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

02.13.19

Battistelli’s Bodyguard, Part II: Fishing Expedition for Sources in the Alexandre Benalla ‘Underworld’ Scandal

Posted in Europe, Patents at 4:47 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Protecting criminals from those who expose them

Control Risks

Investigation Unit

Summary: An utter lack of respect for the privacy of the media and of its sources, in the name of protecting the privacy of those convicted of crimes, as seen in France just like the European Patent Office

THIS is the second part of a series of 5 (part one here) regarding the Benalla affair. Benalla had worked clandestinely at the European Patent Office (EPO) before the so-called ‘Benallagate’ broke out.

As it turns out, France is now mimicking the EPO modus operandi. The EPO hired a dodgy private firm to help spy on the staff, as we noted in:

The next translation comes from a reader, who read “Mediapart s’oppose à une perquisition de ses locaux dans l’affaire Benalla” and put it all in English as follows:

Mediapart opposes a search of its premises in the Benalla case

The leaders of the information site say they refused a search conducted in the context of an investigation for a restriction of Benalla’s privacy.

The Paris Public Prosecutor’s Office opened an investigation into “restriction of privacy” and the conditions for recording a conversation between Alexandre Benalla and Vincent Crase in late July, after its broadcast last week by Mediapart, it was reported on Monday from a judicial source.

The online media reported that on Monday morning it refused a search of its premises, where two prosecutors and investigators who wanted to seize the recordings in question as part of this procedure came forward. “There are diligences to find our sources, it is a particularly worrying situation,” denounced Fabrice Arfi, co-responsible for the online newspaper’s surveys, to AFP.

Mediapart had published on Thursday excerpts from a recording of a conversation between Alexandre Benalla, Emmanuel Macron’s former advisor, and Vincent Crase, former LREM employee and reservist gendarme.

According to the news website, this conversation took place on 26 July, a few days after the two men were indicted for violence against demonstrators on 1 May 2018 and in violation of their judicial control.

The judicial source specified that the opening of the preliminary investigation, which also concerns the “unlawful possession of devices or technical devices likely to enable the interception of telecommunications or conversations”, took place following the receipt by the Paris prosecutor’s office of “elements”, the nature of which has not been specified.

A source close to the investigation added that it was not triggered following a complaint from Alexandre Benalla.

“As we are in the context of a preliminary investigation, we have the right to refuse a search and we have therefore obviously refused it, allowing us to comment on this unprecedented situation in the history of the newspaper, and which we consider particularly serious for the newspaper,” also explained Fabrice Arfi.

Previously in the Benalla affair in relation to the EPO:

  1. Alexandre Benalla, Macron’s Violent Bodyguard, Was Also Battistelli’s Bodyguard
  2. It Wasn’t Judges With Weapons in Their Office, It Was Benoît Battistelli Who Brought Firearms to the European Patent Office (EPO)
  3. Benoît Battistelli Refuses to Talk to the Media About Bringing Firearms to the EPO
  4. Guest Post on Ronan Le Gleut and Benalla at the French Senate (in Light of Battistelli’s Epic Abuses)
  5. The Man Whose Actions Could Potentially Land Team Battistelli in Jail
  6. French Media Confirms Alexandre Benalla Just One of Six Battistelli Bodyguards, Employed at the Cost of €8,000-€10,000 Per Month (for Benalla Alone!)
  7. Corrupt Battistelli Paid a Fortune (EPO Budget) for Outlaw/Rogue ‘Bodyguards’ From Firm Linked to Russian Oligarch Iskander Makhmudov

The next part will be published either later today or tomorrow.

02.12.19

Innovating the Idea That Software Patents (Monopolies on Algorithms) Are Covering ‘Artificial’ ‘Intelligence’ (AI and ML as Loopholes)

Posted in Europe, Patents at 2:57 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

AJ Park and NSA

Summary: Patent law firms around the world love this new trick, which is framing software that makes decisions as “AI” (magically rendering it patent-eligible only in offices but not in courts, which the EPO hopes to replace/override anyway)

RECENTLY, including earlier today, we wrote about the ‘AI’ nonsense. Both the European Patent Office (EPO) and the USPTO use this nonsensical term, albeit it seems like the EPO started it. More recently WIPO too followed, along with the UN (that it’s a part or extension of).

“…this “AI” hype had started just before António Campinos became President of the EPO.”What on Earth is going on? Some hours ago IP Watch published this piece, behind paywall, about yet more of the same. Corrupt WIPO is promoting software patents (illegal almost everywhere) under the guise of “AI” and Catherine Saez played along by writing: “Artificial intelligence is with us to stay, and you can expect solutions to great challenges, but governments should be prepared to invest in education and research to keep up with the two global leaders of the field: the United States and China. This is in essence what several speakers said recently at an event held at the World Intellectual Property Organization.”

We might also add that much of this “AI” hype had started just before António Campinos became President of the EPO. It started at the end of Battistelli’s reign of corruption. Not that Campinos ended this corruption…

“It started at the end of Battistelli’s reign of corruption.”An article by Anton Blijlevens and Brook Dyer of AJ Park has also just been published under the title “European Patent Office Releases Guidelines On AI Patentability”.

For those who don’t know, AJ Park has long lobbied for software patents [1, 2, 3] in Australia and in New Zealand; well, now it’s pleased that EPO management calls software patents “AI” to cheat the system, warp the whole discussion and then grant fake European Patents. Blijlevens and Dyer wrote:

In November last year, the European Patent Office (EPO) released guidelines relating to the examination of patent applications for artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) based inventions. These guidelines, G-II 3.3.1, provide clarification on how patent applications for inventions relating to AI and ML will be handled by the EPO.

The patentability of AI and ML based inventions has received interest of late, partially due to media hype and the growing expectations and concerns surrounding AI and ML technologies. In May last year, the EPO hosted an international conference to discuss the challenges of patenting AI and ML inventions. Last June, the heads of the patent offices of China, Japan, Korea, Europe, and the United States (the IP5) jointly noted that the impact of AI and ML on the patent system was one of their top strategic priorities.

The newly released EPO guidelines address the issue of the patentability of AI and ML based inventions. The guidelines provide that inventions relating to AI and ML are based on ‘computational models and algorithms for classification, clustering, regression and dimensionality reduction, such as neural networks, genetic algorithms, support vector machines, k-means, kernel regression and discriminant analysis.’

These are all algorithms and I wrote about most of these, worked with them (programming) and explained these 15 years ago in university. It’s not novel and it’s clearly abstract; it’s mathematics. These aren’t novel or emerging because they have been around for a very long time. The theory behind them has been explored for decades and there’s plenty of literature (mostly equations). So just because people now apply “ML” to do X, Y and Z we’re supposed to think it’s unprecedented and “innovative”? There may not be prior art in patents because patents on mathematics are generally not permitted.

“The site they link to is a patent maximalists’ site that helped the EPO promote UPC and habitually spoke to corrupt Battistelli.”Some hours ago the EPO wrote: “Recent survey of IP professionals shows EPO is the best IP office for patenting AI technologies. Thank you for your trust in us!” (links to this recent page which we mentioned last week)

Trust? Whose? Patent maximalists’ maybe. The site they link to is a patent maximalists’ site that helped the EPO promote UPC and habitually spoke to corrupt Battistelli.

According to this site, the EPO is best for software patents (if framed as “AI”); so brags the EPO, which also habitually links to its media partner, IAM. They’re like propaganda mills of the EPO, based in London and closely connected to law firms in London.

“Judge Corcoran’s last bit of work dealt with such a patent application, which he rejected.”The EPO then wrote: “Business and commercialisation experts in the field of #MedTech should attend this event in Lund, Sweden: http://bit.ly/CII_medtech”

“CII_medtech” leads to a page titled “Computer-implemented inventions in Medtech with focus on value of patents for SMEs” (warning: epo.org link).

By “CII” the EPO means software patents (not allowed), but painted as “life-saving” (‘Med’ Tech) and “for SMEs” (the ‘small guy’). Incredible spin right there. Judge Corcoran's last bit of work dealt with such a patent application, which he rejected.

“Never mind if blockchains are software. So the EPO shamelessly promotes software patents which are not allowed.”The EPO then went on to writing: “#Blockchain and #patents? Hear what experts have to say on these two topics that are of relevance to your work…”

Last time the EPO brought “experts” to speak about blockchains these were patent trolls from the US. Never mind if blockchains are software. So the EPO shamelessly promotes software patents which are not allowed. The Office is blatant about this. It doesn’t even hide it.

Perhaps the EPO was all along gambling on bypassing the courts and replacing national judges with dependent (on the EPO) ones. How anarchic would that be? EPO managers or Team Campinos would suddenly be in charge of everything. Maybe Battistelli would then become chief of the UPC.

Max Walters of the patent microcosm’s press apparatus meanwhile spreads the typical misinformation and promotion of the awful UPC (his bosses want the UPC). Earlier today he published this alarmist piece that says this about the UPC:

Elsewhere the IP guidance reiterates concern regarding the UK’s participation in the planned Unified Patent Court (UPC). It warns: ‘It is unclear whether the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) would regard the participation of a non-EU member state in a UPC system with the power to refer matters to the CJEU as lawful, and in particular whether participation in the unitary patent part of the UPC is possible.’

The ability of solicitors to represent clients in the court would also be in doubt, the Society warns.

Whether the UPC comes into being at all is up in the air pending the completion of a constitutional challenge in Germany, one of the countries that must ratify the UPC agreement.

We are watching closely what Stephan Harbarth does next [1, 2] because it seems plausible that Team UPC is once again (as before in the Bundestag) relying on mischief in the FCC (throwing out the constitutional challenge in Germany based on financial ideology of a UPC ‘true believer’ with vested interests in the outcome).

Battistelli’s Bodyguard, Part I: Destruction of Evidence by Alexandre Benalla

Posted in Europe, Patents at 9:50 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

A Battistelli affair

Summary: The Alexandre Benalla scandal carries on, deepening even further than before and causing raids of the media; will the EPO be implicated and held accountable too?

THIS is the first part of a series of 5 English translations of French publications regarding the Benalla affair. Benalla had worked clandestinely at the European Patent Office (EPO) before the so-called ‘Benallagate’ broke out.

Here is the first translation, the original being from nouvelobs.com:

Benalla and Crase mention a destruction of evidence in a new recording

Mediapart says it has handed over seven recordings to the courts.

Mediapart claimed on Tuesday February 5 that it had responded positively to a request from the investigating judges of the Benalla case, by sending to the courts six recordings posted on its website on January 31. These soundtracks indicate that Alexandre Benalla and Vincent Crase, former employee of La République en Marche (LREM) and reservist gendarme, violated their judicial control by meeting on July 26.

The investigation site takes the opportunity to publish a seventh recording, which it claims to have also made available to the investigation. In this new excerpt from their discussion, the two men, who have just been charged, refer to the destruction of evidence.

“Everything about Velours”, replied Vincent Crase, citing the name of a security company, subcontractor of a contract concluded by his own company, Mars, on behalf of a Russian oligarch close to Vladimir Putin. Alexandre Benalla, a former employee of Velours, is said to be personally involved in this security contract, negotiated even though he was a project manager at the Elysée.

“The cops couldn’t look at my phone because I turned it off and on again every time,” adds Vincent Crase. “Frankly, the three cops weren’t against me, far from it, the major who held the investigation told me that he really sucks at doing that.”

Draft emails

Later in their conversation, as Mediapart already revealed last week, the two men are also wondering how to remove elements from the LREM party premises, where a search is to take place. “All my things are here,” says Vincent Crase.

“I’d try to go tonight, but the problem is there are cops outside …”

The two friends,” continues Mediapart, “finally come up with a way to continue to correspond discreetly despite their judicial control, via drafts of dormant e-mail boxes. If a violation of their judicial control is found, Vincent Crase and Alexandre Benalla would be at risk of pre-trial detention.

The Paris Public Prosecutor’s Office provoked controversy on Monday when it tried to search Mediapart’s editorial office following the broadcast of the first excerpts from the conversation. The public prosecutor’s office opened a preliminary investigation for “invasion of privacy” and “unlawful possession of technical devices or devices likely to enable the interception of telecommunications or conversations to be carried out”.

We mentioned this raid some days ago. Wikileaks too had mentioned this. Can they legally raid the EPO as well? That may be more complicated because of immunity. Not even a bailiff was allowed to enter.

Previously in the Benalla affair in relation to the EPO:

  1. Alexandre Benalla, Macron’s Violent Bodyguard, Was Also Battistelli’s Bodyguard
  2. It Wasn’t Judges With Weapons in Their Office, It Was Benoît Battistelli Who Brought Firearms to the European Patent Office (EPO)
  3. Benoît Battistelli Refuses to Talk to the Media About Bringing Firearms to the EPO
  4. Guest Post on Ronan Le Gleut and Benalla at the French Senate (in Light of Battistelli’s Epic Abuses)
  5. The Man Whose Actions Could Potentially Land Team Battistelli in Jail
  6. French Media Confirms Alexandre Benalla Just One of Six Battistelli Bodyguards, Employed at the Cost of €8,000-€10,000 Per Month (for Benalla Alone!)
  7. Corrupt Battistelli Paid a Fortune (EPO Budget) for Outlaw/Rogue ‘Bodyguards’ From Firm Linked to Russian Oligarch Iskander Makhmudov

The next part will likely be published some time tomorrow.

USPTO Director Iancu Works for Anti-SCOTUS (Against Section 101) Lobbyists

Posted in America, Law, Patents at 2:58 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Last year: The Patent Microcosm is Trying to Derail Patent Reform and Make Iancu the ‘American Battistelli’

Trump and Iancu

Summary: The United States Patent and Trademark Office Director Andrei Iancu is becoming to the patent system what Ajit Pai is to the FCC or to the broadband industry; there appears to be intentional vandalism and total disregard for the rule of law

HAVING just written about violations of the EPC at the European Patent Office (EPO), let’s look at similar abuses at today’s USPTO, which disregards Federal Circuit decisions and besieges the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), the equivalent (more or less) of EPO’s BoA.

“We foresaw this all along, even before he got the job.”Mr. Iancu gleefully violating the laws that govern the Office doesn’t surprise us. We foresaw this all along, even before he got the job. We had been writing about this for over a year.

Watchtroll, its striking lack of any comments lately and its connections to Iancu notwithstanding (those too are well documented), has just published “Iancu Highlights U.S. Role in the Future of Innovation in Remarks at U.S. Chamber’s [COC] Global IP Index Reception”. Gene Quinn of Watchtroll basically reveals that Iancu now revels in the presence of this crooked bunch. He is aligning with corrupt COC. Surprising? No. Remember who he got this job from; it was crooked Trump. He got this job after his firm had worked for Trump (hallmark of corruption) and now he is serving the litigation ‘industry’ rather than the Office he works ‘for’ (similar to the pattern of FCC, EPA and so on).

“How typical of these people, who routinely attack judges for their decisions (Quinn has a long and extensive track record doing just that).”What does COC say? Well, the usual. But rather than amplify the lies, as the corporate press around the world has done over the past week, let’s just say that it’s the same as what we saw before, e.g. [1, 2, 3]. It’s lobbying for patent trolls’ interests. “Following are remarks delivered by United States Patent and Trademark Office Director Andrei Iancu at the event, after being introduced by GIPC President and CEO,” Quinn wrote. He also typed up some nonsense titled “The ‘Iancu Effect’ Won’t Matter if Not Supported by the Courts or Congress” (the ‘Iancu Effect’?!). So basically they say that the USPTO can just disregard the law (“Courts or Congress”) and the expectation is that lobbying by COC et al can change what “Courts or Congress” do. How typical of these people, who routinely attack judges for their decisions (Quinn has a long and extensive track record doing just that). They also attack politicians rather crudely for ‘daring’ (or finding the courage) to promote science and technology rather than patent trolls.

“Iancu is already angering groups that are supported by technology firms.”Sadly, we live in bizarre times when agencies tasked with regulation actually do the exact opposite or what they were supposed to do. The USPTO is becoming just that under Iancu’s oversight. It tarnishes the reputation of the USPTO in the same way Ajit Pai destroys what’s left of the FCC and various people do at the EPA. There are many other examples like these across the US government. The likes of COC are allowed to toy around with public policy and the same goes for the Koch Brothers. COC’s index is based on self-serving lies and a couple of weeks ago a Wall Street press apparatus also perpetuated the myth that innovation happens or exists only when there are patents (expensive; large companies can get lots of bogus ones). What is the goal of today’s USPTO? Does it not realise that there’s a crisis of confidence in US patents due to a torrent of false grants (those that had been granted over the past decade or two)?

Iancu is already angering groups that are supported by technology firms. “The @uspto proposal is an example of the agency putting its thumb on the scale in favor of #patent applicants at the expense of the public,” United for Patent Reform wrote this week, linking to the EFF’s recent piece about Iancu. There’s a new article from Joe Mullin/EFF video about “How Justus Decher Beat a Patent Troll”. It was published yesterday and said:

Thousands of patent lawsuits are filed each year, and most of them deal with computer technology and software. Nearly 90 percent of those high-tech patent lawsuits are filed by shell companies that offer the public no products or services whatsoever. These patent-assertion entities, also known as “patent trolls,” simply enrich their owners by extracting money from operating companies.

In recent years, the Supreme Court has limited patent venue abuses, made fee-shifting easier, and most importantly, made it easier to throw out bad software patents in its Alice v. CLS Bank decision.

Patent troll lawsuits hurt real small businesses owned by regular people, most of whom don’t have the millions of dollars that would be required to defend themselves through a patent trial. We created our “Saved by Alice” project to tell their stories—the stories of company founders and entrepreneurs, who were able to keep on innovating because of the Alice decision.

The “Saved by Alice” project is a good initiative against software patents. Those patents are typically leveraged by trolls against a large number of small companies; the large targets can afford a legal challenge.

“It won’t mean a comeback of software patents but of bogus ones.”Want to stop a patent troll and make money at the same time? Unified Patents is looking to leverage prior art rather than 35 U.S.C. § 101/Alice (SCOTUS) against a troll. In its own words (half a day ago), it is “seeking prior art for US 7,010,508 owned by and asserted by Landmark Technology, LLC, a well-known NPE.” There’s a thousand-buck award.

The bottom line is, many bogus patents are still being granted by the USPTO and rather than improve patent quality Iancu is seeking to lower quality even further. That would, as we argued a month ago, cause a crisis of confidence. It won't mean a comeback of software patents but of bogus ones.

Gross Violations of the EPC at the European Patent Office as Principal Priority Turns Against Science and Technology

Posted in Europe, Law, Patents at 2:05 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Defining oneself using the very opposite of the truth

EPO mission

Summary: What good is the law if violation of the European Patent Convention (EPC) is so routine at today’s European Patent Office (EPO), which exploits its immunity to operate outside the rule of law and pursue nothing but cash (selling patents/monopolies that are invalid in courts)?

OUR next post will deal with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) under Iancu following the 'Battistelli model', i.e. attacking/ignoring judges. But before we get to that, shall we take a look at the latest EPO madness? We shall.

First of all, there are overt violations of the EPC when the EPO grants patents on life. Those were never meant to be granted or even considered for a grant. Miraculously enough, however, nature and life are now regarded as “inventions” (whose?) and Kilburn & Strode LLP’s Nick Bassil has just published this piece about the EPC allowing patents on "essentially biological process". What has the patent world sunk to?

“Remember when the EPO actually did a better job pretending it existed to advance science and technology rather than law firms?”As Kluwer Patent blogger noted only a few hours ago, “Teff patents declared invalid [means] ‘great news’ for Ethiopia” — a subject we covered last week. To quote Kluwer: “A court in the Netherlands has ruled that two Dutch patents for processing teff, a kind of grain which has been used for thousands of years to make injera, the fermented pancake that Ethiopians eat with their meals, are null and void. The Ethiopian government has welcomed the verdict. The patents had led to outrage in Ethiopia, where teff is widely considered to be a part of the national cultural heritage. They were also in the way of Ethiopian exports to the European market, where this so-called ‘ancient grain’ or ‘superfood’, just like quinoa for example, enjoys a growing popularity. But the conflict about the Dutch patents has now ended with the verdict of the District Court in The Hague, where an infringement case had been filed in 2014 by the holder of the teff patents, the company Ancientgrain, against a rival, bakery giant Bakels. The court ruled that both patents are invalid due to lack of inventive step. The method to bake bread from the flour ‘is a very common baking method that belongs to the general professional knowledge’ and the mixing of different grains ‘can be considered to be part of general professional knowledge’ and therefore not be considered inventive.”

Notice that a legal battle was needed here. A government needed to spend a lot of money in court to show that the EPO was out of touch. How many people are able to do this? Also, is this good use of the limited budget of Ethiopia?

This, basically, is the outcome of gross violation of the EPC. This is what the EPO does to its reputation worldwide, including in Africa.

The European Patent Convention is being so routinely violated by the EPO these days, so any book on the matter (“Visser’s Annotated European Patent Convention” has just been advertised by Kluwer Patent Blog’s Andrea Sommer) may already be obsolete. The EPO is a rogue institution led by corrupt people. They just don’t care what the law says. Funny how Kluwer Patent Blog is selling books for Kluwer, eh? Many of their recent blog posts are nothing but links that advertise buying services from Kluwer (with paywalls). This blog is a mess. The ad from Sommer speaks of references to “CEIPI courses” (Battistelli) and it would have us believe that we need some book to understand the EPC, which the EPO no longer obeys anyway. “In summary,” Sommer writes, “also in 2019, the “Visser’s Annotated European Patent Convention” is a must!”

Well, it’s “a must” for Kluwer (the employer) because at a rate of £86.00 for just one copy, it would be paying Kluwer quite a lot of money.

Kluwer Patent Blog isn’t always ads and lobbying (e.g. for the UPC). Thorsten Bausch, for a fact, is the exception. He has a sobering bunch of views on the UPC and the EPO and he has just published this blog post regarding an important ethical aspect of European Patents (EPs). As we recently explained, some wrong EPs can end up killing women with breast cancer (monopoly pricing) and these EPs are sometimes granted in violation of the EPC (judges lacking independence means it will slip through them anyway; can they oppose patent maximalism when they’re controlled by bankers and politicians like António Campinos and his master?).

It doesn’t seem to matter that the Technical Board of Appeal lacks independence. It admits this. Now it throws aside oppositions to likely invalid patents that are enshrined as EPs to benefit only very rich people. Or, as Bausch put it yesterday:

Two members of the formulation patent family stand out: EP 1 250 138 and its divisional EP 2 266 573. Both patents refer to a specific formulation of the antiestrogen drug fulvestrant and its use in the treatment of breast cancer via intramuscular injection. The ‘138 patent was granted based on claims directed to the formulation as such. A subsequently filed opposition was rejected and the patent maintained as granted. On appeal, however, a third party introduced a new reference (“McLeskey”) that was said to disclose a formulation falling under the claims of EP’138 and thus appeared to be highly relevant in regard to these claims. However, this formulation was only used in the quite different context of an exploratory mechanistic study looking at a different (estrogen-independent) type of breast cancer, against which this formulation showed no efficacy even at extremely high doses, when given to transfected mice via weekly subcutaneous injections. McLeskey also contained no data about the physical properties of the formulation, its pharmacokinetics and, in particular, its safety, its efficacy against estrogen-dependent breast cancer and the duration of its effect.

Following the introduction of “McLeskey”, the Board of Appeal remitted the case back to the first instance where AstraZeneca amended the claims of EP‘138 into “formulation for use” claims, arguing that the use of McLeskey’s formulation for the treatment of breast cancer was neither disclosed in McLeskey nor obvious therefrom. The Opposition Division agreed and maintained EP‘138 in the thus-amended form. As the sole opposition had been withdrawn before the OD’s decision and no appeal was filed, this decision became final.

[...]

But the story continues. AstraZeneca appealed the first instance EPO decision relating to EP’573, and oral proceedings took place before the Technical Board of Appeal 3.3.01 on 23.1. and 24.1.2019. These proceedings ended with a significant success for AstraZeneca: The Board of Appeal ruled that the decision by the opposition division is set aside and that the oppositions are rejected. That is, the EP‘573 patent was maintained as granted.

Whose interests are served by today’s EPO? Remember that these boards’ lack of independence is, in its own right, a violation of the EPC. The granting authority seems to be in charge of everything, even justice itself. It’s like putting the “executive” in charge of “legislature”.

IPPro Magazine has just remarked on the EPO working for the litigation 'industry' in another continent — a disturbing development we covered some days ago. To quote:

The European Patent Office has signed a bilateral cooperation agreement with the Licensing Executives Society International (LESI).

The agreement was signed by EPO president António Campinos and LESI president François Painchaud during LESI’s Winter Planning Meeting in Miami, Florida.

The agreement is aimed at helping innovators make better use of the European patent system and will remain in effect for a period of five years.

Campinos said the agreement “will help innovators see the business opportunities that IP can create”.

He added: “The main goal of our agreement is to enable current and future innovators to make better use of the patent system by overcoming barriers such as lack of knowledge about IP and commercialisation options.”

So one French president (François Painchaud) meets another (Campinos), appointed by another (Battistelli). But whose interests are served? Licensing Executives Society International (LESI). Great. Remember when the EPO actually did a better job pretending it existed to advance science and technology rather than law firms?

European Patent Office’s Exploitation of the ‘AI’ Catchphrase/Buzzword to Grant Patents on Algorithms in Defiance of the Rules, the Law, and Common Sense

Posted in Europe, Patents at 12:58 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

The next wave: EPO “paper on examination of CII and AI inventions”

EPO on CII

EPO on CII

Summary: In clear violation of the EPC (i.e. more of the same from the EPO) software patents are being actively promoted and law being bypassed or worked around

BOTH the European Patent Office (EPO) and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) nowadays exploit the “AI” hype wave (it seems as though the EPO started it). More recently UN/WIPO joined ‘the club’. I’ve been programming so-called ‘AI’ since I was a teenager; I put AI in scare quotes because it’s a catchphrase, an abstraction. Many things can (and do) get called “AI” even if they involve a little bit of statistics and mostly boil down to “if” and “else” statements (decisions made based on atomic criteria). It’s about classification somewhere in the code and it is always about algorithms. The EPO hopes to work around the EPC and the USPTO tries to circumvent 35 U.S.C. § 101/Alice (SCOTUS).

“Many things can (and do) get called “AI” even if they involve a little bit of statistics and mostly boil down to “if” and “else” statements (decisions made based on atomic criteria).”We have written a great deal about this subject already; it goes years back and it started under Battistelli, whose friends at Managing IP have just published this piece, “AI and patents,” (part of a series) in which they promote “AI” as means for generating patent applications while at the same time promoting patents on the underlying methods. “Patent Strategy’s landmark survey of more than 60 in-house lawyers shows that most businesses believe artificial intelligence will be used for invention discovery,” they wrote yesterday, “but that patenting those products and processes could be difficult” (but possible).

What this whole “poll” boils down to is lobbying, the business model of the site (just check who the funding sources/persons are, not to mention the target audience).

It’s no secret that courts would likely reject all these ‘AI’ patents; these simply correspond to something very abstract. There’s also plenty of prior art, sans the buzzwords.

“It’s no secret that courts would likely reject all these ‘AI’ patents; these simply correspond to something very abstract.”Kritika Bharadwaj, James Donoian, and Susan Goldsmith of McCarter & English, LLP say this week (also yesterday) that “[t]he UK’s participation in the unitary patent system and Unified Patent Court are, however, open questions.” No, you cannot participate in something that does not exist.

Bypassing British courts that deny patents on algorithms may seem attractive to McCarter & English, but the effects would be devastating to British software firms.

“Bypassing British courts that deny patents on algorithms may seem attractive to McCarter & English, but the effects would be devastating to British software firms.”Law firms in Europe are eager to pursue (for clients) all sorts of bogus patents in violation of the EPC — a subject we’ll expand on in our next post because it’s part of a disturbing pattern. As we pointed out some days ago, the EPO is now hooking up with patent extremists to promote software patents in Europe, this time under the guise of “AI inventions” (the EPO likes to say “AIPatents). In fact, retweeted by the EPO on Monday (they wrote almost nothing else) was this tweet that says: “@4ipcouncil and @EPOorg publish paper on examination of CII and AI inventions: #epo #artificialintelligence #ai #cii – http://bit.ly/2E0JOK9″

They even admit it themselves: “AI” is just “CII” (i.e. software patents). The EPO is actively collaborating/participating in this. While tweets may not necessity be endorsements, the EPO is officially involved here.

“It’s an exercise in rebranding.”Found via this tweet was also this new post from Microsoft’s LinkedIn. It speaks of Microsoft’s “AI” patents and says “Luxembourg as a country is an interesting case for patent filings. The small country managed to work its way into the top 25 jurisdictions for AI filings. Most of the filings come from American, German, Japanese and French patent ownership.”

This whole post is about buzzwords like “IP” and “AI” (the title is “Quick IP Data Insight: Luxembourg AI, Powered by NVIDIA.”) and it’s about the most infamous tax evasion apparatus (e.g. by patent accounting tricks). This one is in Europe and again it’s piggybacking the “AI” buzzword, which basically corresponds to software patents. As we recently noted, various law firms with their ‘studies’ nowadays try to pass off old patents as “AI”, in order to pretend there’s some sort of astronomical growth in such patents. It’s an exercise in rebranding.

02.11.19

Microsoft’s Patent Trolls Are Still Suing Microsoft’s Rivals to Help Sell Microsoft

Posted in Microsoft, Patents at 12:56 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Microsoft and trolls

Summary: The ‘new’ Microsoft boils down to the patent equivalent of the copyright case of SCO (funded by Microsoft)

THE two-faced Microsoft told us that it had reached a “truce” on patents, but its trolls appear to have not gotten this memo or perhaps they were given another memo altogether. What Microsoft says in private and in public differs wildly.

“…Microsoft relies on such trolls to help sell “Azure IP Advantage”, i.e. “rents” or “patent royalties” or “protection money” (disguised as hosting plan).”A few days ago it was made apparent that Intellectual Ventures, a Microsoft patent troll, is still using the biased juries in Texas (trolls-friendly by their own admission) to extort the entire industry. There’s a lot of money at stake:

T-Mobile should pay $34 million and Ericsson Inc. should pay $9 million for infringing at least one of the wireless transmission patents held by Intellectual Ventures I LLC…

We have meanwhile also noticed that Southpaw Asset Management, an investment firm, is divesting from the Microsoft-funded patent troll Finjan; nevertheless, this troll continues to file additional lawsuits against Microsoft’s competitors. As we’ve explained many times before, Microsoft relies on such trolls to help sell “Azure IP Advantage” [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18], i.e. “rents” or “patent royalties” or “protection money” (disguised as hosting plan).

The American Software Patents Lobby Has Died

Posted in America, Europe, Patents at 12:14 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

No comment necessary

Watchtroll comments

Summary: Voices of US law firms (i.e. patent maximalists) have become quieter and rarer; applications for US patents have decreased in number, patent litigation numbers have collapsed entirely, and patent maximalists have moved on

FOR FIVE HOURS over the past weekend I monitored news about patents worldwide, spending much of the time assessing outcomes of cases (the Federal Circuit in particular), new patent grants from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), and Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) inter partes reviews (IPRs). It seems like the only “good” news patent maximalists have had was one or at most a couple of instances of PTAB overturning an application’s rejection (examination level, akin to appeal or opposition). It’s just about the lowest form of a “win” for them and it is quite revealing. We also saw some law firms bringing up Berkheimer one year later, as expected. I saw quite a few court outcomes against software patents and just about nothing for (in favour of) them. Links are omitted because, as we said at the end of last year, we would rather not focus much on the US anymore; the critical issues are at the European Patent Office (EPO). As for east Asia, Korea and Japan have curtailed software patents somewhat, whereas China creates additional appeal courts, perhaps having realised that many Chinese patents lack merit, hence safety nets for defendants are needed.

Last night we saw this new comment in IP Kat, which suppresses discussion about EPO scandals. It’s about getting around the EPC to patent things which were clearly not meant to be worthy of a patent (or eligible for one):

Article 53(c) EPC does not allow the patenting of methods for treatment, which is what a use claim would be.

To compensate, the legislator initially introduced what is now Article 54(4) EPC and, with EPC 2000, added Article 54(5) EPC. These provisions allow the patenting of a known “substance or composition” for a new first or second medical use. In these particular cases (only), a new use does make the product new (and potentially inventive).

A few hours ago a succinct reply was posted.

An expansion of the scope of patents has always been problematic; we see this in the domain of software patents; António Campinos (or Team Campinos) nowadays refers to such patents as “AI” or “blockchain” or whatever, adding to Battistelli’s “4IR”, “ICT” and Brimelow’s (or predecessors’) “CII” etc.

We intend to focus a lot more on this subject in the coming year if not years. As a software developer myself, the subject matters to me and I have a reasonably OK grasp/understanding of it (technically, not legally). It’s worth noting that software patents proponents have been muted. They’ve willfully become mute if not also deaf (to courts’ arguments against such patents). Watchtroll seems to be dying. The front page of the site reveals no comments (open to all, unlike other sites), at least on the past few posts (weekend) and I reckon they’ll be another shelved domain in a few years. The patent maximalists will need a career change (like this site’s founder, who stepped down from his role last month after 20 years). He started a job at some law firm.

IAM has meanwhile mostly vanished behind an aggressive paywall, its Twitter account sees not much activity, and fellow patent maximalism sites have become either entirely dormant or rarely active (once in a few months). Patent Docs is about 70% ads now. Patenty-O? Ha. Barely active compared to a year or two ago. Its latest post deals with a case that concerns not software but dental stuff. “This approach here is properly seen as a patent drafting trick rather than an improved disclosure or invention,” it says. In broader context:

In the first decision in this case, the district court considered the claims, specification, and prosecution history and found that the claims should be interpreted to require a double pass — even though not expressly required by the claims. Because the accused infringers only used a single-pass, non-infringement was then an easy finding.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit has rejected the narrow claim construction. As is its process, the court began with the claim language — finding that ” at least based on the plain language, the claims are not limited to a repeated desmear process.” Moving then to the specification, the court found no “clear and unmistakable disclaimer” of the claim scope covering a single-pass method. For the court here, the deciding factor appears to be the patent attorney’s care in drafting the specification. Here, the specification calls double desmear “one technique” that the invention “can be carried out” and “for example” rather than calling the approach “the invention.”

This approach here is properly seen as a patent drafting trick rather than an improved disclosure or invention.

The bottom line is, we’re extremely pleased to see software patents defeated in the US and proponents of software patents ‘moving on’ to other things. We shall therefore focus more on Europe.

« Previous Page« Previous entries « Previous Page · Next Page » Next entries »Next Page »

RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channels: Come and chat with us in real time

New to This Site? Here Are Some Introductory Resources

No

Mono

ODF

Samba logo






We support

End software patents

GPLv3

GNU project

BLAG

EFF bloggers

Comcast is Blocktastic? SavetheInternet.com



Recent Posts