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

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.

05.02.16

Not Just Benoît Battistelli and Willy Minnoye (EPO): Željko Topić Too Thinks He is Above the Law, Avoids the Judges and Courts

Posted in Europe, Law, Patents at 8:29 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Arrogance apparently runs deep inside EPO veins

Željko Topić article

Summary: The latest developments regarding some of the criminal complaints and civil lawsuits against Topić (above), who is now a Vice-President at the European Patent Office (EPO)

EPO management vainly disregards judges, it doesn’t just attack them (e.g. dismisses or suspends them if it does not think that they're loyal enough to Battistelli, in spite of complete independence).

More news from Croatia have landed on our lap and it’s quite revealing. It says a lot about Željko Topić as an individual, not just as a ‘professional’. Much like Willy Minnoye proudly proclaiming that he would ignore rulings from the highest Dutch judges, Topić apparently believes that he is above the law. He is not showing up in court (cases which he is losing) and based on additional information we have been given, this unacceptable behaviour continues to date. How can EPO stakeholders take seriously people who don’t believe in the rule of law (except when it suddenly suits them and they can distort the law to silence critics) if they’re trying to be granted patents which presumably would be enforced in a court of law?

“How can EPO stakeholders take seriously people who don’t believe in the rule of law (except when it suddenly suits them and they can distort the law to silence critics) if they’re trying to be granted patents which presumably would be enforced in a court of law?”“The origins of this story go back quite a long way,” told us a source, “as far back as 2007 in fact. This is a symptom of the Croatian legal system which is notoriously slow and where cases take many years to process (especially if there is some kind of political interference). It’s not that different from the EPO which may explain why Topić fitted in so well. He was probably able to give his boss some good tips on how to exploit a dysfunctional legal system to the detriment of EPO staff.

“The story begins back in November 2007 when the Croatian public sector union SDLSN (“Trade Union of State and Local Officials and Employees of the Republic of Croatia) reported on the “Bullying of ‘unwanted’ civil servants” at the State Intellectual Property Office.”

This was mentioned in an older article (with this translated 2007 report and suicide 'collateral damage' therein).

Our source continues: “The affair resurfaced in the Croatian press on 5 March 2012 when the newspaper “Jutarnji List” [shown above] published a short report which explained that SIPO employees who had been targeted by the “bullying” action in 2007 had filed a number of criminal complaints and a civil lawsuit against Topić.”

Here is an English translation of this article:

JUTARNJI LIST

5 March 2012

Team selected for culling: Željko Topić, head of the SIPO for years, pursued in court

He established a special unit with 10 officials selected for dismissal

Željko Topić, Director of the State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO), who has been linked to numerous scandals like buying a luxury Mercedes at the expense of the Institute, is under suspicion of having abused his employees.

An invented and displaced department

The findings of the administrative labour inspectorate from 25 January 2008 confirm that that on 15 October 2007 Topić deliberately selected a group of ten employees at the SIPO for transfer to a professional unit which he had established and called “The extraction and storage of non-administrative mail“. It didn’t bother the Director that none of his ten officials were qualified for the task of archiving as they included among their ranks IT experts, a professor of French, a Master of Engineering, senior economists and administrative lawyers.

Due to the “urgency of the work” ten officials were moved from Vukovara Street [SIPO headquarters] into offices in Sava Street 118 where, confused and outraged, they languished for twenty days without work. It was not until November 13th that the first document arrived but even then they could not do their job because the computer was not connected to the database at the SIPO headquarters.

Realizing that their transfer was actually a downgrading and a prelude to dismissal, in October 2007 the employees reported Topić to the labour inspectorate.

It was determined that Topić was not authorised to set up new departments and that the ten employees were not qualified for archiving. Topić tried to justify his actions in front of the labour inspectorate by claiming that these were employees who had performed their work badly but the inspectorate found that the last assessment of their work from 2003 was “very successful”.

One official committed suicide

The inspectorate ordered Topić to return the officials to their previous jobs which he did. But then one of the transferred officials committed suicide. Three criminal charges were filed against Topić and one civil lawsuit was initiated. The procedures are still ongoing.

“No information is available about the status of the criminal complaints,” we got told, “but the civil lawsuit which was filed some time around 2008 is still pending in 2016! Welcome to the Croatian legal system! EPO employees may have a feeling of dejà-vu…”

“EPO employees may have a feeling of dejà-vu…”
      –Anonymous
We covered one such story only a day ago (this morning we published a Spanish translation).

Our source continues: “One of the lead plaintiffs in the civil lawsuit against Topić is Jadranka Oklobdžija who was the Chairperson of the staff union at the SIPO at the time in question (2007). According to reliable reports from Zagreb, Topić has been summoned to appear before the court in the civil proceedings on four occasions but each time he has failed to turn up.

“The latest hearing in the civil action took place on 1st April 2016. Topić was in Zagreb on the day but despite having been summoned, he didn’t bother to turn up in court for the hearing.

“So it seems that a new summons will now be sent directly to Topić at the EPO in Munich.”
      –Anonymous
“The judge seems to have got wind of the fact that Topić was in town and she questioned a representative of SIPO about his failure to appear. The SIPO representative said that Topić had arrived in Zagreb the previous day (31 March) and was due to return to Munich the following day (2 April). It seems that the judge was not amused at being treated like an “April fool”. She requested SIPO to provide details of Topić’s address at the EPO so that the court could send a summons to him in Munich. The SIPO representative objected to this but the judge overruled the objection and made an order that Topić’s address in Munich should be disclosed to the court. So it seems that a new summons will now be sent directly to Topić at the EPO in Munich.”

It sure looks like the EPO is unable to escape Topić’s past, no matter how hard it attempts to deny it, even punishing those who ‘dare’ or are brave enough to speak about it.

[ES] La Oficina Europea de Patentes Todavía Sigilósamente Abusiva, Pagará $15,000 en Compensasió a Trabajadora Tras un Tardío Fallo de la ILO

Posted in Europe, Law, Patents at 6:41 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

English/Original

Article as ODF

Publicado en Europa, Law, Patentes at 4:43 am por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Sumario: La Organización Internacional del Trabajo (ILO) emite un fallo en un caso de abuso de la EPO y nota la excesiva duración de los procedimienteos internos de apelación.”

La ILO puede estar luchando contra la gran carga causada por las quejas contra la EPO (sugerencias han sido hechas al respecto), pero ocasiónalmente se pone al día con algunos casos de la EPO y emite fallos actuales, probablemente casí una década después de que la queja original se presentó. La gerencia de la EPO ha estado inundándose y ahogandose por la ILO por causa de sus propios abusos, que han causado un gran número de quejas sean llenadas allí.

Una reciente decisión llamó nuestra atención. “Parece que el largo texto sólo está en Francés pero es una lectura interesante,” una persona nos dijo acerca de este juicio de la ILO de hace un par de meses atrás “Es acerca de acoso en la EPO y como es tratado internamenet” (presuntamente por los parecidos a la “gestapo” como es llamada internamente [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]).

El sumario en Inglés dice: “El demandante impugna la decisión de exigirle que someterse a un examen médico durante la investigación de su queja de acoso y el despido por dicha reclamación.” Lo que es digno de mención aquí es la edad de este caso; la primera decisión después de 7 años:

1. Las decisiones del 16 de diciembre 2009 4 de febrero 2010 y 19 de junio de 2013 se dejan de lado.

2. La EPO pagará a los querellantes 10.000 euros en concepto de indemnización por daño moral que resulta de las decisiones que se han reservado.

3. Se deberá pagar sus 1.000 euros en concepto de daños morales por la excesiva duración de los procedimientos de recurso internas.

4. También deberá pagar 1.000 euros a su en los costos.

5. Todas las demás reclamaciones, en la medida en que no son discutibles, son desechadas.

Miren como dinero/presupuesto de la EPO “trabaja“. Hay un costo oculto para esta administración incompetente.

Lo anterior no debiera ser tan chocante para aquellos que han estado siguiendo los abusos de la OEP. Tenga en cuenta el tiempo que tomó la justicia por hacer; el demandante podría haber cambiado varias ofertas de empleo desde entonces o tal vez perdido el interés en el caso, después de haber pasado mucho tiempo y energía, presumiblemente sobre los recursos costosos. Dejando a un lado las posibles pruebas de violaciones de los derechos humanos, lo que tenemos aquí es un recordatorio de que los empleados de EPO simplemente no pueden confiar en la OIT por la justicia y si Battistelli el tirano rompe las reglas o mal uso sus propias reglas (que él mismo compone), habrá sin recurso efectivo a la justicia independiente y rápida.

Alguien nos ha enviado una opinión interna de la EPO, señalando que “una fuente de EPO que también nos señaló a su último mensaje el Siegfried Bross bemieves [sic] el siguiente:« en mi opinión, la estrategia del presidente es mantener un perfil bajo de este año, o al menos la mayoría de la misma (“un año de consolidación”) con la esperanza de que el Consejo se calmará y la oposición se extinguirá (contribuyendo activamente a matar a unos cuantos enemigos). Esto le da el tiempo para prepararse para el siguiente ataque. Se está haciendo un estudio financiero y un estudio social, y tratando de construir FFPE. Los bits son muy desagradables (reforma de pensiones y más) quedarán entonces el próximo año – para ser aprobado en el Consejo de diciembre. Todo el asunto sobre el proceso penal es en mi opinión un ruido de sables.”

Actualmente Battistelli está demoliendo la OEP haciendo todo lo posible para garantizar la fuga de cerebros [1, 2, 3, 4], las dificultades de contratación (debido a daños a la reputación), grandes huelgas, y los solicitantes insatisfechos. Leer este comentario publicado justo antes del fin de semana:

Nobbi dice: No se distraiga por la maniobra de “socialdemocracia/Ma/SocialStudy/SocialConference”.

1. Reducir el salay-masa y por consiguiente, las contribuciones al fondo de pensiones. Motivar al personal cerca de la jubilación (anticipada) para salir, la mejora de la demografía del personal y la creación de un fondo de pensiones problema que requiere más reformas. examinadores más de recluta en el extremo inferior de la escala salarial, si es posible en un contrato limitado. No ayuda el problema de fondo de pensiones creado. No se supone que es. Bonificaciones a la gerencia.

2. En la parte superior de los objetivos habituales cada vez mayores para la producción, añadir objetivos personales “-is-puntualidad de calidad” para las comunicaciones primera y / o más en el examen (certeza A principios de Examen avanzada antes de lo que esperaba (ECfAE)) y aplicar el Criterios de París. Más bonificaciones a la gerencia.

Resultado: Oh!?! Demasiados examinadores … muy pocos archivos … menos las tasas de renovación para el EPOrg … más por las oficinas nacionales.

3. Deshacerse de los examinadores en el contrato y de los más experimentados y aún así a los examinadores costosos izquierda. Empujarlos a la producción ridícula. Siempre se puede salir si dont’t como él! Los bonos …

Resultado: examinadores menos costosas, menos las contribuciones al fondo de pensiones. Oh! Un problema de fondos de pensiones.

4. Contenido de la PriceworthyConsultant y dice: Aumentar la edad de jubilación y la tasa de contribución al fondo de pensiones para los examinadores (mientras tanto el estampillado) que aún quedan. Bonificaciones para el consultor y …

5. Viene en otro PriceworthyConsultant y dice: Empresa de trabajo de búsqueda y examen para finalmente deshacerse de los examinadores de la casa. Disolver el fondo de pensiones y utilizar el dinero para bonos … …

6. La IA-Oracle genera totalmente automatizado de búsqueda de día cero y justo a tiempo de exploración bajo demanda as-you-deseo y dice: Deshacerse de todos los no-dirección y el personal de gestión inferior. No hay necesidad de un fondo de pensiones, ya que tiene bonificaciones para …

Seguro que sí,” una persona respondió. “Para aquellos que todavía serán parte de la oficina”. En tu escentario: el President y los Vice presidents.”

05.01.16

The European Patent Office Still Silently Abusive, Will Pay $15,000 in Compensation to Female Worker After Belated ILO Judgment

Posted in Europe, Law, Patents at 4:43 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: The International Labour Organisation (ILO) issues a judgment on a case of abuse by the EPO and notes “excessive length of the internal appeal proceedings.”

ILO may be struggling with the huge load caused by EPO complaints (suggestions have been made in that regard), but occasionally it catches up with at least some of the EPO backlog and issues actual judgments, probably close to a decade after the initial complaint was made. The EPO’s management has virtually been flooding or drowning out the ILO because of its sheer abuses, which caused an unprecedented number of complaints to be filed there.

One recent decision got our attention. “It seems the long text is only in French but it makes interesting reading,” one person told us about this ILO judgment from a couple of months ago. “It´s about harassment at the EPO and how it´s being dealt with internally” (presumably by the likes of the “gestapo” as it’s called internally [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]).

The English summary says: “The complainant challenges the decision requiring her to undergo a medical examination during the investigation of her complaint of harassment and the dismissal of that complaint.” What’s noteworthy here is the age of this case; the first decision on it was 7 years ago:

1. The decisions of 16 December 2009, 4 February 2010 and 19 June 2013 are set aside.
2. The EPO shall pay the complainant 10,000 euros in compensation for the moral injury resulting from the decisions which have been set aside.
3. It shall pay her 1,000 euros in moral damages for the excessive length of the internal appeal proceedings.
4. It shall also pay her 1,000 euros in costs.
5. All other claims, insofar as they are not moot, are dismissed.

Watch EPO money/budget ‘at work’. There’s a hidden cost for incompetent administration.

The above oughtn’t be so shocking to those who have been following the EPO’s abuses. Notice how long it took justice to be done; the complainant could have changed several jobs since then or maybe lost interest in the case, having spent a lot of time and energy, presumably on costly appeals. Putting aside potential evidence of human rights abuses, what we have here is a reminder that EPO employees simply cannot rely on ILO for justice and if Battistelli the tyrant breaks the rules or misuses his own rules (which he himself made up), there will be no effective resort to independent and rapid justice.

Somebody sent us an EPO insider opinion, noting that “an EPO source who also pointed me to your latest post on Siegfried Bross bemieves [sic] the following: ‘in my opinion the President’s strategy is to lay low this year, or at least most of it (“a year of consolidation”) hoping that the Council will calm down and the opposition will die out (actively contributing to that by killing a few more enemies). This gives him the time to prepare for the next attack. He is doing a Financial Study and a Social Study, and trying to build up FFPE. The really nasty bits (pension reform and more) will then come next year – to be approved in the December Council. The whole thing about criminal proceedings is in my opinion mostly saber-rattling.’”

Nowadays Battistelli is demolishing the EPO by doing everything to ensure brain drain [1, 2, 3, 4], recruitment difficulties (due to reputation damage), huge strikes, and dissatisfied applicants. Read this comment posted just before the weekend:

Nobbi says: Don’t be distracted by the “SocialDemocracy/MoU/SocialStudy/SocialConference” manoeuvre.

1. Reduce the salay-mass and thereby the contributions to the pension fund. Motivate staff close to (early) retirement to leave, improving staff demography and creating a pension fund problem requiring further reforms. Over-recruit examiners at the lower end of the salary scale, if possible on limited contract. Does not help the pension fund problem created. It is not supposed to. Bonuses to management.

2. On top of the usual ever-increasing targets for production, add personal “quality-is-timeliness” targets for first and/or further communications in examination (Early Certainty from Advanced Examination sooner than you expected (ECfAE)) and implement the Paris Criteria. More bonuses to management.

Result: Oh!?! Too many examiners … too few files … less renewal fees for the EPOrg … more for the national offices.

3. Get rid of the examiners on contract and of the more experienced yet still to costly examiners left. Push them to ridiculous production. You can always leave if you dont’t like it! Bonuses …

Result: Less costly examiners, less contributions to the pension fund. Oh! A pension fund problem.

4. Comes in the PriceworthyConsultant and says: Increase the retirement age and the contribution rate to the pension fund for the (meanwhile rubber-stamping) examiners still left. Bonuses for the consultant and …

5. Comes in another PriceworthyConsultant and says: Outsource search and examination to finally get rid of in-house examiners. Dissolve the pension fund and use the cash for … bonuses…

6. The AI-oracle generates fully automated zero-day search and just-in-time on-demand as-you-wish examination and says: Get rid of all non-management and lower-management staff. No need for a pension fund as we have bonuses for …

“Sure it is,” one person responded. “For those who will still be employees of “the office”. In your scenario: the president and the vice presidents.”

[ES] Alice Continúa Quebrando Patentes de Software Asi Que los Abogados de Patentes, Cabilderos de los Monopolistas, Etc. Ahora Atacan a la Corte Suprema por Hacer Esto

Posted in America, Courtroom, Law, Patents at 4:13 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

English/Original

Article as ODF

Publicado en America, Courtroom, Law, Patentes at 7:10 am por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz

La Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos (SCOTUS) se ha convertido en el objetivo de odio de los que se enriquecen

Alice grave

Sumario: los cabilderos Corpórativos y abogados de patentes están tratándo de poner a Alicia en la tumba, por su impacto en las patentes de software que es muy profundo y así hasta ahora casi indetenible

La cada vez más famosa decisión conocida como Alice (el demandante), simplemente ha cobrado otra víctima. Es una patente de software, por supuesto. Es también un caso de alto perfil (Fitbit y Jawbone), que cubrimos aquí varias veces antes (este año y el año pasado).

La precedencia deAliceestá trabajando. No sorprende que los abogados de patentes estén en pánico.

De acuerdo a the News Corp.-propiedad del Wall Street Journal (detrás de la casa de pago), “el Juez Lord basó la emisión de una decisión de la Corte Suprema del 2014 que dice que compañías no pueden reclamar patentes de software por ideas abstractas sin conceptos inventivos.”
Aquí están los 10 más tempranos reportes acerca de ello [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10] (los encontramos esta mañana, así que puedan haber más ya que es Sabado al mediodíá).
Agarra tiza o escriba una nueva victoria en la pizarra/pizarra blanca. La precedencia Alice está funcionando. No es de extrañar los abogados de patentes están en pánico.

Abogados de patentes agresivos, corporaciónes y sus promotores/ayayeros , gente como el nefásto David Kappos, ahora están en guerra contra SCOTUS misma.

“¿Por qué la S.C [Corte Supremo] no debería tomar decisiónes en los casos de patentes” es la forma en que el buddy patente describe este nuevo ataque contra el juez Stephen Breyer. No debiera ser tan difícil de entender por qué los abogados de patentes son muy molesto que SCOTUS está haciendo lo correcto (en contra de su avaricia). SCOTUS, básicamente, limita el alcance de patentes con decisiones tales como Alice, haciendo descarrilar agresor de patentes como en el ejemplo anterior (menos de un día de nacidos).

SCOTUS está interviniendo en varias otras áreas y ayer vimos este nuevo comentario que dice: “Es la opinión discutió la del Tribunal Supremo o, mejor dicho, ya que parece ser, la del 2 ° Circuito? Si el Tribunal Supremo emitió un dictamen, así como una orden, por mi parte, estaría interesado en verla “.

Los abogados de patentes agresivos, corporaciónes y sus promotores/ayayeros , gente como el nefásto David Kappos, ahora están en guerra contra SCOTUS misma. La ven como una amenaza y desean combatirla usando al Congreso (ratear de legislador a otros legisladores). Se pretende hacer de alguna manera Alice desaparezca. De acuerdo con este nuevo informe de los profesores Colleen Chien (Santa Clara University Law School) y Arti Rai (Duke Facultad de Derecho), el “USPTO fue anfitrión de una conferencia de un día de duración alrededor del primer aniversario de su mejorado de patentes Quality Initiative”, en el que, después de intensas presiones de Kappos, el predecesor de Lee, tenemos esto: “En línea con las sugerencias del estudio de caso, la USPTO tiene como objetivo abordar las preocupaciones sobre determinados tipos de rechazos examinador y consistencia a través de grupos de tecnología dentro del cuerpo de la patente. A tal efecto, será la realización de estudios sobre el uso de la sección 101 y 112 (f) los examinadores; sobre la exactitud y claridad de los estados de motivación en los rechazos obviedad en base a la combinación de referencias; y el cumplimiento de los requisitos de la descripción escrita de las solicitudes de continuación.”

Esperen que los maximalistas de patentes volteen la mesa y propóngan pasos regresivos.”

No toquen la sección 101. Ellos esperan regresar a los días pre-Alice. Otronuevo reporte dice: “La USPTO recientemente solicitó propuestas de estudios de caso que la Oficina podría hacer para mejorar la tramitación de patentes. Hubo más de 100 propuestas presentadas por asociaciones, empresas, bufetes de abogados y particulares. Definitivamente, hay algunas propuestas que la USPTO debe utilizar. [...] Todos estos son grandes propuestas, y cada uno de ellos tiene el potencial de identificar los puntos débiles, ya sea en la USPTO o confirmar que los examinadores están siguiendo directrices de la Oficina. Esperemos que la Oficina está dando a estas propuestas seria consideración.”

Esperen que los maximalistas de patentes volteen la mesa y propóngan pasos regresivos. Boris Zelkind, “un socio centrado en litigios y licencias de propiedad intelectual en la oficina de San Diego de Knobbe Martens,” acaba de decir: “Además, como las patentes continúan recibiéndo golpe tras golpe en los tribunales y en los exámenes posteriores a la concesión de la Oficina de Patentes, las empresas deben considerar si sus innovaciones son adecuadas para la protección del secreto comercial. Esto es particularmente cierto en el mundo del software, donde la decisión del Tribunal Supremo de Estados Unidos en. Alice Corp. v CLS Bank Internacional, creado retos importantes para la obtención de la protección de patentes para las innovaciones de software y hacer cumplir las patentes de software. Por lo tanto, los innovadores en la industria del software necesitar ser cada vez más conscientes de las leyes de secreto comercial y puede ser requerido a depender de dichas leyes con el fin de proteger sus innovaciones.”

Las patentes de software puedan haber caído por un round en los Estados Unidos, pero no cuenten que poderosos grupos de presión/cabildersonolas traigan de regreso porque ellos usualmente se salen con la suya (al final, tarde o temprano).”

Esto es más del mismo maximalismo. Los abogados de patentes, al ver que Alice han hecho que las patentes de software increíblemente difícil de obtener y después asegurar /valer, promueven abiertamente las leyes que criminalizan a los denunciantes – los tipos de personas que habitualmente nos ofrecen información acerca de la EPO (sin embargo, la ley de secretos comerciales está más allá del alcance de nuestra cobertura). Lo que es digno de mención aquí es que claramente hay una fuerte respuesta a Alice y nosotros debemos tomar nota de quién está detrás de él. Los desarrolladores de software están contentos con Alice, mientras que abogados de patentes y empresas de la Sagrada Familia como IBM y Microsoft (enormes agresores de patentes) quieren que la decisión quemado dentro de un cenicero.

Las patentes de software puedan haber caído por un round en los Estados Unidos, pero no cuenten que poderosos grupos de presión/cabilderso no las traigan de regreso porque ellos usualmente se salen con la suya (al final, tarde o temprano). De acuerdo aPatent Docs, PTAB (creciéndo y cada vez más comúnun enforzador deAlice) ha sido invocada de nuevo (contr si, otra tonta patente de software*, como es común en los Estados Unidos) y eventualmente denegado una revisión a CBM.

Techrightspermanece dedicado a exponer todo el marioneteo detrás de las escenas come es abundantemente claro que hay una creciénte (y ya muy fuerte) movimiénto para resucitar las patentes de software en los EE.UU.. “El precio de la libertad es eterna vigilancia,” Thomas Jefferson ya lo dijo.

____
* Esta patente de software es evidente y explica a sí mismo. Para citar: “La patente ’805 se refiere a un sistema y método para solicitar” retroalimentación específica de la página” de los usuarios de un sitio web. Los comentarios del usuario se solicita de manera específica de la página mediante la incorporación de un “elemento seleccionable por el usuario”, o “icono visible,” en cada página web del sitio web.”

04.30.16

Alice Continues to Smash Software Patents So Patent Lawyers, Monopolists’ Lobbyists Etc. Now Attack the Supreme Court for Doing This

Posted in America, Courtroom, Law, Patents at 7:10 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

The US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has become the target of the profiteers’ anger

Alice grave

Summary: Corporate lobbyists and patent lawyers are trying to put Alice in the grave, for its impact on software patents is very profound and thus far almost unstoppable

THE increasingly-famous decision, commonly known as Alice (the plaintiff), has just claimed another victim. It’s a software patent of course. It’s also a high-profile case (Fitbit and Jawbone) which we covered here several times before (this year and last year).

“The Alice precedence is working. No wonder patent lawyers are in panic.”According to the News Corp.-owned Wall Street Journal (behind paywall), “Judge Lord based the ruling on a Supreme Court decision from 2014 that said companies can’t claim software patents for abstract ideas without inventive concepts.”

Here are the earliest 10 reports about it [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10] (found this morning, so there might be more by now as it’s Saturday at noon).

Chalk or write another victory up on the blackboard/whiteboard. The Alice precedence is working. No wonder patent lawyers are in panic.

“Aggressive patent lawyers/corporations and their lobbyists, people like David Kappos, now have a war on SCOTUS itself.”“Why the S.Ct [Supreme Court] Should Not Be Deciding Patent Cases” is how Patent Buddy described this new attack on Justice Stephen Breyer. It oughtn’t be so hard to figure out why patent lawyers are very upset that SCOTUS is doing the right thing (against their greed). SCOTUS basically limits patent scope with decisions such as Alice, derailing patent aggressor as in the above example (less than a day old).

SCOTUS is intervening in various other areas and yesterday we saw this new comment stating: “Is the opinion discussed that of the Supreme Court or rather, as it appears to be, that of the 2nd Circuit? If the Supreme Court issued an opinion as well as an order, I for one would be interested to see it.”

Aggressive patent lawyers/corporations and their lobbyists, people like David Kappos, now have a war on SCOTUS itself. They view it is a threat and they wish to battle it using Congress (snitching on the lawmaker to other lawmakers). They hope to somehow make Alice go away. According to this new report by Professors Colleen Chien (Santa Clara University Law School) and Arti Rai (Duke Law School), the “USPTO hosted a day-long conference around the one-year anniversary of its Enhanced Patent Quality Initiative,” wherein, after intensive lobbying by Kappos, the predecessor of Lee, we have this: “In line with the case study suggestions, the USPTO aims to address concerns about particular types of examiner rejections and consistency across technology groups within the patent corps. To that end, it will be conducting studies on the use of section 101 and 112(f) by examiners; on the correctness and clarity of motivation statements in obviousness rejections based on combining references; and enforcement of written description requirements in continuation applications.”

“Expect patent maximalists to try to turn the table and propose regressive steps.”Don’t touch section 101. They’re hoping to regress back to pre-Alice days. Another new report says: “The USPTO recently requested proposals for case studies that the Office might do in order to improve patent prosecution. There were over 100 proposals submitted from associations, companies, law firms, and individuals. There are definitely some proposals that the USPTO should use. [...] All of these are great proposals, and each of them has the potential to either identify weak spots at the USPTO or confirm that examiners are following Office guidelines. Let’s hope the Office is giving these proposals serious consideration.”

Expect patent maximalists to try to turn the table and propose regressive steps. Boris Zelkind, “a partner focusing on litigation and intellectual property licensing in the San Diego office of Knobbe Martens,” has just said: “Additionally, as patents continue to take a beating in the courts and in the Patent Office’s post-grant reviews, companies need to consider whether their innovations are suited for trade secret protection. This is particularly true in the software world, where the US Supreme Court’s decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, created significant challenges to obtaining patent protection for software innovations and enforcing software patents. Thus, innovators in the software industry may need to be increasingly aware of trade secret laws and may be required to rely on such laws in order to protect their innovations.”

“Software patents may be down for the count in the United States, but don’t count on powerful lobbies not to pull them back up because they usually get what they want (at the end, sooner of later).”This is more of the same kind of maximalism. Patent lawyers, seeing that Alice has made software patents incredibly hard to attain and then assert/enforce, are openly promoting laws that would criminalise a lot of whistleblowers — the types of people who habitually offer us input about the EPO (nevertheless, trade secrets law is beyond the scope of our coverage). What’s noteworthy here is that there’s clearly a strong response to Alice and we ought to take note of who’s behind it. Software developers are happy about Alice, whereas patent lawyers and companies like IBM and Microsoft (huge patent aggressors) want the decision burned inside the ashtray.

Software patents may be down for the count in the United States, but don’t count on powerful lobbies not to pull them back up because they usually get what they want (at the end, sooner of later). According to Patent Docs, PTAB (increasingly and commonly an Alice enforcer) has just been invoked again (against yet another silly software patent*, as is common in the US) and it eventually denied a CBM review.

Techrights remains dedicated to exposing all the string-pulling behind the scenes as it’s abundantly clear that there’s a growing (and already very strong) movement to revive software patenting in the US. “The price of freedom is eternal vigilance,” Thomas Jefferson famously said.
_____
* This patent being on software is evident and self-explanatory. To quote: “The ’805 patent is directed to a system and method for soliciting “page-specific” feedback from website users. User feedback is solicited on a page-specific basis by incorporating a “user-selectable element,” or “viewable icon,” into each web page of the website.”

04.29.16

[ES] ”Si la Forma de Pensar de la EPO fuese Seguida, Guantánamo Sería Posible en Suelo Alemán.”

Posted in Europe, Law, Patents at 6:50 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

English/Original

Article as ODF

Publicado en Europe, Law, Patentes at 8:11 am por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Siegfried Broß (abajo) previamente defendió al difamado juez que fue suspendido por Battistelli o Despedido a pesar de la supuesta independencia

Siegfried Broß
Image courtesy: campact.de

Summary: La EPO está todavía bajo fuego, pero mucho de ello pasa detrás de las cortinas y envuelve abogados y/o burócratas

La “EPO está silenciosa por el momento,” una persona nos dijo ayer, “¿Cuál será su próximo movimiento? Esten preparados!” Bueno, basados en lo que sabemos, com pocos reportajes de prensa ya están revelando gradualmente, hay muchos juicios en camino. El difamado juez también parece estar con aquellos que combaten al Cesar Battistelli, quien obviamente piensa que está arriba de la ley y abiértamente se enorgullece de ello.

Ni siquiera la policía o las fuerzas especiales en Alemania o en los Países Bajos pueden entra a las premisas de la — tan extraño como pueda sonar.”

No mucho es conocido públicamente acerca de estos juicios. No sabemos ¿cuántas personas estan envueltas?, ¿cuántas personas serán acusadas?, ¿cuántos pertinentes juicios hay y lo demás?, pero asumimos que la preparación de todo esto es lo que tiene a los oficiales de la SUEPO ocupados y pueda ser que pronto sepamos más acerca de las causas de estas quejas y quiénes son el objetivo legal, ya que la EPO misma es casi inmune a juicios (me lo dijo mi abogado despues de que la EPO me CACHETeó y algunos aplicante de la EPO me dijeron que quisieran demandarla pero no supieron como por su vergonzósa inmunidad). Por instancia, hacer una búsqueda en la EPO (subpoena) requiere previo permiso de la gerencia. Ni siquiera la policía o las fuerzas especiales en Alemania o en los Países Bajos pueden entra a las premisas de la — tan extraño como pueda sonar. Ni siquierea las embajadas disfrutan de las mismas protecciónes que el equipo de Battistelli abusa flagrantemente. La EPO es como Camp X-Ray y los suicidios no deben ser causa de sorpresa. Hay un parecido en la manera como la UN or WIPO es conectada con la UN, mayormente porque es un caos en el sentido legal (no hay protecciónes legales para los trabajadores).
As this new article from IP Watch puts it this week (yesterday): “To date, there is no consolidated reference text on WIPO’s governance” (and in the EPO there are special rules that are kept secret as they override national/international laws).
Aquí vamos de nuevo, como fue el caso hace dos meses, Siegfried Broß comparándo al status legal de laEPO al de Guantánamo Bay.”

En su último blog post, Battistelli, quien trató de trabajar por la WIPO (perdió con Gurry), cita a la WIPO en un esfuérzo para ganar legitibilidad. Viene en medio de una calma relative, aunque la prensa Bavara/Alemana evidentemente continúa cubriendo la situacion en la EPO (link directa al video). Más aún, la SUEPO ha preparado una traducción de “Patentamtsstreit beschäftigt auch Audi”, que dice que fue publicada “sólo en versión de papel.” Aquí vamos de nuevo, como fue el caso hace dos meses, Siegfried Broß comparándo al status legal de laEPO al de Guantánamo Bay. Alude a algunos de los puntos menciónados.

DONAUKURIER 20 APRIL 2016

SIEGFRIED BROSS ANTERIOR JUEZ CONSTITUCIONAL SOBRE EL EPO

El Sr. Bross, durante los últimos meses, la OEP ha estado golpeando los titulares con un gran número de controversias de derecho laboral. Que son vistos como un importante crítico de la organización. ¿Porqué es eso?

Siegfried Bross: La EPO es la autoridad central para la protección de patentes en Europa. Sin embargo, adolece de un defecto subyacente en su estructura, que se coló en el momento de su creación. Es una creación de una combinación de estados, y se reconoció su inmunidad. Eso en sí mismo es, en principio, no es un problema, pero dentro de la una EPO

Se ha creado en su totalidad del sistema jurídico autónomo, que no se basa en ningún sistema efectivo de pesos y contrapesos.

¿Qué significa eso?

Bross: La Oficina de Patentes se separa de los sistemas nacionales de Derecho. Esto tiene dos consecuencias que no son aceptables en el contexto de un estado de derecho: Por un lado, como puede verse en la actualidad, no existe protección legal de la fuerza de trabajo. Por otro lado, no hay protección legal ya sea para los solicitantes de patentes. Hay sólo las salas de recurso en la OEP, que son los dos funcionarios y jueces en una, y que, además, están subordinados al Presidente. Cualquiera que venga a padecimiento no tiene ningún otro recurso. Tampoco es la Oficina sujetos a ningún control o el control parlamentario.

¿Cómo podrían las disposiciones constitucionales estar estructuradas de manera que se evite este tipo de problemas?

Bross: Ya sea un nuevo tribunal tendría que ser establecida dentro de la Organización de Patentes, que sería independiente del Presidente, o la protección jurídica tendría que ser asignado a uno de los estados en los que tiene un domicilio, como Alemania.

En su opinión, a continuación, la estructura, tal como existe hasta ahora no es conciliable con la legislación aplicable?

Bross: Se contraviene la Convención Europea de Derechos Humanos, ya que los 38 Estados miembros no pueden garantizar el estado de un estado de derecho. Es un principio básico de los derechos humanos que los Estados no pueden rescindir su responsabilidad de respetar los derechos humanos. Esto significa que la organización nunca debería haber sido establecida ende la forma que era. La combinación del poder administrativo y legislativo en una sola entidad es inaceptable. La posición del Presidente contradice todos los principios básicos del Estado democrático de derecho, y la OEP tiene por ahora esencialmente la autonomía adquirida. He dicho en repetidas ocasiones, si esta forma de pensar se siguiera, Guantánamo en suelo alemán sería posible.En el intento de hacer que la Oficina sea más eficiente, tienen los estados perdieron de vista de los clientes y el personal?

Bross: El enfoque en la reducción de costes y un mayor rendimiento de las tasas no tienen nada que ver con la tarea de la OEP. Los procedimientos de patentes emisoras, cuyo objetivo es la protección de la propiedad intelectual, son un derecho absolutamente inviolables para la economía. Es una tarea fundamental de la autoridad de patentes para garantizar que hay suficiente personal disponible para el examen a fondo de las patentes.

Siegfried Bross fue un juez del Tribunal Constitucional Federal de 1998 a 2010. La entrevista fue realizada por Daniel Wenisch.

Como notamos en cerca de una docena de links en Techrights, juicios por torturas en Guantánamo Bay han sido dado el visto bueno (en un evento sin precedente). La gente detrás de las técnica de torturas people podrán ser arrastrádos a corte. Esperemos que lo mismo pase con la gerencia de la EPO.
Sólo vean lo que monstruos Raimund Lutz, por ejemplo, ha venido a servir.”

Trabajar por la EPO como personalidad legal (en cualquier capacidad) no legitimíza la carrera de uno o mejora su credibilidad a este punto (a menos que uno pase a la edad del retiro, en cuyo caso rarámente importa como es el caso de Battistelli y Minnoye). Sólo vean lo que monstruos Raimund Lutz, por ejemplo, ha venido a servir. Ne se preoucupen el es bien pagado por esto. De acuerdo a esta actualización de noticias, Juez Arnold también se une al equip (probablemente tentado por el dinero y el poder), aunque el serviría al engrandecido Jurado de Apelaciónes, que no es amigo de Battistelli (recuerden esta carta). Como lo puso IP Kat ayer: “Primero, IPKat se enteró de CIPA que el Sr Justice Arnold ha sido nombrado al engrandecido Jurado de Apelaciones de la Oficina Europea de Patentes. IPKat entiende que remplazará a Lord Justice Floyd, quien ha sido el miembro externo del Reino Unido del mismo por algunos años. Uno o dos miembros del Enlargecido Jurado son incluídos en el panel por caso donde hay una referenica a este poe el Jurado de Apelaciónes de la EPO o el Presidente de la EPO, y la esfera de la materia se extiénde más allá de la administración interna de la EPO. Tales casos son relativamente raros (simples números por años) y hay por lo menos 20 miembros externos, IPKat no se imagina que el Sr. Justice Arnold tendrá que usar un jet a Munich frecuéntemente.”

“Las próximas semanas pueden ser interesantes en lo que se trate de la EPO.” En otras noticias, MIP continúa escribiéndo como si la UPC definitivamente se concretará, irrespectivamente de todas las barreras. Para citar al sumario: “¿Como procedería a aclararse un caso una vez que la UPC este establecida? En el último artículo de nuestras series, David Rose, Nina O’Sullivan y Axel Walz consideran las opciónes para alguién que desafíé una patente para lanzar un producto competitivo” (ya hay escenarios para esto en el sistema existente, así que la UPC resolvería un problema que no existe de ninguna manera, a menos que tu seas una compañía multinacional que incluso no es Europea).

Las próximas semanas pueden ser interesantes en lo que se trate de la EPO. Hemos omitido toda propaganda de “Inventor” que proviene de la EPO estos dias, incluso urgiendo a las personas para votar dos veces y contactar “sus socios en los medios” como los periódicos Franceses (lo mismo de nuevo) y esperando que no se den cuenta de el pobre record de la selección de finalistas.

04.28.16

USTR is Trying to Shame and Bully India Into Introducing Software Patents in India

Posted in America, Asia, Deception, Law, Patents at 9:52 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

What is “Special 301 Report”? Check Wikipedia.

USTR

Summary: Lobbying body of the US (corporations-led) is trying its usual dirty tactics against India’s sound policy which excludes software/algorithms from patent scope

“USTR complains about block of software patents in India while they have Alice,” Benjamin Henrion wrote today. For those who are not familiar with the antics of USTR, see examples and details of its bullying in Cablegate articles. Microsoft too uses USTR for influence.

“Microsoft too uses USTR for influence.”“USTR complains about Indian block of software patents while they have Alice,” Henrion wrote hours later (he found out about it because of Jamie Love, who is a FOSS supporter and also an affordable medicine advocate). Love wrote: “This is one of the business lobbies that pressures India on IPR issues.”

In their own words: “Special 301 Report: India’s #IP Climate Continues to Discourage Innovation” (whose innovation?).

USTR is basically an imperialistic corporate army and it needs to be treated as such. We gave examples of how it bullies, shames and potentially sanctions nations that don’t play ball for US multinational corporations. Here is the article about it: “The Special 301 Report echoed several of the same outstanding concerns with India’s IP policies that AFTI and its members outlined in recently submitted comments to the USTR. These issues include inadequate trade secret protection in India, continued copyright piracy across India, concerns about compulsory licensing for biopharmaceutical and environmental technology, and unnecessary and burdensome criteria for the patentability of medicines and other products. The USTR report also noted that weak or inadequate IP protections in India have a negative impact on both U.S. and Indian businesses.”

“USTR is basically an imperialistic corporate army and it needs to be treated as such.”That’s nonsense. To quote the PDF from USTR (Henrion has scanned it), “with respect to CII, there was a lack of transparency in the process to adopt the current set of guidelines” (“CII” is just a cheeky term that’s often when trying to evade the better known term, “software patents”).

In [1] below one can find a report about this from IP Watch. No doubt India’s Indians-leaning policies are upsetting some very rich and powerful people in other countries, not just in India. India’s long war against the software patents lobby continues with RCEP's clauses. As SFLC has just put it (copy here) in a press release: “Indian law on patentability of computer programmes is abundantly clear in that Section 3(k) of the Patents Act 1970 explicitly excludes computer programmes per se, mathematical methods and algorithms from patent protection. Moreover the recent Guidelines for Examination of Computer Related Inventions released by the Patent Office on February 19, 2016 ensure that patents are granted only to those inventions where a computer programme is claimed in conjunction with novel hardware. This eliminates the possibility of frivolous patents being granted in the field of software in India. However, recently it has come to light that the Regional Comprehensive Partnership Treaty (RCEP) presently being negotiated proposes a clause on patents in the area of computer programmes that will result in patents being granted in this field.”

“If China and India care about their future and prosperity, then they will give USTR the middle finger, get out of the RCEP ‘trade’ agreement and just carry on developing things (India is big for software, China for hardware), not bickering over patents in courtrooms, where English-speaking (usually foreign) lawyers often become necessary because of language barriers.”We are disgusted to see these attacks on Indian sovereignty, or on politicians who simply try to establish policy based on human rights, innovation and so on. It’s not too hard to see who’s behind these attacks, which impact not only India but also China (see [1] below for context). Right now Chinese censorship, for instance, is being cast a “trade barrier” by think tanks and lobbyists of US corporations. These are just opportunistic excuses which try to frame human rights issues as a barrier to US profits in China. And watch what IAM ‘magazine’ is doing today. When Mr. Schindler says “the Chinese” he probably means “the Chinese lawyers” because IAM believes that more lawsuits are a good thing and wants to increase their frequency. IAM is seemingly worried about barriers to litigation based on yesterday’s article. That’s really what it’s all about. It’s exercising power in the courtroom, usually a large company against a small one or a company from a rich country like the US against another company in a poorer country such as India. In the courts, as virtually everyone knows, those with deeper pockets have the cards stacked in their favour (costs of appeals, experienced lawyers, etc.), so who is this all for? It’s an imperialistic or colonialist system, which India ought to know enough about, having suffered British occupation for a long time.

If China and India care about their future and prosperity, then they will give USTR the middle finger, get out of the RCEP ‘trade’ agreement and just carry on developing things (India is big for software, China for hardware), not bickering over patents in courtrooms, where English-speaking (usually foreign) lawyers often become necessary because of language barriers.

Related/contextual items from the news:

  1. On IP Protection, USTR Finds Fault With China, India … And Switzerland? [Ed: see what else it did, bullying nations that don’t obey the demands of US corporations]

    The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) does not hesitate to add even its closest friends to its annual list of concerns about possible inadequate protection of US intellectual property rights. So this year, along with perennial listees China, India and dozens of others, vigorous IP-rights defender Switzerland makes an appearance. The annual Special 301 report was issued today, and in its press release this year, USTR also included its primary client in publishing the list – the rightsholder industry.

« 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