More like a disservice and patently poor advice

Summary: Software patents and patent lawsuits (which may be going nowhere) are being 'sold' by an industry that cares only about its own bottom line

THE DOMAIN of patents is dynamic, not static. The quality of US patents is improving and lawsuits become fewer. That's a good thing for everyone except the patent 'industry'.

Earlier this weekend veteran journalist Chris Preimesberger wrote this article about patents on facial recognition. I reviewed some papers in this area (for the international IEEE journal) and it's perfectly clear that these patents should be considered patent-ineligible under Alice because it's all reducible to plain mathematics. Why are examiners still granting such patents?

"Why are examiners still granting such patents?"A couple of days ago, Stephen Middleton from a law firm known as Von Seidels published this article titled "What software is eligible for a patent?"

Well, basically the more important question should be, what software patents would 'survive' in court? Very few of them do, even if some continue to be granted. Here is what Middleton said:

As patent-eligibility differs from one country to the next, this article generally covers US and European eligibility requirements.

Taking an existing algorithm or method which is already known and applying it using a computer is not likely to be a patent-eligible invention, even if you are the first person to do so.

The same would be true if the algorithm could be performed by a human, for example using a pen and paper. There must be something more. Generally speaking, the algorithm must provide a “technical solution” to a “technical problem”.

Completely vague and meaningless terms (decorative, spurious adjectives that can refer to pretty much anything). We wrote about these before. It's more common to simply try to associate the software with some "device" (like any general-purpose, programmable computer) for the sake of misleading the examiner/s. It's not worth granting. It's a farce.

"It's more common to simply try to associate the software with some "device" (like any general-purpose, programmable computer) for the sake of misleading the examiner/s."In Europe, not just in the US, these patents don't have a good track record in recent years. If granted, these tend to be useful only outside the courts (e.g. if asserted in bulk and/or against a poor person/company).

We have become accustomed to "marketing" (dressed up as news) like the above. The law firms would say anything if there's potential for profit. Here is another new example (days old) where the patent microcosm basically says, go sue lots of people with patents (because the microcosm profits from the litigation, no matter the outcome).

"The only "product" here is sold by law professionals, to whom so-called 'services' like sending threatening letters are a form of 'production'."Some companies seriously heed such advice and proudly sue others. Bigbelly (real company name) turns out to be a big bully, which issued a press release to announce litigation, naming "U.S. and European patents." It was mentioned the other day by some media, but what is there to cover really? It's litigation over patents, not some new products or anything of interest to the general public. 3 days ago another company paid for a press release regarding patent litigation rather than an actual product. The only "product" here is sold by law professionals, to whom so-called 'services' like sending threatening letters are a form of 'production'. ⬆