Summary: The latest illustration of biased coverage by IAM 'magazine', which is a Web site by patent maximalists for patent maximalists (or unsuspecting readers who are indoctrinated into patent maximalism)

SEVERAL days ago we explained why IAM doesn't say "patent trolls" (Spanish translation published this morning). The editor of IAM told me explicitly that he doesn't believe in the term "patent trolls", even though it's clearly defined and commonly used (even by the highest judges last year).

Not accepting the term "patent trolls" in 2016 is a bit like refusing to accept the term "cloud" (which is also too vaguely defined, but nonetheless widely used). I personally worry that IAM's agenda includes bringing a USPTO-style system/agenda (low quality) over to Europe. IAM is basically European but it is paid by many firms in the US, as we noted here before. Even patent trolls from the US put money in IAM's coffers.

"IAM is basically European but it is paid by many firms in the US, as we noted here before."A "Korean company claims that Facebook, Kakao, Line et al are infringing one of its patents," wrote IAM the other day (Facebook does this too). The writer, Mr. Ellis, is quite alright and he correctly asserted that "Korean companies are not known for being particularly proactive or aggressive when it comes to asserting their IP rights."

Wild, on the other hand (the boss of Ellis), keeps attacking patent critics, such as Rackspace, which spends a lot of time and money attacking software patents (we covered this before [1, 2, 3]). To make matters worse, Wild nearly associates himself with the blowhard Gene Quinn (whom we dubbed Patent WatchTroll), who is the most aggressive proponent of software patents (or at least most vocal). To quote Wild's piece: "A couple of days ago Gene Quinn, who runs the IP Watchdog blog, had a Twitter spat with Van Lindberg, VP of technology at Rackspace, about the validity (or not) of the patents issued by the USPTO."

"Shame games again? Like shaming Germany over UPC inaction? Repeatedly even?"As we noted here several times in March, Quinn now attacks everyone in the system who does not consent to granting software patents. He's nearly as bad as Andrew Y. Schroeder and he likes confrontation (although he blocked me in Twitter after losing a long debate that left him utterly embarrassed). "Almost all patent professionals acknowledge that 80% of patents are invalid," Van Lindberg wrote. So hence begins Quinn's and Wild's coy shame game. Wild speaks to patent maximalists for 'expert' opinion on this statement and then ends with the words: "Should Lindberg now apologise to IPValue for misreporting the firm’s views? I’ll leave that to him to decide, but at the very least he might want to let his Twitter followers know that he got that 96% stat wrong."

Shame games again? Like shaming Germany over UPC inaction? Repeatedly even?

Speaking of Twitter, Wild is apparently too shy to speak on behalf of IAM (where he's the editor), so he uses some weirdly-named personal account of his, which alludes to a spa, whenever he writes anything to me.

"Is it really worth paying for a subscription to a 'magazine' so biased that trolls don't even exist in it (instead they're groomed and characterised as legitimate businesses)?"IAM's agenda, which includes protecting EPO management, heralding the UPC (shaming its obstacles), grooming patent trolls, encouraging patent stockpiling and defending software patents needs to be widely understood not just by EPO workers but by anyone out there. Is it really worth paying for a subscription to a 'magazine' so biased that trolls don't even exist in it (instead they're groomed and characterised as legitimate businesses)? Wild is the worst of the bunch; some of the writers are OK, but Wild still gets to edit away what he does not like (or change words) and that's a problem. I actually spent months reading every article in IAM before reaching this conclusion.

Watch this new article titled "New Marathon subsidiary heralds move beyond patents into technology licensing". Alternative headline for the same article: "New Marathon subsidiary is a patent troll" (as per definition).

"IAM still doesn’t say patent trolls, not even in this latest article which calls a troll “NPE”, quite frankly as usual.""WiLAN, Intellectual Ventures and Spherix," it says, "have all entered into agreements recently designed to diversify their business models to varying degrees." It doesn't say the "T" word (troll) and instead uses positive words like "agreements", "diversify", and "business models". Maybe our Prime Minister should hire Wild to describe NHS crackdown as "investment", bombings in Syria as "democracy", and Investigatory Powers Bill as "safety". IAM still doesn't say patent trolls, not even in this latest article which calls a troll "NPE", quite frankly as usual. ⬆