AT THE end of last year we promised ourselves not to feed the (Watch)trolls, but here they go again, not with the typical attacks on judges; rather, this time around they're claiming that all these comments, personally submitted to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) from people against software patents, are just "EFF" (they're not) just because EFF issued a call for participation in a blog post (as did Watchtroll and others). It's about the ۤ 101 guidance water-down attempts by Iancu.
"To put it in plain terms, USPTO officials asked for input; patent maximalists told people to send such input and so did the EFF. But the patent maximalists now call the EFF a "troll" for doing so (as if it is harassing the USPTO)."Does the blog post from the EFF make them "Trolls"? Really? So opposing software patents is "Trolling"? That's inverting the meaning of the term and never mind if the USPTO itself asked for such input and advertised the address to write to...
To put it in plain terms, USPTO officials asked for input; patent maximalists told people to send such input and so did the EFF. But the patent maximalists now call the EFF a "troll" for doing so (as if it is harassing the USPTO). Hypocrisy much? What gives? In relation to Janal Kalis (very vocal patent maximalist) we pointed this out as recently as yesterday, comparing it to the conspiracy theories about Google.
"It's looking really grim for software patents in US courts."From what we could gather, based on the tweet from Kalis, almost all the comments were against ۤ 101 changes and in favour of Alice. Software patents are widely being opposed. It's easy to see why Watchtroll is upset and why Quinn took another job, stepping down from "editor" position after two full decades.
There's a better post titled "As USPTO Oversight Hearing Approaches, Some Questions On Eligibility" and it's indirectly related to the above. Josh L. (CCIA) said this about the new ۤ 101 guidance yesterday evening:
The new €§ 101 guidance makes two major changes to examination for subject matter eligibility. First, it requires examiners to classify abstract ideas into one of three categories: mental processes, mathematical formulas, and methods of organizing human activity. Claims directed to an abstract idea not in one of these categories are to be allowed. Second, it bars examiners from considering whether a given claim is directed only to an abstract idea plus routine and conventional technology if the claim is “integrated into a particular application.” If a claim is integrated, but using conventional technology, the guidance would require an examiner to allow the claim. Both changes represent departures from previous examination practice and both appear to present the potential for conflict with case law. CCIA has commented on these disparities, and suggested that the USPTO clarify the guidance to ensure that it helps examiners comply with case law. However, there’s no guarantee the USPTO will make any such changes—for example, the USPTO recently declined to make any changes in response to public comments on the 2018-2022 Strategic Plan.
Given the possibility that the guidance will remain unchanged, it’s important to consider how it might have been applied to patents that we know have been invalidated under €§ 101 in a district court. A recent set of arguments in Delaware provides a set of three patents of just that type.