ALL the patent maximalists have left now is numbers. Lots and lots of numbers. Big numbers. A number of what exactly? Patents. Yes, entries on some computer system. One single computer in an ordinary desk can contain all those entries. A supercomputer can generate this much text in less than one second. What good are patents whose quality doesn't matter? Whose practical utility is questionable? What does this system even strive for? Ask WIPO, whose sole obsession is seeing a rise in numbers, even if much of that rise is attributable to low-quality patents from China -- patents that WIPO staff cannot even grasp because few people there can read Mandarin!
"Ask WIPO, whose sole obsession is seeing a rise in numbers, even if much of that rise is attributable to low-quality patents from China -- patents that WIPO staff cannot even grasp because few people there can read Mandarin!"WIPO is a symptom of a broader problem because today's leadership of the European Patent Office (EPO) and Trump's chosen leadership for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) are truly appalling. Not only Iancu by the way! António Campinos -- like Battistelli -- totally lacks background in science, yet he has the audacity to meddle in legal cases regarding the fate of software patents in Europe (yes, he has already meddled in an upcoming legal case). Can Mr. Campinos even explain how a computer works? Are his computer skills limited to use of Microsoft Office? Regardless, António Campinos continues to post pointless photo ops while breaking the law every single day. He just proves that he's no different; he's another Battistelli. He still 'rides' his 'grace period'.
The latest EPO puff piece mentions Cambodia (warning: epo.org link) with no European Patents at all [1, 2]. It's about EPO and WIPO, best known to WIPO employees for its abuses against employees. "To strengthen international co-operation on patents," the EPO wrote, "a delegation from the EPO met with representatives of IP offices from around the world on the fringes of the Assemblies of the Member States of the WIPO in Geneva last week and signed a number of agreements."
In the carefully-prepared statement which glorifies Campinos (less qualified than most EPO examiners!) the EPO has also just amplified the "hey hi" hype: "EPO representatives also participated in an event organised by WIPO Director General Francis Gurry at which the implications of Artificial Intelligence for the global intellectual property system were discussed."
"António Campinos continues to post pointless photo ops while breaking the law every single day. He just proves that he's no different; he's another Battistelli."There are two aspects to this buzzword in the context of patents; one is automatically-generated patent applications (using algorithms) and another is patents on algorithms with some "logic" in them (that would be pretty much every algorithm with a conditional statement, i.e. a decision, in it). This is more of that sickening propaganda of the UN/WIPO. They seem to have become so fascinated by if not obsessed with fashionable buzzwords -- to the point where they've facilitated patents on just about anything. This problem is well recognised inside and outside patent offices, but few seem courageous enough to talk about it, especially in the media which is by far the biggest culprit (mindlessly spreading these buzzwords and superficial hype).
One need not look far to find those complicit in the scourge of misinformation. Days ago at IP Kat Hayleigh Bosher published some nonsense about "Artificial Intelligence", saying that "Chapter 2 focuses more specifically on the unique factors of AI, elaborating on AI as a legal phenomenon."
AI, AI, AI, AI, AI, AI, AI, AI, AI, AI, AI, AI...
"This problem is well recognised inside and outside patent office, but few seem courageous enough to talk about it, especially in the media which is by far the biggest culprit (mindlessly spreading these buzzwords and superficial hype)."Just keep repeating that nonsense...
The lawyers are totally exploiting buzzwords and hype to further their litigation agenda
Here's another new example of patent hype with "hey hi" slant, this time in the Wall Street Journal ( Jared Council's "Can an AI System Be Given a Patent?") and a new cartoon ("'Artificial' Intelligence"). Over at Law360 they're disguising bogus, bunk, fake software patents as "hey hi!" ("Self-Driving Vehicles' Neural Networks Present IP Conundrum"). To quote: "Artificial intelligence has been dubbed the fourth industrial revolution. In part, the development of AI has been spurred by our desire for automation, and there is no better nexus of these two areas than in the automotive industry, where the holy grail of automation is self-driving, or autonomous, vehicles.
"The lawyers are totally exploiting buzzwords and hype to further their litigation agenda ""There are already vehicles available that implement a degree of automation — Tesla Inc. was first to market with its autopilot feature, and many of the more traditional manufacturers are following suit with their own implementations."
Notice the addition of another buzzword in the first sentence: "fourth industrial revolution."
The EPO paid European media to spread this nonsense as well; it even made abbreviations for it (4IR, not TFIR). Then it bragged -- in inward and outward publications -- that the South Korean media copied or rather parroted this propaganda (we covered that at the time). It's important to take note of the patent offices' active role in dissemination of such nonsense.
They're then calling "hey hi" any algorithms with some "logic" in them. They rewrite examination guidelines accordingly, knowing that applicants would get the request for algorithm monopolies OK'ed by the examiners, as per the new guidelines (applicants also get major discounts if they're Microsoft customers with OOXML).
"They're then calling "hey hi" any algorithms with some "logic" in them."Notice what's happening at the USPTO right now. Michael Borella, a proponent of software patents (litigation is his 'business'), writes about the Office crafting new tricks for getting fake patents or software patents courts would almost certainly throw out. So does Dennis Crouch, a longtime proponent of software patents with ties to Watchtroll. To quote Borella: "Under Dir. Iancu, the USPTO has taken a seemingly broader view of eligibility than the Supreme Court, albeit much narrower than before Bilski, Alice, and Mayo. In January 2019, the PTO published a set of Patent Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG). On October 17, 2019, the PTO released a new set of revisions based upon public comments. “All USPTO personnel are expected to follow the guidance.”"
So just like at the EPO he compels examiners to basically break the law or deviate from caselaw; those guidelines are likely not legal. Iancu, the corrupt Trump appointee, 'does a Battistelli' by deviating from the law. Here's more from Borella and his colleagues:
Early today, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office released an update to its January 2019 Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. Unlike the January Guidance, which represented a significant change in how the USPTO applies ۤ 101 in examination and PTAB proceedings, this October Update is primarily an effort to clarify issues brought up by public comments on the January Guidance. While not exactly much ado about nothing, the October Update provides few changes to USPTO's stance on ۤ 101.
"Welcome to the post-law patent regime. It no longer even pretends to adhere to law.""The EPO brags about copying its flagrant violations of the law to other continents," I responded, "America included..."
So the EPO's "hey hi" hype has officially spread to the USPTO, as was the practice of basically ignoring courts and ignoring the law. They grant illegal patents.
Speaking of buzzwords like "AI" and "4IR", how about other hype waves? Just several days ago Frances Wilding and David Lewin (Haseltine Lake Kempner LLP) published in Mondaq (original [PDF]) this "Review Of Blockchain Patenting At The EPO" and to quote:
The two charts show similar paths of increase in the numbers concerned, though the numbers for European patent applications are on a smaller scale. So far a total of just over 400 European patent applications which mention the term "blockchain" anywhere have been published and just over 190 European patent applications which mention the term "blockchain" in the claims have been published. It seems reasonable to expect that further European "blockchain" applications will feed continued growth in published European patent applications even beyond the estimate made for the full year of 2019.