08.09.18
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
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. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
08.05.18
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”
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. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
06.30.18
Posted in America, Deception, Marketing, Patents at 9:03 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
“Fake news” or just opportunistic spam?
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. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
06.24.18
Posted in Deception, Europe, Marketing, Patents at 2:04 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
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. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
06.19.18
Posted in Deception, Europe, Marketing, Patents at 11:15 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Lying has become a norm
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. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
06.17.18
Posted in Deception, Marketing, Patents at 9:22 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: The meta-industry which profits from patents and lawsuits claims that it’s guiding us and pursuing innovation, but in reality its sole goal is enriching itself, even if that means holding science back
WE’D LIKE to take a moment aside from the usual EPO and USPTO focus. Something ought to be said which was said here many times before but merits extra emphasis.
“The problem is, such patent consultants or practitioners or whatever they call themselves are rarely independent and impartial observers.”When it comes to patent advisors, their motivation is usually to get more business or “returning customers”. This means that advice would likely gravitate towards lawsuits, even futile ones that cannot be won. The problem is, such patent consultants or practitioners or whatever they call themselves are rarely independent and impartial observers. They’re personally involved and they’re immersed in a particular industry that relies on certain activities — a subject we shall cover separately in our next post.
Patent attorneys and lawyers are typically in the ‘business’ of advising on how to manage the mess which they themselves create (or at least perpetuate); we say so with no intention of offending anyone in particular. It’s just putting the simple truth out there. Sure, there are some attorneys and lawyers who are honest and with great integrity (some of them send us information and material); some are willing to express the occasional dissent towards patent maximalism — at great risk of being framed “traitors” to their profession. But they’re the exception rather than the norm. They won’t be the ones to become abundantly wealthy.
“The latter — prior art — is very important as it helps document the history of science and credit/attribute the correct people for their contribution to the sciences.”To give a couple of examples from several hours ago, over at Patent Docs they now market or promote some upcoming ‘webinars’ (“Patent Portfolio Management” and “Post-Sale Restrictions”), as they typically do on a Sunday. The real (underlying) purpose of these is to spur more patent activity, e.g. applications, sales, lawsuits. It’s quite a departure from the original/intended goal of patents. Nowadays it’s not even inventors who write their patents; it’s typically law firms.
Another blog which is more moderate (in our experience it is neither dishonest nor extremist at all) speaks of general tips, e.g. Charles Bieneman on drafting of patents and prior art (relevant to 35 U.S.C. § 102). The latter — prior art — is very important as it helps document the history of science and credit/attribute the correct people for their contribution to the sciences. As Florian Müller noted when the EPO blocked Techrights (with tens of thousands of articles that sometimes potentially cover prior art), denying examiners access to information which may be relevant to prior art means that the EPO quit caring about facts and is nowadays in bed with the patenting and litigation ‘industry’. We’re quite certain some EPO insiders can relate to this sentiment. Well, two weeks from today their President will be António Campinos, who does not come from a law firm (unlike Mr. Iancu in the US) but has background in banking, i.e. money-making. Once upon a time EPO Presidents were scientists. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
02.26.18
Posted in Deception, Marketing, Microsoft, Patents at 1:18 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: More of the usual ‘spam’ that’s tailor-made to look like reporting or advice; the Microsoft connection to some of the latest patent lobbying is also noted
TECHRIGHTS habitually calls out or exposes sites that are paid to promote an agenda (the EPO does this a lot). It also names and shames companies that participate in this, not to mention so-called ‘news’ sites that are just posting as ‘news’ pure PR, shallowly dressed up as ‘articles’.
“An ‘app’ is just a buzzword for software, so this article basically promotes software patents (which is a terrible idea, they’re worthless).”Several days ago CBR published this ‘article’ titled “Patenting your app: Everything you need to know” (sounds like something introductory, but it’s not).
An ‘app’ is just a buzzword for software, so this article basically promotes software patents (which is a terrible idea, they’re worthless). It uses very basic language (like a marketing brochure with generic language) and watch who wrote it. Pure marketing disguised as ‘news’ by John Paul Rooney, partner and patent attorney at Withers & Rogers.
Has CBR sunk this low? Might as well post that under the “spam” or “advertisements” section. It’s just misinformation intended to spur sales.
“Might as well post that under the “spam” or “advertisements” section. It’s just misinformation intended to spur sales.”Sadly, CBR is far from the only site doing so. Watchtroll, where about a quarter of all posts are press releases (or paid-for marketing), is now posting Microsoft marketing as ‘articles’. Truly pathetic. Who next? Monsanto maybe? There are Windows- and Microsoft-aligned sites that glorify Microsoft patents every single day (here’s a new example), but seeing Watchtroll participating in it says a lot about Watchtroll.
Speaking of Microsoft, Aaron Morrow, who works for the firm of a famous felon’s father (K&L Gates is the firm of Bill Gates’ family), now explains how to enforce software patents in spite of them being bogus (under § 101). To quote:
On February 9, 2018, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) held its first Chicago Regional Seminar, hosted by Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law. Stefanos Karmis, the Acting Director of the Office of Patent Quality Assurance, participated in several of the panels and discussed ongoing patent quality initiatives at the USPTO. Many of those panel discussions centered on the Master Review Form, [1] especially a “Patent Quality Review” segment on patent subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Practitioners and applicants should go through the Master Review Form because it sets forth how the USPTO evaluates a subject matter eligibility rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
It is also worth noting this article from the firm of Microsoft’s former patent bully, which then plugs in some Microsoft marketing: “Given that there are no specific allegations at this point against Avi Networks’ Next-gen Application Delivery for Microsoft Azure, it doesn’t appear that Avi Networks could take advantage of the Patent Pick option of the Azure IP Advantage program. But that could always change as the case proceeds.”
“Notice how a Microsoft-connected law firm, speaking about a Microsoft ally, promotes a Microsoft racket and bashes another partner.”“Azure IP Advantage” is a patent racket [1, 2] and the case in question sees Microsoft’s ally Citrix using software patents against a small company. Notice how a Microsoft-connected law firm, speaking about a Microsoft ally, promotes a Microsoft racket and bashes another partner.
Is there a disclosure of the conflict of interest? Of course not. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
10.29.17
Posted in America, Marketing, Patents at 6:55 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Marketing overload and wasted effort
Summary: Examples from the past week of patents whose sole purpose seems to be promotion of some software rather than prospects of successful litigation
UNOFFICIALLY, software patents are a thing of the past in the United States. The USPTO continues to grant them (not for long perhaps), but courts repeatedly reject them and PTAB does too.
We are watching software patents closely. We try to gain insights into how they get granted and where/when.
Days ago we saw this article about R3. The whole article is about a potential patent or two and it certainly seems like a misguided move from the startup. R3 seems not to know that such patents have no validity/weight in a court of law. These are a waste of time and money, but R3 is pursuing these anyway. To quote the article: “Consortium startup R3 has filed two patent applications detailing its work on applying distributed ledger tech to “dynamic” agreements between financial institutions.
“The two applications – submitted last year and published by the the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on Oct. 19 – detail the use of a system for tracking, maintaining and updating agreements via a shared ledger.”
These are applications for software patents; the USPTO ought to reject these on grounds like Section 101 (abstract ideas).
Another new example we stumbled upon was Tangoe, which is trying to disguise or ‘dress up’ software patents using buzzwords like IoT. Based on
this press release, it’s another timely example of software patents that should not be granted by the Office.
Another new example comes from ProofPlus. It speaks of an “additional patent for the software engine that drives the ProofPlus electronic document system,” but the abstract nature of this is almost self explanatory within the sentence.
Accompanying this puff piece we have this press release [1, 2] titled “Chinese Government Allows Patenting of US Company’s Compliance Software for Financial Documents” (very similar to the headline above). Well, China has a patent bubble/gold rush going on right now; SIPO still grants the most hilarious and dumbest of patents, so there’s nothing to be proud of here. They are clearly pursuing self-legitimacy in the wrong places.
A few days ago we saw this announcement from VerifyMe, an obscure (to us) firm which describes itself as “a pioneer in patented physical, cyber and biometric technologies” (as if the patents matter).
Here is another new press release which boasts/brags about software patents by stating: “Intensity Analytics, a specialized software company with patented identity and cybersecurity products…”
FICO too has just wasted money pursuing software patents and then issuing a press release about them [1, 2]. Not enforceable post-Alice, but hey, at least they can use the “p” word to impress potential shareholders.
Here is another days-old press release that says “Enterprise IP management software is an automation system for modern corporate that supports in the tracking of patents, trademarks, copyrights and IP.”
These things barely work, but there’s plenty of marketing for them. Now, here’s a funny claim from British media a few days ago:
Crowdfunding in August 2015 led to industrial design, hardware, software, packaging and a patent.
Paul added: “Just two per cent of patents become products. But with passion you can do it.”
Where does that figure come from? Is it made up?
In conclusion, a lot of the media and especially press releases tend do market software around the idea that there’s a patent (or several patents) on it. Classic example of patents as means of marketing rather than any practical value. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »
Content is available under CC-BY-SA