Australian company that had previously sued a few dozen companies for infringing the ‘179 patent. The claims have been reexamined (at Merial’s request) and patentability confirmed.”

Nowadays, software patents aren’t quite as potent as before (in US courts/PTAB) and it shows. We hope that the coming few years’ decisions will send out the signal that there’s little incentive to software patenting, irrespective of USPTO lenience.

04.09.16

Cabilderos por las Patentes de Software en Ropas de ‘Periodismo’ y ‘Reforma’ (con Conecciones a Microsoft)

Posted in Debian, Deception, GNU/Linux, IBM, Law, Microsoft, Patents at 2:50 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

English/Original

Article as ODF

Publicado en Debian, Decepción, GNU/Linux, IBM, Law, Microsoft, Patentes at 6:23 pm por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Una familia grande y felizcon montón de dinero en circulación y una agend pro-patentes de software

David Kappos PAI

Sumario: Los últimos ejemplos de inéquivocosempujes por las patentes de software bajo el disfraz de reportajes’ (pobre farsa) o ‘reformade patentes (nada que ver con reforma), courtesía de IAM ‘magazine’ y David Kappos, respectivamente

LA cálidad de patentes en la USPTO bajo el mando de David Kappos ha sido pobre y en decadencia. Esto aparentemente fue su objetivo o (predictivamente) consequencia de la estrategia. Deja a los Estados Unidos en un estado de desórden total, donde un montón de compañías ´start-ups´ tosen ‘dinero por protección’ o se van a la quiebra. No sólo trolles de patentes están causando estos estragos pero también grandes agresores de patentes, como Microsoft y IBM. Imaginen lo que significaría esta clase de caos para la India, donde un montón de software es desarrollado y el presupuesto de las firmas locales es ajustado (contratar abogados en otro país es oneroso).

No sólotrolles de patentes están causando estos estragos pero también grandes agresores de patentes, como Microsofty IBM.

Haciéndo balance de la última propaganda del ‘magazine’ IAM, Techrights no puede dejar de regañar y el ridículizar a este llamado ‘magazine’ (parece mas un pamfleto de cabildeo). No es incluso un magazine, es Kool-Aid en forma de papel y un sitio de pago web (para mantener sólo el coro, voces disentivas no son permitidas). Aquí esta el lavado de cerebro de IAM acerca de ‘calidad’ de patentes hoy (el número de patetentes otorgadas creciendo al doble en sólo pocos años es una evidente indicación de su baja cálidad) e incluso peor lavada de cerebro es aquella que engañosamente representa el punto de vista de los Hindues, compuesto por un Anglo-Saxon quien es empleado para escribir tales callos. No Hindú es incluso citado en este artículo, excepto una firma de leyes (!obviamente no parcialidad!).

Incluso después de que Alice, desafíe las patentes de software en su país de origen, IAM sigue pataleándo por las patentes de software. IAM tiene su base en Londres, lo que hace que sea aún más indignante, hasta que uno comprueba que los fondos del IAM en realidad provienen de …

Techrightsno puede dejar de regañar y el ridículizara este llamado ‘magazine’ (parece mas un pamfleto de cabildeo). No es incluso un magazine, es Kool-Aid en forma de papely un sitio de pago web (para mantener sólo el coro, voces disentivas no son permitidas).

Robert R. Sachs del Bilski Blog (ástutamente nombrado como el famoso caso Bilski) esta preparando un reporte (y una serie de artículos derivados de el) acerca del porque las patentes de software son simplemente procesos mentales, por lo tanto abstráctas. En muchos aspectos, las patentes de software son un gran engaño, que explotan la incomprensión de la gente de cómo funciona realmente el software (no es difícil estafar o embaucar a los jueces de patentes que nunca escribierón una sola línea de código).

Temprano hoy confronté al editor en jefe de IAM, quien esta en negación de trolles (todavía pretende que ese problema exista, al igual que las personas que niegan el calentamiento global provocado por el hombre o el cambio climático). Este editor y sus chicos (la única mujer que hay administrativo) no están reportando. Están presionando por las patentes de software en la India hoy en día, con el uso de la distorsión de los hechos y mentiras. La culpa es de IAM por hacer esto. Como dije el día de hoy, en respuesta al editor: “Mientras ustedes hacen lavado de reputación de los trolles de patentes y de las patentes de software, mientras al mismo tiempo ellos son los que les pagan, esas son noticias falsas. PR “.

Ellos están presionando por las patentes de software en la India hoy en día, con el uso de la distorsión de los hechos y mentiras .

Es extremandamente importante sacar a la luz de quien IAM realmente es y quienes lo están financiando (y el porque).

Como dije el día de hoy, IAM “sigue demostrando que no es un verdadero periódico / revista, pero sólo esta cabildeando por dinero mientras pretendoe estar reportando. Asqueroso.”

IAM está lleno de maximálistas de patentes (miren de donde proviene el autor) quien quiere más patentes en más lugars, más dominios, más compañías, y así sucesivamente. IAM es financiado por aquellos intereses. ¿Qué dice esto de IAM? Es como una revista acerca de energía que es financiada por petroleras y compañías de carbon, en orden de suprimir información acerca de formas altenativas de energía. Por lo menos parcialismo por omisión. Este ‘magazine’ IAM conectado con villanos y la EPO ahora se atreve avergonzar a la India por su muy táctica decisión de bloquear las patentes de software, de la misma manera que lo hizo con Alemania por no hacer lo suficiénte (para disgusto del editor) para promover abiértamente a la UPC, la cual incidentalmente pagó a IAM para promover(incluso por la firma PR de la EPO). No se necesita ser un genio para ver lo que aquí sucede, quien paga, y cui bono etc. IAM dedicó su último número al troll de patentes más grande del mundo [EN|ES] — un asunto que fue incluído en este artículo, cuya sóla premisa (y titular) es una gran mentira. El título dice: “La actitud fuerte de la India contra las patentes de software podría obstaculizar los planes de impulsar sus “start-ups” digitales (no jodan!). Lo único y correctamente que la decisión India está obstaculizando es la criminal extorsión y cobro de cupos por supuesta protección de parte de los trolles de patentes y las grandes corporaciónes detrás de ellos, lease la Sagrada Familia: Microsoft, IBM, Apple y otros.

Cada vez es más importante sacar a la luz lo que realmente IAM es y quienes lo están finánciando (y el porque).”

En realidad, lo opuesto es cierto, ya que las patentes de software obstaculizarían las ´start-ups´ de la India. Pregúntelo a estas nuevas empresas y ellas se lo dirán. Solicitar a Microsoft o IBM (o sus abogados de patentes en la India) y ellos hablarán ‘a favor’ de nuevas empresas sólo un montón de mentiras. Pregunte a los grupos de presión de las grandes empresas y sus abogados de patentes (como los que pagan IAM) y ellos también le dirá un montón de mentiras. Es el mismo escenario que vimos en New Zealand y en Europe, donde Microsoft paga cabilderos para supuestametne representar PYMEs y actualmente dice lo opuesto a o que las PYMEs Europeas piensan creen y necesitan. IAM ahora demuestra que no es mejor que esos cabilderos. La diferencia es la manera en que se carácterizan a sí mismos.

Indian startups necesitan código no patentes, las que están fuera de su alcanze de todas maneras, no importa el costo del litigio. IAM escribió: “Me parece que esto podría causar grandes problemas para las empresas de nueva creación digitales que el gobierno tiene tanto interés en apoyar. Muchos de ellos tendrán las innovaciones relacionadas con la informática en el corazón de sus modelos de negocio; si llega a ser mucho más difícil para ellos obtener protección de patentes sobre estos, entonces las razones para que consideren su reubicación fuera de la India podría llegar a ser aún más convincente.”

Indian startups necesitan código no patentes, las que están fuera de su alcanze de todas maneras, no importa el costo del litigio.

Esto son tonterías. ¿Dónde esta la evidencia que sin patentes de software aquellas start-ups se mudarían de la India y dado que el mercado de software es internacional (definivamente no local), ¿Qué diferencia la relocación tendría? Podría hacer una diferencia para corporaciones multinacionales como IBM or Microsoft, no duda acerca de eso…

Hablando de Microsoft, anoche descubrimos (no sorprendente) que Microsoft está poniéndo dinero en la mesa de Debian (conferencia). Se convierte en — gasp — un financista. Si, es E.E.E., pero ¿Entiénde Debian eso? Como notamos hace unos dias y el último fin de semana, Microsoft todavía financia conferencias de maximálistas de patetnes (con Microsoft financiados cablideros quienes promueven las patentes de software), donde pueda poner más adentro de la EPO su influencia (su socio criminal) y políticos Europeos. ¿Puede Microsoft ser confíado cuando continúa extorsiónando y chantajeando a fabricantes de aparatos basados en Debian usando patentes de software? Eso es una pregunta retórica.

¿Puede Microsoft ser confíado cuando continúa extorsiónando y chantajeando a fabricantes de aparatos basados en Debian usando patentes de software?

Incidentalmente habiéndo mencionado a David Kappos temprano, él también está actuando más como un grupo de presión (oficial convertido en cabildero de una manera clásica de convertir influencia en dinero), financiado por Microsoft y otras empresas con el fin de promover las patentes de software. Recuérden que Horacio Gutierrez y sus compañeros de Microsoft una vez (o más de una vez) pagarón a Florian Müller para hacer lo mismo. Aquí esta un artículo reciénte que un lector nos envió anoche.Se deja de mencionar el papel especial de Kappos allí. Sólo dice que “Apple está tomando un papel más importante en el impulso a la reforma de patentes en los Estados Unidos asociándose con IBM, Microsoft y otras empresas como parte de la Asociación Americana para la Innovación. El objetivo de la organización es para presionar al gobierno federal a adoptar los cambios que quiere mejorar sistema de patentes del país.

No, sólo quiere promover las patentes de software. Cuando Microsoft dice “reforma” de patentes significa cabildeo por las patentes de software (al igual que Apple e IBM). Ellos secuestran la palabra reforma y el jefe de su principal grupo de presión en el PAI es el mismo David Kappos.”

¿Microsoft está ahora en el mismo grupo liderado por Kappos que promueve las patentes de software.

“Por cierto,” nos dijo un lector, “nos hemos estado preguntando aquí acerca de por qué Microsoft es tá tan tranquilo y no ataca las legislaciones de implementación dee software libre. Nos dimos cuenta de que deben estar trabajando en algo con lo que se deshacerán de ambos. Escarbándo un poco, pueda ser que ellos esten confidentes que la TTIP, TISA, y CETA prohibirán FOSS. No hay cubrimiénto de ello en la prensa. Así mismo, Veo que me he subestimado la importancia de Wikileaks, así como los motivos de Microsoft y sus peones del gobierno de aplastarla. Por lo que yo sé, TISA o TTIP también está impulsando las patentes de software, pero he leído casi nada todavía y estoy a punto de comenzar.”

Microsoft esta en le grupo liderado por Kappos que promueve las patentes de software. Como nuestro lector lo pone, “reforma resulta ser otra de sus palabras comadreja

Lo mismo va por “amando” a Linux. Cuidado, Debian. Ya estás quebrado y fragmenta do debido a systemd. ¿Ahora dejas que un matón de patentes entre a tus conferencias? ¿Distribuiras botones que digan “Microsoft ama a Linux” a los asistentes, como es usual? Perfectamente va con el último perfil E.E.E..

“He matado al menos dos conferencias de Mac. [...] Mediante la inyección de contenido de Microsoft en la conferencia, la conferencia cerró. El tipo que lo dirigió, dijo, ¿por qué estoy haciendo esto? “

Jefe Evangelista de Microsoft

« 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