BOTH the European Patent Office (EPO) and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) have been granting software patents in spite of 35 U.S.C. €§ 101 and in spite of software patents in Europe being de facto banned (bar loopholes that António Campinos is happy to exploit and even expand).
"This merely lowers confidence in US patents and, accordingly, lowers their collective worth."Mr. Iancu, the ‘American Battistelli’, will soon be a speaker at the IP Awareness Summit (IPAS), which is an indoctrination/lobbying campaign set up by parasites who cause as much litigation as possible, making themselves 'necessary'. IPAS is promoted by various sites of patent lawyers this week. Here's one that takes note of Iancu's participation:
US Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Andrei Iancu, will speak at the event.
"Looking at the past week's news regarding software patents, we can't help but notice that the Andrei Iancu-led Office is again issuing fake patents or software patents that courts would almost certainly reject."How is that not a software patent? IBM, we should probably add, is still patenting software. Red Hat's takeover is not looking good in light of IBM’s software patents policy, which remains unchanged. IBM's software patents (or filings thereof) on management of patents have gotten a ton of press coverage; earlier this week there were over a dozen articles like [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8], probably because of the "Blockchain" factor alone. The patent trolls' lobby (IAM) thinks that IBM will use/adopt Red Hat patents in the usual ways (IBM is a longtime patent bully). "The open source business’s portfolio is not big," IAM wrote about Red Hat's patents, "but should bolster Big Blue’s attempts to bridge the gap with Amazon, Google and Microsoft in a space that is rapidly growing in importance."
Red Hat should never have pursued software patents in the first place; now all these patents are at the hands of the corporation that lobbies the most for software patents. We warned about it. Some Red Hat employees even sympathised with our warnings.
"Red Hat should never have pursued software patents in the first place; now all these patents are at the hands of the corporation that lobbies the most for software patents."Over at the EPO the situation isn't so promising either because earlier today the EPO once again promoted (as usual) software patents using hype waves (like "Blockchain"). "This conference will explore the IP protection & patenting of #blockchain technology and of its applications in different technical fields," it said. It's about software patents. It also did the usual "SDV" thing, writing: "European patent applications related to autonomous driving have grown 20 times faster than those across all technologies."
Many of those are software patents pertaining to algorithms running on a computer inside a car. The EPO hopes that by emphasising "cars" it'll successfully make such algorithms look/sound "physical" or "technical" or whatever.
We should probably mention, at least as a side-/sub-note, that SUEPO has removed yesterday's post about USF (covered in this post of ours). Did the EPO under António Campinos once again threaten them? It happened before. If someone with contacts/connections to SUEPO can ask them why they removed that page and then tell us, we'll appreciate it. If SUEPO was forced to remove links about unions, there would be something poetic about it (like censorship of information about censorship).
"It is noteworthy that in some of the largest "Western" economies (we recognise that Australia isn't in the West, but it's heavily influenced by the Western 'bloc') the courts say "no!" to software patents, yet the only ones complaining about that are those who profit from litigation."Last but not least, posted behind paywall today was this piece titled "Computer Software Inventions Patentability Case Has Got IPTA’s Patents in a Bunch" (slang). It says: "A high profile appeal to the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia about the patentability of computer inventions could reset the IPTA’s bar on the…"
As a reminder, the Australian legal system nowadays rejects software patents (see our wiki under Australia), so Macpherson Kelley's Mark Metzeling and Mitchell Willocks (i.e. the patent litigation 'industry') keep bashing courts etc. to promote bogus patents and IPTA's clients. It is noteworthy that in some of the largest "Western" economies (we recognise that Australia isn't in the West, but it's heavily influenced by the Western 'bloc') the courts say "no!" to software patents, yet the only ones complaining about that are those who profit from litigation. They occasionally smear judges and courts (we find new examples every week). ⬆