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

10.18.18

The EPO Under António Campinos Relaxes the Rules on Software Patenting and the Litigation ‘Industry’ Loves That

Posted in Europe, Marketing, Patents at 5:20 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Easier to tax coders, whose projects will be undermined or never come to fruition in the first place (due to fear of lawsuits)

EPO white flag

Summary: EPO management, which is nontechnical, found new terms by which to refer to software patents — terms that even the marketing departments can endorse (having propped them up); they just call it all AI, augmented intelligence and so on

THE EPO seems eager to handicap Europe’s software industry. What does it care anyway? All it wants to do is grant as many patents as possible and get a pat on the back from litigators. António Campinos has taken this lunacy to new levels as the EPO under his leadership constantly promotes software patents in Europe. It does so not only every day but several times per day. Campinos recently saw the need to write a blog post about it.

“…now that nontechnical people (promoted based on loyalties rather than merit) run the EPO they’re more easily swayed by law firms and marketing departments, not scientists.”Not everyone is upset about this abomination. Some people make a living not from creation but from destruction; put another way, they sue things out of existence. Like patent trolls do…

Patent law firms, unlike patent trolls, win irrespective of the courts’ outcomes. It doesn’t matter if European Patents are nowadays presumed invalid; all that matters is that lawyers are needed…

We recently wrote about the leveraging of "AI" as a byword or surrogate for software patents. Philip Naylor (Carpmaels & Ransford LLP) took note of that too; writing in IAM, the EPO’s propaganda rag, Naylor said this:

The EPO has updated its official guidelines to include a specific section on how the office is likely to assess patent applications directed towards artificial intelligence (AI). A preview of the update can be found on the EPO website and will come into force on 1 November 2018.

The update to the guidelines provides further clarity on how the EPO’s existing legal framework will be applied to AI inventions. Generally, the update confirms that the same rules that are applied to all computer-implemented inventions will apply to inventions involving AI. The rules stipulate that mathematical methods per se are “devoid of technical character” and thus are not patentable when considered in isolation. However, inventions that use mathematical methods remain patentable if they provide a technical solution to a technical problem. The EPO’s guidelines now state that AI and machine-learning algorithms are considered to be mathematical methods. Therefore, an invention that uses AI or machine learning must solve a technical problem in order to be patentable, in the same way as any other computer-implemented invention.

So they’re adding tricks for software patenting, knowing that these are not allowed. They tell applicants to say “AI” and at the same time instruct examiners to almost ‘rubber-stamp’ all this “AI” stuff. Never mind if the concept is rather nebulous, much like the concept of “cloud”. The litigation industry rejoices and helps this agenda, based on another new article that says:

Jennings is in the camp that believes that AI “augments humans”. He said he was “very happy to see that the European Patent Office (EPO) stresses AI as augmented intelligence”.

The EPO published its preliminary update of its guidelines for examination in early October, which included changes for provisions relating to the patentability of AI and machine learning.

So software can be patented “per se” and “as such”; just make sure the application says “AI” in it.

Eamon Robinson (Haseltine Lake LLP) has also just published this article about the EPO cutting corners for shallower or faster examination:

A European patent or a patent application may not be amended to contain subject matter extending beyond the application as filed. This section of the Guidelines provides guidance on when replacing or removing features from a claim results in unallowable added subject matter.

The Guidelines describe a three step test to determine if such amendments result in added subject matter. The updated Guidelines clarify that an amendment will fail the test, and thus add matter, if at least one criterion of the test is failed.

[...]

The changes to the Guidelines emphasise the importance of this “gold standard” over the above three step test. The “gold standard” should therefore, be considered when making amendments to the claims of a patent or application, in particular when removing or replacing features. Furthermore, the change to the first step of the test may make it easier for objections to be raised to amendments. The previous Guidelines stated that it was enough for a skilled person to recognise that a feature is explained as essential, whereas, the updated Guidelines require that the feature must be objectively explained as essential.

In summary then, the EPO’s advice to examiners in relation to removal of features would seem to be getting stricter.

Decisions are already being made a lot faster, at the very least in order to meet quotas/targets. Maybe some time soon Campinos will just use so-called ‘AI’ (algorithms) to assess patent applications with the term “AI” in them.

It should be noted that this whole “AI” hype doesn’t deal with novelty; the term “AI” was reintroduced a lot in the media last year. A lot of it boils down to marketing. In the broadest sense of the term the concept of AI dates back to the dawn of computing. But now that nontechnical people (promoted based on loyalties rather than merit) run the EPO they’re more easily swayed by law firms and marketing departments, not scientists.

10.05.18

Microsoft Uses LOT Network to Spread Lies and Promote Its Protection Racket

Posted in Deception, Marketing, Microsoft, Patents, Red Hat at 2:21 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

An aggregator (DPA) or a vision so shallow that even Microsoft can enlist

LOT Network: A WHOLE LOT OF SOFTWARE PATENTS

Summary: A Red Hat- and Google-centric aggregator of software patents adds Microsoft as a member even though Microsoft continues to arm and fund patent trolls; the main/net effect of this move appears to be promotion of “Azure IP Advantage” (protection from Microsoft’s trolls as long as one pays Microsoft monthly fees)

THE COMPANY of endless lies is at it again, having leveraged many US patents (software patents wrongly granted by the USPTO) against GNU/Linux.

“Microsoft loves Linux” is a lie. And now Microsoft wants us to think that Microsoft battles patent trolls. This too is a Microsoft lie, albeit one that corporate media is happy to play along with, e.g. with headlines such as “Microsoft joins the LOT Network to help fight patent trolls” (a lie, the latter part in particular).

Deducted from fact-checking is the abundant evidence which is widely available, such as Microsoft’s patent troll Intellectual Ventures, which is the world’s largest. We wrote about it as recently as yesterday. The dedicated Microsoft propaganda sites (these sites’ names give that away) promote the same fiction that Microsoft is against patent trolls. Just don’t let facts get in the way…

There’s also this batch of hours-old headlines about patents Microsoft can and possibly will use against Android OEMs [1, 2, 3]. Microsoft loves its patents and it actively uses them for litigation and shakedown purposes.

So what explains this lunacy we saw yesterday evening in the media? This press release [1, 2] from Microsoft started it. It is a lie because Microsoft actively contributes to patent trolls and their attacks, but the title of the press release says Microsoft wants to “Protect its Community Against Patent Troll Attacks” (whose patent trolls and which community?).

It didn’t take long for Red Hat to play along with this publicity stunt that misleads. Remember that Red Hat hires managers from Microsoft (it’s well documented), so Red Hat will defend its shareholders rather than the Free software community. Red Hat is also still applying for software patents while propping up LOT Network, which is not the solution at all. This is what Red Hat said about its beloved LOT Network:

We are excited to see Microsoft – a top 10 recipient of U.S. patents – announce today it is joining the LOT Network (LOT), a company we helped form. Since 2014, Red Hat and other top companies around the world have come to recognize LOT as an innovative response to patent assertion entities (PAEs). Microsoft is a welcome addition to LOT’s almost 300 members, which together hold more than one million patent assets.

[...]

Red Hat is committed to LOT’s mission and to broadening its reach. We believe that LOT is a significant tool in weakening the threat that PAEs pose to operating companies, including those that distribute free and open source software. We are pleased Microsoft has joined our ranks, and look forward to working with them to expand the reach of LOT.

As we explained a few months back, LOT Network had become somewhat of a joke because it is a proponent of software patents. It’s like its purpose is to protect software patents from the community’s scrutiny rather than protect the community from software patents. It is, in that regard, somewhat similar to OIN. Earlier this week [1, 2] we showed that Microsoft’s patent trolls are still attacking Microsoft’s rivals in new lawsuits, so how can the company pretend to have changed its strategy? Erich Andersen (Microsoft) says they’re “helping to lead the way toward addressing the patent troll problem” (but Microsoft actively contributes to this problem!) and yet LWN framed it as follows: “Microsoft has announced that it has joined the LOT Network, which is an organization set up to help thwart patent trolls by licensing any member’s patents to all members if they end up in the hands of a troll.”

But Microsoft itself does exactly that, e.g. passing Nokia‘s patents to this troll in bulk. Microsoft’s site, which LWN cites for its “facts”, says this:

We are pleased to announce that Microsoft is joining the LOT Network, a growing, non-profit community of companies that is helping to lead the way toward addressing the patent troll problem, an issue that impacts businesses of all sizes.

Microsoft has seen this problem firsthand. We’ve faced hundreds of meritless patent assertions and lawsuits over the years, and we want to do more to help others dealing with this issue. In most cases, the opportunists behind these assertions were not involved in the research and development of the ideas that came to be embodied in patents. Many do not even understand the technical concepts described in them. In the most extreme cases, we’ve seen mass mailings and campaigns to extract value from small businesses who are not equipped to understand patents. Although these problems are less acute in the US today than in the past, in part because of changes in the law, the challenge persists for many businesses. Entrepreneur magazine cited a recent study showing that 40 percent of small companies involved in patent litigation reported “significant operational impact” from those suits, which some described as a “death knell.”

It then mentions Microsoft’s protection racket [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21], known as “Azure IP Advantage” (same as the scheme Microsoft set up with Novell). There’s ‘special’ protection from trolls only for those who host with Azure. It’s like GNU/Linux users need to reach a patent settlement with Microsoft, paid in several installments (Azure subscription). With a host like Amazon/AWS one risks patent lawsuits, albeit not from Microsoft directly.

Mary Jo Foley, a career Microsoft booster (for well over a decade), perpetuates Microsoft’s misleading claims and promotes their extortion racket, which Andersen introduces as follows:

This also means we are continuing on the path we started with the introduction of the Azure IP Advantage program in 2017. As part of that program, Microsoft said that it would defend and indemnify developers against claims of intellectual property infringement even if the service powering Azure was built on open source. We also said that if we transferred a patent to a company in the business of asserting patents, then Azure customers would get a license for free. Our LOT membership expands this pledge to other companies in the LOT network.

So they’re basically saying, “host everything in Azure (even GNU/Linux) and you’ll be safer from trolls” (“even the trolls that we’re funding and arming”). This is, for the most part, just a marketing opportunity for Microsoft. It also helps distort the record, e.g. on Microsoft’s major role in sponsoring and giving patents to patent trolls. How long before Jim Zemlin congratulates Microsoft?

09.23.18

Patent Law Firms Have Become More Like Marketing Departments With an Aptitude for Buzzwords

Posted in America, Deception, Europe, Marketing, Patents at 12:06 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Buzzwords

Summary: What we’re observing, without much reluctance anymore, is that a lot of patent lawyers still push abstract software patents, desperately looking for new trendy terms or adjectives by which to make these seem non-abstract

THE EPO and the USPTO are both relying on buzzwords by which to promote software patents, knowing that software patents in Europe are not quite allowed and SCOTUS — with growing support from the Federal Circuit and endless action via Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) inter partes reviews (IPRs) — is frowning/scoffing at such patents (as per Alice/35 U.S.C. § 101 at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office). We have written literally dozens of articles about this subject and included over a thousand examples over the years. We keep seeing many of the same buzzwords, which need to be named and deconstructed (they usually don’t mean a thing; it’s marketing).

Over the past week (as in every other week) we’ve been tracking activity like software patenting. What makes it a tad tricky is the (mis)use of homonyms and synonyms, along with the above-mentioned buzzwords. The buzzwords change over time, with some of them aging out of existence and new ones being introduced (e.g. so-called ‘fourth industrial revolution’ or “4IR” as the EPO likes to call it). We don’t want to mock or obsess over these buzzwords too much. From what we can gather, EPO examiners are clever enough to spot this nonsense and have a good chuckle over it. This post will, instead, be a rundown of outline or recent articles which demonstrate what we’re talking about.

Several days ago we saw “FogChain Patent Secured Data Access Control”; if this sounds abstract, well… that’s because it is. And the article is just self-promotional junk from Crypto Block Wire, LLC (the publisher). To quote:

FogChain Corp. is a futuristic, highly reputable company offering solutions to software development, testing, and deployment. The company is gratified to announce its most recent decision regarding filing for a new patent. The patent covers secured data access control utilizing localized cryptographic innovation.

Technological advancements in the blockchain industry have empowered secure distribution of digital information using cryptographic techniques. Consequently, secure and quick transactions, including other data adjustments, can take place in a more dynamic and economical manner. In particular, its decentralization endeavors may bring about absolute transparency and immutability of the data.

The patent’s underlying technology covers localized network typologies that are able to grant access control and data management capabilities. The technology can additionally provide particular network architecture models that accommodate and empower such functionalities.

How is that not abstract? It’s so obviously invalid based on Section 101 criteria. But they say “blockchain” and “innovation”, so it must be very, very innovative. “Patent please!”

Remember that all these "blockchain" patents are bunk software patents; we cannot stress this strongly and often enough. This sort of “blockchain” hype is everywhere this year, including in the domain of patents, wherein it’s presented either in the context of patenting or management of patent data (sometimes both, sometimes interleaving to the point of revealing writers’ inability to comprehend what they even write about or get told by law firms). Here is a fairly new article titled “What would a blockchain patent war look like?”

The opening paragraphs go like this:

Blockchain is perhaps the most hyped technology of the past five years. The technology that allows us to create trustless immutable shared ledgers promises to bring transparency and honesty to commerce by disintermediating and decentralizing functions that rely on trusted third parties today. The promise and the potential are almost as big as the hype.

While still the early days, there are several applications that have already launched on blockchains — the first being the Bitcoin cryptocurrency payment protocol. Bitcoin is just a unit of account on blockchain. And more recently, with the implementation of smart contracts, code that is shared across the whole blockchain to execute conditionally with irrefutable results, we have the possibility to tokenize many new financial constructs on blockchains.

It’s all abstract; it’s software.

Another new article, this one titled “Mastercard Eyes Blockchain For B2B,” promoted the misconception that large companies (such as Mastercard) applying for a patent means they intend to implement something rather than simply obstruct competition/disruption. We wrote about this in past years, even in relation to Mastercard. To quote:

Blockchain has been receiving attention well beyond cryptocurrencies, and the focus has shifted in part to patent filings. Though it may seem that China has dominated patent filing activity in recent weeks, a number of firms (not Alibaba) have been making their own way across the patent landscape.

In the latest news germane to intellectual property and blockchain, Mastercard has filed three patent applications with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, as reported this week. Amid those patent filings came details that the payments giant has developed a blockchain-based system, which aims to streamline high-volume B2B transactions. The patents are titled “Method and System for Recording Point-to-Point Transaction Processing.”

UseTheBitcoin (blog) then published a rather poorly-researched item that attempts to rank large companies based on “Blockchain Patents”, preceding the list with a logo of Microsoft. From the introduction:

Blockchain technology is one of the most trending topics in 2018. With blockchain becoming one of the most popular buzzwords today, every startup or established company wants to jump on the opportunity. This has led to the abundance of companies filing patent applications, hence triggering a potential blockchain race.

This year alone, several major companies applied for Blockchain-related patents. Like any other patent, a blockchain patent is a strict form of legal protection over an invention and the intellectual base of that invention. It’s a legal means for inventors to prevent others from making use of their invention.

Promotion of totally bogus software patents is likely to do no good, except for law firms; it’s about databases. There are also those that pertain to computer vision (mathematics) and are being promoted in press releases like this one which says: “This report provides insights into the development of facial recognition-related granted patents for automotive applications and offers a snapshot of facial recognition-based technology and application trends in the automotive industry.”

Well, facial recognition is all software. I know this, having reviewed scholarly papers on this (even for leading international journals). Why are such patents still being hailed as worthwhile after Alice? The mind boggles…

Campbell University is meanwhile calling algorithms “AI”, failing to note that these buzzwords won’t make these algorithms any less abstract and thus invalid as per Section 101. Here they are advertising the event. Topics include “Patentable Subject Matter for Computer Related Inventions” and “Protecting AI Software & Protecting Inventions Created with the Help of AI” (two different things, but in both cases boiling down to mere algorithms). Their calendar says they are giving “Continuing Legal Education (CLE) credit from the North Carolina Bar Association” by lying to people about software patents and telling them, even wrongly, that ‘dressing up’ algorithms as “AI” would be worth the time and money. This is a recipe for major disappointment as judges would throw out such patents.

Matt Acosta and Emilio Nicolas (Jackson Walker) have meanwhile published in JD Supra (press releases platform for lawyers) something about surveillance in one’s toothbrush. They are calling abstract things “smart” and “IoT” to make them seem patentable and desirable (they’re neither). With a term like “Internet of Things” preceding/starting the headline, what could possibly go wrong? Putting the “Internet of Things” on just about anything is supposed to make things sound new, amazing and novel.

We have meanwhile also noticed, from South Africa for a change, the International Law Office (not what it sounds like) publishing a nonsensical piece with “fourth industrial revolution” (three buzzwords) and “IP protection” (three propaganda terms) in the headline. Louw Steyn and Dawid Prozesky use misleading propaganda words like “property” and “protection”, conjoined/combined with “4IR” from the EPO, to promote the false perception that software patents have legitimacy (they lack that in courts, even in South Africa). In the body they also namedrop “artificial intelligence” (AI) and “additive manufacturing” (AM), not to mention “smart” (nowadays everything that does mass surveillance gets called “smart”). From the introductory paragraph:

The so-called ‘fourth industrial revolution’ is in full swing. Fields such as artificial intelligence (AI) and additive manufacturing (AM) are no longer a thing of the future, but rather an increasing part of everyday life in the form of smart devices, driverless cars and automated assistants – to name a few examples. This revolution is generally centred on a fusion between physical and digital technologies.

The above is just a big “salad” of buzzwords — something to be expected from a marketing department rather than a law firm. Sadly, however, many law firms have been decimated to just that. They just recite a lot of propaganda terms and trendy words like “smart” or “innovative”. They don’t like using terms like “software patents” anymore, knowing that examiners and judges would be instinctively inclined to reject like a reflex.

08.09.18

Propaganda Sites of Patent Trolls and Litigators Have Quit Trying to Appear Impartial or Having Integrity

Posted in Africa, Deception, Marketing, Patents at 2:20 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

The lobbying groups for patent trolls try to appear like diverse professionals, but they’re actually paid marketing/PR fronts

Mixed team

Summary: The lobbying groups of patent trolls (which receive money from such trolls) carry on meddling in policy and altering perception that drives policy; we present some new examples

THE EPO has long used IAM as a propaganda front. As for the USPTO, its connections to Watchtroll have always been worrying (e.g. former USPTO officials who now profit from lawsuits).

“They are basically a megaphone of trolls with misleading/promotional headlines (also big — if not imaginary — sums of money).”Christal Sheppard will work for the world's most awful patent troll, based on this press release that Watchtroll published the day before yesterday (we presume paid PR, based on the labeling) and Finjan, another patent troll, nowadays pays IAM. In return, IAM continues to write puff pieces for this disgusting Microsoft-connected troll; the troll even gets keynotes/speaking positions from IAM. Such is the nature of these publications/blogs. They are basically a megaphone of trolls with misleading/promotional headlines (also big — if not imaginary — sums of money). As a reminder, IAM is not a news site, but Google treats it as one nonetheless. Case of point is this week’s blog post that says:

There was little surprise in the numbers that Finjan recently announced for the second quarter. Revenue for the first half of the year soared to $82.3 million, an increase of more than 200% year-on-year. This was thanks in large part to the company’s settlement with Symantec, but also helped by additional agreements with Carbon Black and Trend Micro. Net income for the half year also saw a correspondingly large jump to $36.3 million, an increase of almost 177% as the business generated $65 million.

The whole thing reads like an ad for the troll; they’re talking about patent blackmail and they try to make a case for sponsoring this troll (as Microsoft did). Joff Wild, IAM’s chief editor, is already preparing the next lobbying event. He’s raising money from patent trolls. This lobbying group of patent trolls says that “Just a week after the US mid-term elections, the 4th Patent Law and Policy event couldn’t be more timely” (pressure group in action, timing events to impact policies). Quoting Wild:

With two of those decisions – Oil States and SAS Institute – involving the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, we will have two panels focused on post-issuance reviews – including how stakeholders should change their PTAB strategies in light of SAS.

If all of that isn’t enough we will also be asking a panel of experts to weigh in on the thorny issue of standard essential patents and what exactly constitutes FRAND. Given that the Trump administration has changed tack, markedly, on that issue there will be much to discuss.

They will try to attract to this event officials and people who might report on it, reaching the eyes and ears of politicians. Days ago we published "Agenda and Lies From Watchtroll Make It Into the Bill of Rohrabacher, the “Inventor Protection Act”"; well, guess what Watchtroll published only hours ago; it’s like they’re think tanks that help their sponsors craft bills/legislation, pushing these in their events based on lies. There needs to be a more coordinated response to these front groups, which are disguised as sources of news. Watchtroll and IAM do appear among search results and IAM seems to be paying extra money to reach more feeds. We know where that money comes from.

08.05.18

The Patent Trolls’ Lobby, IAM, Continues to Promote Patent Troll iPEL, Which is Unethical

Posted in America, Marketing, Patents at 8:19 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

IAM has become this troll’s de facto PR agency, calling patent extortion “ethical”

Pinocchio store

Summary: Well-funded patent troll iPEL, looking to cause chaos and inflict pain upon the market (a lot of litigation), is being constantly promoted in IAM with plenty of puff pieces or even veiled threats (to those who don’t pay ‘protection’ money)

THE think tank called “IAM”, which does EPO PR functions, is at it again. It keeps promoting malicious entities, typically those which pay IAM sponsorship money. iPEL is one of them and IAM keeps promoting it every week or so for a couple of months now. iPEL has yet another article dedicated to it by IAM (in their magazine, under the title “As the US trade war intensifies, pro-plaintiff China may not be what it seems”). From the introduction:

Brian Yates, CEO of iPEL, came out all guns blazing when he spoke with IAM about the NPE, which launched at the end of June with $100 million of money raised from what he described as “a hedge fund comprised of sophisticated investors”.

Our criticism of IAM for promoting Brian Yates and his troll triggered a nerve; they uncharacteristically responded to it in Twitter, despite saying explicitly that they never want to mention it. What exactly is the relationship between iPEL and IAM?

“Rachael IP” wrote (and later deleted) something that they might know from clients of theirs: “What makes an NPE ethical? According to iPEL, suing a company for infringement only after offering an opportunity to license the patent. -iPEL (aka Dan Cotman and Brian Yates)…”

That’s linking to an article of ours, corresponding to this tweet which said: “The notion of “ethical NPE” (the one IAM keeps promoting, “ethical” patent troll) makes as much sense of “peaceful war”. Don’t ever fall for these IAM con artists.”

Days ago IAM mentioned iPEL. Yes. Again. They’re just about the only site that mentions this troll and very regularly at that; this time it’s about supposed focus on China, where they perceive the market — like RPX does — to be more receptive towards trolling. To quote:

Foreign NPEs are setting their sights squarely on the China market – the most notable recent example a new entity called iPEL touting strong investor backing and a plan to assert in China imminently. At the same time, there is a surprising amount of low-level domestic NPE activity – and authorities are taking notice. Prosecutors in Shanghai surprised just about everyone last month when they announced criminal extortion charges for two individuals who made a habit of suing pre-IPO companies.

IAM also wrote in Twitter: “Is an all too familiar patent debate hitting China?” That’s linking more a week later to this article about something we covered here before.

We’d like to know what the relationship between iPEL and IAM really is; what does IAM have to gain here? It’s clear what iPEL has to gain from all these promotional puff pieces for which, atypically, IAM also removed the paywalls.

06.30.18

‘Printed Electronics World’ is an Example of Bogus News Sites Which Are Actually Marketing Fronts for Patents

Posted in America, Deception, Marketing, Patents at 9:03 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

“Fake news” or just opportunistic spam?

IDTechEx logo

Summary: Revisiting the problem which is the “public relations” industry or patent law firms dominating news feeds about patents and warping people’s understanding of all the underlying concepts

THE EPO scandals have been mostly ignored by the media and there are reasons for that. In the US, like in Europe, patent news sources got dominated by few publishers that merely repost shameless self-promotion of patent law firms. This is a problem. It’s an agenda-setting, perception-warping exercise. They merely promote patents and conflate these with “innovation”, “assets” etc. That’s marketing pitch and it’s not being fact-checked.

“Patent Analytics Software Aistemos Secures £3M in Series A Funding,” said this headline a few days ago. We’ve been seeing headlines of this kind for quite some time and many so-called ‘news’ sites about patents have placements for companies, so-called ‘news’ about hirings (it’s actually marketing), and sponsored ‘articles’ with phone numbers and E-mail addresses in them (to attract business).

“Is everything just “public relations” now?”This isn’t journalism. Not even remotely. But IDTechEx went even further and created a whole site that’s posing as a news site. Printed Electronics World posts pure spam from Bryony Core. There was a press release with an almost identical headline on the very same day. This isn’t “article” or “journalism”, it’s more like entryism for salesmanship (entering news feeds to front for a company). It says at the top “Hosted by IDTechEx” (to sell products for IDTechEx). It looks/seems to be a corporate site disguised as a news site — the very type of thing we object to because it puts patent ‘businesses’ at the driving seat of “the news”.

This is a real problem; it is not a new problem, but people should certainly be talking about it. Where does one go for objective news about patents? Are the economics associated with reporting to blame? Is everything just “public relations” now? It only gets worse over time. I’ve been following patent news for a decade and a half and nowadays only about 20% of news is actual journalism. The rest is composed directly or indirectly by law firms and companies that promote their patents.

06.24.18

Patent Factory Europe (PFE) is a Patent Troll’s Publicity Stunt, Attempting to Frame a Predator as the Small Businesses’ Friend and Ally

Posted in Deception, Europe, Marketing, Patents at 2:04 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

French troll

Summary: Patent troll “France Brevets” with its tarnished name (it’s the shame of France, a major source of shame other than Battistelli) has decided to do a charm offensive which characterises it as a friend of small firms (SMEs)

THE EPO continues to lie about being SMEs-friendly. It does this several times per week, perhaps hoping to distract from leaks like these.

Team UPC also lies quite a lot about SMEs; it keeps lying about the UPC being good for SMEs even though the very opposite is true. So SMEs have, in general, become political football. They’re being lied about by those who harm them the most. So should it be a surprise that patent trolls too are attempting to describe themselves as allies of SMEs?

“Team UPC also lies quite a lot about SMEs; it keeps lying about the UPC being good for SMEs even though the very opposite is true.”France Brevets has realised that people know what it’s really up to. So a face-saving move was initiated. The patent trolls’ lobby, IAM, did a puff piece for it (outside paywall for a change, for increased exposure). Then came IP Europe, a villainous patent front group of patent aggressors, with this press release and tweet which says: “Patent Factory Europe (PFE) will provide resources, competences and know-how to help innovative #SMEs in Europe to develop more patents and build strong💪, focused🎯 and usable✅ #IP.”

Nothing could be further from the truth. We mentioned this in our daily links (with a comment) just before the weekend and this might actually gain momentum soon. It’s a publicity stunt from a notorious French patent troll, trying to paint itself as pro-SMEs. It’s that classic old trick, framing oneself as “protecting the little guy…”

As we show below, those are the sole few mentions of “Patent Factory Europe”, which does not even have a Web site. The nature of those who amplify or promote “Patent Factory Europe” says a lot about the “Patent Factory Europe” itself. They’re dishonest patent maximalists.

Patent Factory Europe

06.19.18

Articles About a Unitary Patent System Are Lies and Marketing From Law Firms With ‘Lawsuits Lust’

Posted in Deception, Europe, Marketing, Patents at 11:15 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Lying has become a norm

A small EPO

Summary: Team UPC has grown louder with its lobbying efforts this past week; the same lies are being repeated without much of a challenge and press ownership plays a role in that

EARLIER this week we warned about two lies about UPC — lies that we see perpetuated almost daily by Team UPC and sometimes the EPO as well. Amid expectations of layoffs the Office is looking for a replacement.

The UPC won’t start in a matter of months; this is a blatant lie from corrupt Battistelli and Team UPC, which has a lot of money at stake. They need this lie repeated ad infinitum in order to make sales (telling customers to pursue their ‘unitary’ offerings). As for Battistelli, if all his abuses were in vain (resulting in 8 years of immeasurable damage, corruption and unprecedented abuses), how would he be remembered?

“The UPC won’t start in a matter of months; this is a blatant lie from corrupt Battistelli and Team UPC, which has a lot of money at stake.”We’d like to draw attention to the latest lies and respond to these very quick. Well, marked as “(press release) (blog)” in Google News yesterday was this utter garbage titled “Patent Translation in Europe: How to Deal with IP Protection” (they mean patents, not “IP”). Rae Steinbach is trying to tell the German Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) what to do. And what for? To basically harm the whole of Europe for the interests of some patent law firms (like his). Great example of the arrogance and greed of Team UPC? Still willing to lie and break laws, constitutions etc. to make a buck/euro?

from the ‘article’ (flagged by Google as “press release” and “blog”):

The European Unitary Patent package also aims to address these complications and make the system easier for businesses and individuals to navigate. As a result, the organization is looking to reduce the costs associated with patent and other IP related applications.

It is expected that the Unitary Patent package will come into effect in 2019…

[...]

As the largest EU economy, it is essential that Germany’s Federal Constitutional Court decides in favour of ratifying the Unitary Patent System. Doing so will make it an attractive alternative to individual EU state’s patents for persons and businesses wishing to obtain legal protection for intellectual property, inventions, and innovations across Europe.

Notice the above claims; these fit perfectly the pattern of lies we’ve been speaking about. They write these lies and then pay sites to carry these lies (so that Google News perpetuates their lies). And they don’t just embed themselves in the media as sometimes they literally own it. Here’s an example from yesterday, stating upfront, in Out-Law.com, that “Dublin-based Ann Henry of Pinsent Masons, the law firm behind Out-Law.com,” is lobbying for the UPC using the media — its very own media — spreading lies in its financial interests again. Here are the relevant passages, pressing the Irish authorities to embrace something there was no referendum on in Ireland (this was indefinitely delayed):

Dublin-based Ann Henry of Pinsent Masons, the law firm behind Out-Law.com, said a new report published by the Irish government highlighted the range of concerns pharma-chemical businesses in Ireland have about the UK’s withdrawal from the EU.

[...]

“Clients in the sector are particularly concerned about divergence in technical specifications and products standards making product authorisation potentially more costly and protracted,” Henry said. “In addition, Brexit throws up a raft of intellectual property law related issues such as customs watch notices and the future of the unitary patent and the Unified Patent Court. These are all concerns for the sector, as is the logistics and supply chain disruption Brexit creates for pharmaceutical and chemical businesses in circumstances where the UK has been effectively Ireland’s ‘bridge’ to continental Europe.”

So under the guise of “news” what we have here is a law firm pushing its own interests, demonstrating issues of media control.

“Marks & Clerk has been one of the loudest UPC lobbyists out there, outdone only by Bristows, at least in the UK.”Another new example from yesterday (albeit unrelated to the UPC) came from Physics World, which acts as a megaphone for lawyers rather than actual physicists. Latest example of patent marketing disguised as advice? We wrote about this phenomenon only a few days ago and we’ve gotten some feedback since, e.g. from people who said they had experienced the same thing (lawyers looking to exploit them like that). From the so-called ‘article’ (summary): “Every company wants to attract investors and deter competitors. Patent attorney David Robinson explains how a good intellectual property strategy has helped biomedical physics firm Bioxydyn do just that” (the bottom says “David Robinson is a partner and patent attorney at Marks & Clerk in Manchester, UK”).

What we have here are proponents of software patents and UPC not far from where I live. Marks & Clerk has been one of the loudest UPC lobbyists out there, outdone only by Bristows, at least in the UK.

Hours ago we saw “Karl Barnfather chairman of IP firm Withers & Rogers” pretending that patents and innovation are the same thing. He just cited EPO data:

New figures suggest innovation in the UK has increased, but we are lagging behind other parts of Europe and Brexit could yet turn the clock back writes Karl Barnfather chairman of IP firm Withers & Rogers

A site called The Engineer is now being composed by patent lawyers. Great!

“How many articles have been written over the past 3 years saying that the UPC was about to start? They were all wrong.”And if that’s not bad enough, across the Atlantic we have Watchtroll advertising software patents of SafeBreach under the guise of “investment” news. This vaguely-titled spam/ad in ‘article’ form (for DLA Piper) is also noteworthy.

The media, at least as far as patent matters are concerned, is a joke. It’s mostly marketing if not spam from law firms. A lot of it is also lobbying disguised as news. We have been writing about this problem for many years. Bemoaning it may not accomplish much, but at least we hope that readers are made aware. How many articles have been written over the past 3 years saying that the UPC was about to start? They were all wrong.

« 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