05.11.16
Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 4:25 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
English/Original
Article as ODF
Publicado en Deception, Europe, Patents at 2:36 pm por Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Ellos quieren que todos crean que nada puede detener a la antidemocrática UPC
Sumario: El gólpe de estado de la Patente Unitaria, o el esfuérzo de impulsar la UPC a Europa (usándo toda suerte de nombres y falsos reclamos), está progresando bien si sus profecíás de autocumplimiénto son para creerse
Cada vez que escribimos sobre problemas técnicos de la EPO prevemos que su adopción de los bajos niveles de la USPTO (en términos de examen), también pueden significar las patentes de software en Europa. Una táctica emergente para lograr las patentes de software es FRAND, que fue mencionado en el post anterior. Otra es la UPC, que al igual que la TPP amenaza con traer las patentes de software en Europa (los aspectos técnicos de este proceso fueron explicados aquí muchas veces antes, incluso ayer).
El Mirage de recursos y/u oposiciones (para los ricos)
Uno de los problemas que tenemos es la falta de información acerca de la UPC. Como lo ponemos a principios de este año, “los medios aún saturados acerca de la falta de información acerca de la (UPC)” y esto es todavía el caso. No debería sorpréndernos, dada la moda en el que los funcionarios de EPO y abogados de patentes europeas propagan habitualmente afirmaciones engañosas. La NLO repite/gira propaganda con respecto a los llamados “resultados” [1, 2, 3] o de otro tipo de estadísticas que no son completos. Para citar: “La oposición ante la Oficina Europea de Patentes (EPO) es una herramienta de gran alcance para impugnar la validez de una patente europea concedida. Es una manera de obtener una decisión central de un tablero de vista técnico cualificado que se aplica en todos los países en los que la patente es válida, con el consiguiente ahorro en los costos de litigio ante los tribunales nacionales individuales. las tasas de éxito de la oposición son altos. En su informe anual más reciente (2015), la EPO puso de manifiesto las posibilidades de tener una patente revocada (31%), mantiene en su forma modificada (38%) o se mantiene según lo concedido (31%); 69% de oposiciones dio lugar a una modificación en el alcance de la protección de la patente impugnada.”
Esto es similar a PTAB en los EE.UU. (revisión interpartes), pero esto pasa por alto el hecho de que este proceso es costoso y laborioso. desarrolladores de patentes pequeñas, por ejemplo, no tienen ni el tiempo/dinero, ni la motivación para perseguir un proceso de este tipo. Esto significa que este status quo sigue siendo muy sesgada y completamente inclinada en contra de las PYMES. Además, tenga en cuenta el impacto probable de la UPC en las juntas; pronto podrían ser obsoletos.
Pretensión (o Profecía de Autocumplimiénto) de la Retificación Italiána de la UPC
Ahora, consideren lo que escribimos ayer acerca los rumores Italianos acerca de la UPC. La EPO, basada en mercadeo de hoy, Quiere que todo el mundo crea que la UPC es buena. NO lo es. Escribimos acerca de la UPC a principios de este mes con el fin de arrojar luz sobre la escalada de este tipo de tácticas de propaganda y ahora que vemos que incluso WIPR basado en rumores, un artículo sobre los abogados de patentes que tienen una agenda y por tanto no son exactamente un fuente objetiva para ello , como hemos explicado, el otro día. “Según el abogado Trevisan y Cuonzo Valerio Meucci,” escribió el autor a una gran audiencia, “el ministro de asuntos exteriores y de cooperación internacional, Paolo Gentiloni, propuso la aprobación del proyecto de ley, que el gobierno aceptó.”
Esto es un gran error (si fuese verdad). Italia se opuso a ello por más de un lustro, y hubiéron buenas razones para ello. Algunas personas pro-patentes ahora están esparciéndo este rumor (ellos niegan -cínicos – su parciálismoaunque describan su cuenta Twitter como “Sigánnos por las últimas noticias y desarrollos en la ley Europea de Patentes y sus pasos claves en la ruta a la Corte Unificada de Patentes”) y una persona escribió: “#Italia toma un paso para ratificar #unifiedpatentcourt agreement http://bit.ly/1WUZG3a #upc #ratification”
Basado en ciértos artículos [1, 2], ahora hay un comunicado de prensa. Para citar a la cuenta de un autor de la misma: “De acuerdo con el comunicado de prensa oficial, la ratificación del Acuerdo Tribunal Unificado de Patentes de Italia ayudará a luchar contra la entrada en la Unión Europea de productos falsificados.”
Pero esto en realidad no implica la ratificación y el comunicado de prensa dice una mentira, como fue el caso con el TPP y TTIP. Esto refleja la tendencia reciente de las llamadas ofertas comerciales ”, que se mantiene en secreto y se benefician de la cobertura de prensa engañosa (o ninguna en absoluto).
UPC Mala para las PYMEs
La UPC iría en contra de las PYME, incluso sobre la base de una encuesta realizada por los sitios que se dirigen a abogados de patentes y otras maximalistas. Para citar Nórdic Patent (conectados a Kongstad): “Las encuestas se encuentran, la mayoría de los seguidores @ManagingIP creo que el #UPC y #UnitaryPatent son malos para las #PYMEs europeas.”
Esto es lo que Managing IP (MIP) escribió: “En efecto: el 56% dice #UPC #UnitaryPatent es mala para las PYME en Europa. Haremos un estudio más amplio a finales de este año “.
“Lo que se necesita no es” un estudio más amplio “, pero una encuesta que no pide el coro MIP,” les dije, a la que respondió con: “El coro MIP tiene un muy amplio abanico de voces, como es el caso!”
Nosotros no realmente pensamos que es así, pero, sin embargo, seguro que parece que incluso los lectores MIP admiten que las afirmaciones de la EPO sobre la UPC ser bueno para las PYME son mentiras.
Más Profecías Auto-Cumplibles y Esperanzas de los Colonizadores de los EE.UU
Basado en este tweet, La UPC ya está aqu i. Pero no es así. Para citar: “enseñánsas técnicas para los #jueces de patentes. Las opiniónes de los #¿jueces técnicos de la UPC tendrán mucho peso?”
“Será”? Tal vez significa que lo haría. La UPC incluso no esta aquí. Para citar lo que en esto se basa: “¿Le resulta un poco como lo que esperamos del tribunal de patentes unificado esperada de largo? La UPC empleará cerca de 50 jueces técnicos junto a un número similar de jueces de formación jurídica.”
“La UPC empleará” es erróneo. La UPC, si es que alguna vez se hace realidad en absoluto, haríá todo tipo de cosas, pero dada la atmósfera de la propaganda (ver la propaganda SME arriba), no se debe creer nada en absoluto. Vean cómo los abogados de patentes de los Estados Unidos hiciéron un evento acerca de la UPC en los EE.UU.. Saben que la UPC es para ellos y no para los europeos. Las PYMEs de Europa no va a volar a los EE.UU. para asistir a una conferencia de este tipo, una de varias de esas conferencias en los Estados Unidos patrocinados por la firma de relaciones públicas de la EPO (que sólo ‘es’ na empresa con sede en los Estados Unidos).
Permalink
Send this to a friend
05.10.16
Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 2:36 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
They want everyone to believe that nothing can stop the antidemocratic UPC
Summary: The Unified Patent Court coup, or the effort to push the unitary patent into Europe (using all sorts of different names and false claims), is progressing nicely if the self-fulfilling prophecy attempts are to be believed
WHENEVER we write about technical problems with the EPO we foresee it adopting the low standards of the USPTO (in terms of examination), which may also mean software patents in Europe. One emerging tactic for bringing about software patents is FRAND, which was mentioned in the previous post. Another is the UPC, which just like TPP threatens to bring software patents into Europe (the technicalities of this process were explained here many times before, including yesterday).
The Mirage of Appeals and/or Oppositions (for the Rich)
One problem we have is lack of information about the UPC. As we put it earlier this year, "The Media is Still Awash With Unitary Patent (UPC) Misinformation" and this is still the case. It should not be surprising given the fashion in which EPO officials and European patent lawyers habitually spread deceptive claims. NLO currently repeats EPO lies/spin regarding so-called ‘results’ [1, 2, 3] or other such statistics that are not complete. To quote: “Opposition before the European Patent Office (EPO) is a powerful tool for challenging the validity of a granted European patent. It is a way of obtaining a central decision of a technically qualified board that applies in all countries in which the patent is valid, thereby saving on litigation costs before individual national courts. Opposition success rates are high. In its most recent annual report (2015), the EPO revealed the chances of having a patent revoked (31%), maintained in amended form (38%) or maintained as granted (31%); 69% of oppositions resulted in a modification in the scope of protection of the challenged patent.”
This is similar to PTAB in the US (inter parte reviews), but this overlooks the fact that this process is expensive and laborious. Small patent developers, for example, have neither the time/money nor motivation to pursue such a process. This means that this status quo remains heavily biased and thoroughly tilted against SMEs. Moreover, consider the UPC’s likely impact on boards; they could soon be rendered obsolete.
Pretense (or Self-Fulfilling Prophecy) of Italian UPC Ratification
Now, consider what we wrote yesterday about Italian rumours regarding the UPC. The EPO, based on today’s marketing, wants everyone to believe that UPC is good. It’s not. We wrote about the UPC earlier this month in order to shed light on escalation in such propaganda tactics and now we see even WIPR acting upon hearsay, basing an entire article on patent lawyers who have an agenda and are thus not exactly objective a source for this, as we explained the other day. “According to Trevisan & Cuonzo lawyer Valerio Meucci,” wrote the author to a large audience, “the minister of foreign affairs and international cooperation, Paolo Gentiloni, proposed the approval of the draft bill, which the government accepted.”
This is a big mistake (if true at all). Italy opposed this for more than half a decade and there were good reasons for this. Some pro-patents people are now spreading this rumour around (they deny bias even though they describe their Twitter account as “Follow us for latest news and developments on European patent law and key milestones on the road to the Unified Patent Court”) and one person wrote: “#Italy takes step to ratify #unifiedpatentcourt agreement http://bit.ly/1WUZG3a #upc #ratification”
Based on cited articles [1, 2], there is now a press release. To quote one author’s account of it: “According to the official press release, Italy’s ratification of the Unified Patent Court Agreement will help to fight the entry into the European Union of counterfeit goods.”
But this does not actually imply ratification and the press release tells an outright lie, as was the case with TPP and TTIP. This mirrors the recent trend of so-called ‘trade’ deals, which are shrouded in secrecy and benefit from misleading press coverage (if any at all).
UPC Bad for SMEs
The UPC would work against SMEs, even based on a poll conducted by sites which target patent lawyers and other such maximalists. To quote Nordic Patent (connected to Kongstad): “The polls are in, a majority of @ManagingIP followers think the #UPC and #UnitaryPatent are bad for European #SMEs.”
Here is what Managing IP (MIP) wrote: “Indeed: 56% say #UPC #UnitaryPatent bad for SMEs in Europe. We will do a more comprehensive survey later this year.”
“What’s needed is not “a more comprehensive survey” but a survey that does not ask the MIP choir,” I told them, to which they replied with: “The MIP choir has a pretty broad spread of voices, as it happens!”
We don’t truly think so, but nevertheless, it sure seems like even MIP readers admit that the EPO’s claims about UPC being good for SMEs are lies.
More self-Fulfilling Prophecies and US Hopefuls
Based on this tweet, UPC is already here. But it’s not. To quote: “Technical teaching for #patent judges. And will the views of the #UPC technical judges have too much weight?”
“Will”? Maybe they mean would. The UPC is not even here yet. To quote what this is based on: “Does this look a bit like what we expect from the long-anticipated Unified Patent Court? The UPC will employ about 50 technical judges alongside a similar number of legally qualified judges.”
“The UPC will employ” is wrong. The UPC, if it ever became a reality at all, would do all sorts of things, but given the atmosphere of propaganda (see the SME propaganda above), one shouldn’t believe anything at all. Watch how US patent lawyers hold an event about the UPC in the US. They seem to know who the UPC is for and it’s not for Europeans. SMEs from Europe won’t fly to the US to attend such a conference, one of several such US conferences sponsored by the EPO's PR firm (which just ‘happens’ to be a US-based firm).
Patent lawyers in the US promote and celebrate the UPC. What does that tell us about who benefits? █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
05.08.16
Posted in Apple, Deception, Patents at 5:22 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
IAM: the IP Pravda
Summary: A look at this past week’s ‘reports’ from IAM and what they teach us about IAM’s agenda
IT is amusing to see how abusive some journalists can get, e.g. when news becomes advocacy or lobbying while still under the guise or cover of “journalism”. Such is the case of IAM, which even receives money from patent trolls, not just patent lawyers (whose interests are widely known). IAM isn’t alone in this category and it’s unfortunate that a lot of self-described ‘news’ sources in this domain are so biased that they have become meaningless tripe. This is where Techrights typically weighs in and attempts to intervene/interfere with the echo chamber.
Last month we wrote about software patents on driving and right now, using Apple’s term ("thermonuclear") IAM underplays the risk or the issue, stating: “My guess is that despite increasing litigation in the sector between operating companies and continued suits launched by NPEs, we are not going to see what we saw in the mobile communications industry.”
“The bottom line is, IAM advocates (not reports) more and more patents, more proprietary, less sharing, less peace, and more patent trolls, patent feuds, etc.”“NPEs” means patent trolls — a term that IAM never uses because it's paid by them. Patents on the act of driving (not a novel thing) are a real problem and after Tesla gave up on many patents pertaining to electric cars IAM ‘magazine’ (patent maximalists in ‘journalists’ clothing) shows that it is upset at this act which changes the climate of fear from patent litigation. It even tells Chinese companies what to think (see the headline “Memo to China’s electric vehicle startups: hope is not an IP strategy”).
What is this? Preaching or reporting? Having borrowed terms from Apple, IAM also plays up design patents, despite them being controversial enough to reach the Supreme Court. “Interest in design patents has increased recently,” IAM says, “particularly following Apple’s success in asserting its design patents associated with the iPhone and the iPad. Apple discovered that a few relatively inexpensive design patents were just as effective against Samsung’s smartphones as its arsenal of utility patents on various phone and tablet functions.”
“Don’t be misled by IAM. It’s not really a news site.”Actually, no. The case still hasn’t been decided. Even the Supreme Court decided to take on the subject and assess this kind of patents, which long ago we claimed are related to software patents (UI plus callback functions). Another new article from IAM wishes readers to believe that Apple woes being due to it being too proprietary aren’t quite so and Tesla is again brought up. Watch them preach again: “It would certainly appear to be the case that LeEco’s ecosystem-oriented, collaboration-based approach has propelled it very rapidly towards the top of China’s high-tech sectors. But rejecting the proprietary strategy characteristic of Apple – among many, many others – altogether could prove to be an unwise choice.”
The bottom line is, IAM advocates (not reports) more and more patents, more proprietary, less sharing, less peace, and more patent trolls, patent feuds, etc.
Don’t be misled by IAM. It’s not really a news site. It just gives its limited audience what it wants. Like a think tank. Leave it for the choir to read. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
05.07.16
Posted in America, Asia, Australia, Deception, Europe, Patents at 7:25 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
English/Original
Article as ODF
Publicado en America, Asia, Australia, Deception, Europe, Patentes at 7:36 am por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Necesitamos más soplos, e.g. soplos UPC, para sacar a la luz a quienes están moviéndo a las mariónetas
Polución de patentes y “calentamiénto global de patentes,” como Benjamin Henrion ocasiónalmenete lo llama [1, 2]
Sumario: un sumario de noticias del fin de semana y hoy, con énfasis en los elementos dentro del sistema (o los medios) que impulsan políticas reacciónarias/recesivas que los beneficia financiéramente a costa de todos los demás
Hay progresos ocurriéndo hacia la justicia de patentes, aunque hay elementos egoístas que son parásiticos y no-productivos. Ellos batallan para mantener el status quo, e incluso hacerlo peor. Abajo están los últimos ejemplos.
Estados Únidos
El otro día mencionamos el último movimiento decepcionante de la CAFC, que en esencia defendió a los trolles de patentes en los EE.UU. (donde se usan las patentes de software por extorsión, incluso cuando estas patentes no resistir el escrutinio de un tribunal). Que la CAFC apoye a los trolles de patentes de soporte no sorprende a nadie dada la historia de CAFC. Joe Mullin reacciona de la siguiente manera: “los defensores de la reforma de Patentes que esperaban”apagar al Distrito Este de Texas ” estan con cara decepción de hoy, cuando el tribunal superior de apelaciones de patentes de Estados Unidos resolvió (PDF) en contra de una transferencia de lugar en una disputa entre dos empresas de alimentos.”
No esperen que la reforma de patentes provenga de la CAFC, el iniciador de ellas mismas. De ¿SCOTUS? Talvez. ¿Hay una apelación pendiente en la agenda? ¿Alcanzará esto a SCOTUS?
Australia
Hay una nueva moción para persuadir al gobierno Australiano para prohibir las patentes de software (oficialmente). Es parte de una moción más amplia que también sugiere algo de los siguientes cambios como cubrimos hace unos días:
En su proyecto de informe publicado el viernes por la comisión recomienda que se deben tomar medidas para “reequilibrar” las leyes de propiedad intelectual existentes con un nuevo sistema que equilibre los intereses de los titulares de derechos y usuarios.
La comisión dice que mientras que un buen sistema equilibra los intereses de los titulares de derechos y usuarios, sistema de IP de Australia se ha inclinado demasiado a favor de los titulares de derechos de propiedad intelectual vocales y naciones influyentes exportación.
El abogado de patentes de Mark Summerfield, junto con otros maximalistas de patentes (con quienes coquetea online), ya atacó/burló a la Comisión por haberse atrevido a hacer estas sugerencias. Tal vez pone en peligro su fuente de ingresos, que es básicamente guerras de patentes, la confrontación, ruido de sables, etc.
“Ahora que un Comité de Australia propuso la prohibición de swpats,” Benjamin Henrion observó correctamente, “IBM (Sagrada Familia) y otros agentes de patentes llama al movimiento” defectuoso “…”
Mencionamos al jefe de la patentes de IBM y su respuesta ayer (señalado hacia el final).
India
La India todavía está bajo fuerte ataque por los cabilderos de patentes (por casi un año, y se intensífico el último verano). Los medios Indios acaban de publicar esta opinión que se resume como sigue: “Para crédito de los hacedores de políticas que constantemente han estado rechazándo besar a este puerco llamado ‘patentes de software’, a pesar de estar maquillado con el lápiz labial de la ‘innovación’” (no sólo en software).
El artículo se titula “Cerdo con Lápiz labial” y “El cerdo en cuestión es el régimen de patentes de software que defienden algunos corporaciones multinacionales (CMN)”, señala el autor. Indios deben involucrarse en este proceso y proporcionar información con la que hacer frente a los grupos de presión, que nunca se c
Korea
La ‘Revista’ IAM, un maximálista de patentes, quiere que creamos que “trollear” es ahora “unidad de obtención de ingresos” (pidiendo ‘dinero de protección’, mientras que apenas, nada en absoluto desarrollan cualquier cosa). En relación con las patentes de software IBM en Corea (se llama a estas patentes “Fintech”) que insta al país, que es tradicionalmente no agresivo/asertivo en el sentido de las patentes, para trollear más. IAM en es financiado por los trolles de patentes (en parte). Como jodes IAM, como jodes …
EU
En el continénte donde los oficiales de la EPO cabildean regularmente a los oficiales de la EU, a pesar de que la EPO es un cuerpo no-Europeo, hay un contínuo esfuerzo de implantar/enyucar las patentes de software a los estados miembors.
Aquí la MIP se esta conviertiéndo en la plataforma de los máximalistas de patentes quienes advocan por la UPC (para vender sus servicios). Bueno, de acuerdo a este tweet, el artículo es “promovido” (i.e. promocional) y dice:
La posibilidad de exclusión que ofrece el artículo 83 UPCA presta mucha atención a las opciones de los titulares de patentes se enfrentan con respecto a su estrategia de presentación. Nos centramos aquí en estrategias de defensa en el nuevo marco legislativo, en particular sobre las acciones ante los tribunales nacionales.
[...]
Estas incertidumbres hacen que sea difícil para las partes poner en práctica una estrategia defensiva. ¿Vale la pena invertir en una acción de nulidad ante un tribunal nacional, antes de la entrada en vigor de la UPC? Suponiendo que tales elecciones del impacto de un acción titulares de patentes en absoluto, tendrá que evitar por completo el uso de la UPC, o sólo impedir el uso de la UPC para una acción de nulidad?
Con las “incertidumbres de la UPC se hace díficil para las partes implementar una estratégia defensiva,” para que así recurran a los abogados de patentes. La UPC es muy buena para los agresores y abogados de patentes, es mal para el resto de nosotros.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
05.02.16
Posted in America, Asia, Australia, Deception, Europe, Patents at 7:36 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
We need more leaks, e.g. UPC leaks, to shed light on who’s pulling whose strings
Patent pollution and “global patent warming,” as Benjamin Henrion occasionally calls it [1, 2]
Summary: A roundup of news from the weekend and today, with emphasis on the elements inside the system (or the media) which push for regressive policies that benefit them financially at the expense of everybody else
THERE is progress being made toward patent justice, albeit there are self-serving elements that are parasitic and non-producing. They battle to maintain the status quo, if not to make it even worse. Below are the latest examples.
United States
The other day we mentioned the latest disappointing move from CAFC, which in essence defended patent trolls in the US (where they sparingly use software patents for extortion, even when these patents would not withstand a court’s scrutiny). CAFC supporting patent trolls shouldn’t be surprising given CAFC’s history. Joe Mullin reacts as follows: “Patent reform advocates who were hoping to “shut down the Eastern District of Texas” face disappointment today, as the top US patent appeals court ruled (PDF) against a venue transfer in a dispute between two food companies.”
Don’t expect reform to come from CAFC, initiator of software patents. From SCOTUS? Maybe. Is an appeal next on the agenda? Will this reach SCOTUS?
Australia
There is a new motion to convince the Australian government to ban software patents (officially). It’s part of a broader motion which also suggests some of the following changes, as covered some days ago:
In its draft report released on Friday the commission recommends that action must be taken to “rebalance” the existing IP laws with a new system that balances the interests of rights holders and users.
The commission says that while a good system balances the interests of rights holders and users, Australia’s IP system has swung too far in favour of vocal rights holders and influential IP exporting nations.
Patent attorney Mark Summerfield, along with other patent maximalists (whom he flirts with online), already attacks/mocks the Commission for daring to make these suggestions. Perhaps it threatens his source of income, which is basically patent wars, confrontation, saber-rattling etc.
“Now that a Committee in Australia proposed ban of swpats,” Benjamin Henrion correctly noted, “IBM and other patent agents calls the move “flawed”…”
We mentioned IBM’s patent chief and his response yesterday (noted towards the end).
India
India is still under heavy attack by the software patents lobby (for almost a year now, as it intensified last summer). India’s media has just published this opinion that’s summarised as follows: “It’s to the credit of policymakers that they have steadfastly refused to kiss this pig called ‘software patents’, despite it being dressed up in the lipstick of ‘innovation’” (not just in software).
The article is titled “Lipstick on a pig” and “The pig in question is the regime of software patents being advocated by some multinational corporations (MNCs),” notes the author. Indians will hopefully get involved in this process and provide input with which to counter the lobbyists, who never grow tired (they’re paid for it).
Korea
IAM ‘magazine’, a patents maximalist, wants us to believe that “trolling” is now “monetisation drive” (asking for ‘protection money’ while barely, hardly or not at all developing anything). In relation to software and BM patents in Korea (it calls these “fintech patents”) it urges the country, which is traditionally not aggressive/assertive in the patents sense, to get more trollish. IAM itself is funded by patent trolls (in part). Not nice, IAM, not nice…
EU
In the continent where EPO officials regularly lobby EU officials, despite the EPO being a non-EU body, there is still an effort to bring software patents to European member states.
Here is MIP becoming platform of patent maximalists who do UPC advocacy (to sell their services). Well, according to this tweet, the article is “sponsored” (i.e. promotional) and it says:
The opt‐out possibility offered by Article 83 UPCA pays lots of attention to the choices patentees are facing with regards to their filing strategy. We focus here on defensive strategies in the new legislative framework, in particular on actions before national courts.
[...]
These uncertainties make it difficult for parties to implement a defensive strategy. Is it worth investing in an invalidity action in a national court, before entry into force of the UPC? Assuming such an action impacts patentees’ choices at all, will it completely prevent the use of the UPC or only preclude the use of the UPC for a nullity action?
With UPC “uncertainties make it difficult for parties to implement a defensive strategy,” so they turn to patent lawyers. The UPC is very good for aggressors and for lawyers; it’s bad for everybody else. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
05.01.16
Posted in America, Antitrust, Deception, Europe, GNU/Linux, Google, Microsoft, Patents at 3:29 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
English/Original
Article as ODF
Publicado en America, Antitrust, Deception, Europe, GNU/Linux, Google, Microsoft, Patentes at 8:25 am por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Relaciónes Publicas (PR) Microsoft versus el Microsoft real
Sumario: La guerra de Microsoft contra Linux, una guerra que es peleada usando patentes de software patents (por ganancias y/o por chantáje con arreglos empaquetados), todavía continúa a pesar de todas las tácticas de relaciónes públicas de Microsoft y sus sócios
MICROSOFT todavía está googlebombardenado a Linux (lo último es un ramo de tonterías acerca de un subsistema de Linux en Vista 10, citándo un eructo del propio canal 9 de Microsoft) tratar de decirnos que Windows es Linux y Linux es Windows, o algo de tal efecto (amplia confusión sirve a Microsoft aquí).
Basado en una MENTIRA (Microsoft “abrazándo a Linux,” y no en el sentido E.E.E.), este estupido nuevo artículo da un plan para deshacerse de Android. Son las mismas viejas tácticas E.E.E. que están evidentemente todavía en la mezcla.
“Es un ástuto plan de Microsoft, que simplemente está tratándo de tragárse a la competencia, como hizo hace veinte años con Java.”
En medio de rumores de una compra de Canonical/Ubuntu (hasta ahora hemos encontrádo cuatro artículos) Microsoft mantiene en un lazo a Canonical y Ubuntu para el mercadeo/propaganda de Vista 10 y no podemos dejar de sospechar que esta es la fase de “Extender” en E.E.E. Microsoft está tratando de convencer a la gente a comprar Vista 10 si quieren esta “cosa llamada Linux” (o Ubuntu). El lock-in sólo es cada vez más agresiva, ya que incluso los datos de forma automática de Windows está siendo cargado al cloud de Microsoft y varios elementos sólo para Windows (conjuntamente con el lock-in OOXML). Es una trama inteligente de Microsoft, que está intentando simplemente engullir a la competencia, como lo hizo hace dos décadas con Java.
Bueno, hubo un largo chat en el IRC el otro dia y también se discutiéron aspectos de patentes. De acuerdo a este nuevo artículo, a pesar de que el mafióso de patentes (Horacio) de Microsoft se fuese, su féo chantaje de patentes todavía continúa. Microsoft ahora usa juicios de patentes y las amenazas de ellos para conseguir el llamdo BUNDLING (paquetización). Veán lo que reciéntemente hizo con Acer (una clase de arreglo de patentes envolviendo este llamado bundling de Microsoft). Microsoft básicamente usa las patentes para forzar a los OEMs a escojer Microsoft o enfréntarse a jucios (com Samsung no hace mucho). ¿Es esto incluso legal? ¿Cómo esto no es chantáje y una violación de la ley antimonopolios?
Para citar este nuevo artículo: “Más de 20 proveedores han firmado acuerdos con Microsoft, desde entonces, incluyendo Samsung, LG, HTC, Acer y Asus. En marzo, Wistron Taiwan-basada y Rakuten con sede en Tokio se convirtió en los dos últimos titulares de licencias de patentes Android.”
“Google no debe tolerar los ataques de Microsoft contra lasAndroid OEMs (usando patentes de software como herramiénta) porque si no se levanta y pelea,Microsoft hará lo mismo con otras plataformas que son Linux-powered, e.g. Tizen, SailfishOS, WebOS.”
“Aunque Microsoft intenta buscar acuerdos de licencias adiciónales con vendedores de Android, Hill de Microsoft sugirió que tales acuerdos se tratán acerce de formar más duraderas relaciones que obligar/forzar sus derechos de propiedad intelectual.”
No, en Español lo de arriba significa que los ¨arreglos¨ de patentes todavía están en la agenda y que la solución con bundling es el current modus operandi. Lo suficientemente chistoso, Forbes (la voz de los multimillionarios com Gates y otros) llama al chántaje de Microsoft contra OEMs de Android “El Exito de Microsoft con Android”. Escondiéndo la verdadera historia ¿no?
Google no debe tolerar los ataques de Microsoft contra lasAndroid OEMs (usando patentes de software como herramiénta) porque si no se levanta y pelea,Microsoft hará lo mismo con otras plataformas que son Linux-powered, e.g. Tizen, SailfishOS, WebOS.
Volviendo al artículo anterior, que dice: “Algunos socios de Microsoft esperan que el gigante de software intensifique sus esfuerzos de aplicación de patentes en respuesta a esta tendencia. Jeff Middleton, presidente de IT Pro Expertos, un socio de Microsoft en Metairie, LA., No espera que Microsoft sea delicado en la persecución de los ingresos potenciales por licencias de Android “.
“For Microsoft to claim to have withdrawn complaints against Google after the FTC and EC already take action is like an invading/occupying army ‘pulling out’ of a nation after its complete destruction.”
Así que nada ha cambiado ni lo hará. Los medios británicos (Microsoft-amigable) propiedad de Murdoch actualmente lo hace parecer como si Microsoft se suavizó mientras que es obvio que ataca Linux con las patentes y al mismo tiempo sus medios de comunicación de Estados Unidos muestra que la presión de Microsoft contra Linux (o Android) en los EE.UU. está siendo lucrátiva [1, 2] (“La FTC amplía su investigación sobre el Android de Google”), después de que dio sus frutos en Europa. ¿Quién se beneficia de esto y cómo puede alguien considerar a Microsoft un socio digno de confianza? Microsoft, en base a estos nuevos informes de hoy [1, 2], está agrupando para excluír a Google de nuevo; incluso la búsqueda de Google está siendo negada por Microsoft, a pesar de la mayoría de las personas la prefieren. Nadie da ni mierda por Bing ¿Porqué fuerzan a los consumidores? ¿Porqué Google no prestar atención a esto? Microsoft lucha muy violentamente contra la administración de Android, con la ayuda de grupos de fachada y proxies (mientras finge haberse detenido, hasta el punto que algunos dicen ingenuamente “Microsoft está del caso en la EU“, citando informes como éste).
Como Masnick de TechDirt señaló en relación a esto, “Microsoft, se ha puesto de acuerdo a retirar sus quejas — a pesar de patalear por una acción de la EU antimonopolio contra Google” (cubrimos esto en su momento).
Para Microsoft diga que ha retirado quejas contra Google después de la FTC y CE tomarán medidas es como un invasor/ejército de ocupación ‘salga’ de una nación después de su completa destrucción. ¿Quién sería ingenuo como para creer en serio que Microsoft ha cambiado? Sólo
Only el Jefe Ejecutivo Oficia y la PR han cambiado.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
04.29.16
Posted in America, Antitrust, Deception, Europe, GNU/Linux, Google, Microsoft, Patents at 8:25 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Microsoft PR versus Microsoft reality
Summary: Microsoft’s war on Linux, a war which is waged using software patents (for revenue and/or for coercion in bundling deals), is still going on in spite of all the PR tactics from Microsoft and its paid partners
MICROSOFT is still googlebombing Linux (the latest is a bunch of nonsense about a Linux subsystem in Vista 10, citing a blurb from Microsoft’s own Channel 9) and trying to tell us that Windows is Linux and Linux is Windows, or something to that effect (widespread confusion serves Microsoft here).
Based on a lie (Microsoft “embracing Linux,” and not in the E.E.E. sense), this foolish new article gives Microsoft a kill plan for Android. It’s the same old E.E.E. tactics, which are evidently still in the mix.
“It’s a clever plot from Microsoft, which is trying to simply engulf the competition, as it did two decades ago with Java.”Amid rumours and suggestions of a Canonical/Ubuntu buyout (we have encountered 4 articles about it by now) Microsoft keeps roping in Canonical and Ubuntu for Vista 10 marketing and we can’t help but feel that this is the “Extend” phase in E.E.E. Microsoft is trying to convince people to flock to Vista 10 if they want this “Linux thing” (or Ubuntu). The lock-in is only getting ever more aggressive, as even data from Windows is automatically being uploaded to Microsoft’s ‘cloud’ and various Windows-only elements (set aside OOXML lock-in). It’s a clever plot from Microsoft, which is trying to simply engulf the competition, as it did two decades ago with Java.
Well, there was a long chat about it in IRC the other day and patent aspects were discussed as well. According to this new article, in spite of Microsoft's patent Mafioso (Horacio) leaving, his ugly patent racketeering strategy goes on. Microsoft now uses patent lawsuits and threats thereof to get BUNDLING. See what it recently did with Acer (a sort of patent settlement involving Microsoft bundling). Microsoft basically uses patents to compel OEMs to choose Microsoft or face lawsuits (like Samsung not too long ago). Is this even legal? How is this not racketeering and an antitrust violation?
To quote this new article: “More than 20 vendors have inked agreements with Microsoft since then, including Samsung, LG, HTC, Acer and Asus. In March, Taiwan-based Wistron and Tokyo-based Rakuten became the two latest Android patent licensees.
“Google oughtn’t tolerate Microsoft’s attacks on Android OEMs (using software patents for leverage) because if it does not stand up and fights back, Microsoft will do it to other platforms that are Linux-powered, e.g. Tizen, SailfishOS, WebOS.”“Although Microsoft intends to seek additional licensing agreements with Android vendors, [Microsoft's] Hill suggested that these deals will be more about forming lasting relationships than enforcing intellectual property rights.”
No, what the above says is that patent deals are still on the agenda and that settlement with bundling is the current modus operandi. Funnily enough, Forbes (Gates’ and other rich people’s mouthpiece) calls Microsoft’s racketeering against Android OEMs “Microsoft’s Android Success”. Missing the big story there, don’t they?
Google oughtn’t tolerate Microsoft’s attacks on Android OEMs (using software patents for leverage) because if it does not stand up and fights back, Microsoft will do it to other platforms that are Linux-powered, e.g. Tizen, SailfishOS, WebOS.
Going back to the above article, it says: “Some Microsoft partners are expecting the software giant to step up its patent enforcement efforts in response to this trend. Jeff Middleton, president of IT Pro Experts, a Microsoft partner in Metairie, La., doesn’t expect Microsoft to tread lightly in going after potential Android licensing revenue.”
“For Microsoft to claim to have withdrawn complaints against Google after the FTC and EC already take action is like an invading/occupying army ‘pulling out’ of a nation after its complete destruction.”So nothing has changed and nothing will change, either. Murdoch-owned British media (Microsoft-friendly) currently makes it looks as though Microsoft softened while it’s obviously attacking Linux with patents and at the same time Murdoch-owned US media shows that Microsoft lobbying against Linux (or Android) in the US is paying off [1, 2] (“FTC Extends Probe Into Google’s Android”), after it paid off in Europe. Who benefits from this and how can anyone consider Microsoft a trustworthy partner? Microsoft, based on these new reports from today [1, 2], is bundling to the exclusion of Google again; even Google search is being denied by Microsoft, despite most people preferring it. Is Google not paying attention to this? Microsoft fights very viciously against Android’s steward, with help from front groups and proxies (while pretending to have stopped, to the point where some naively say “Microsoft’s out” of the EU case, citing reports like this one).
As TechDirt‘s Masnick pointed out in relation to this, “Microsoft, which has agreed to drop its complaints — despite kicking off much of the EU antitrust focus on Google” (we covered this at the time).
For Microsoft to claim to have withdrawn complaints against Google after the FTC and EC already take action is like an invading/occupying army ‘pulling out’ of a nation after its complete destruction. Who would be naive enough to seriously believe that Microsoft has changed? Only the CEO and PR have changed. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
04.28.16
Posted in America, Asia, Deception, Law, Patents at 9:52 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
What is “Special 301 Report”? Check Wikipedia.
Summary: Lobbying body of the US (corporations-led) is trying its usual dirty tactics against India’s sound policy which excludes software/algorithms from patent scope
“USTR complains about block of software patents in India while they have Alice,” Benjamin Henrion wrote today. For those who are not familiar with the antics of USTR, see examples and details of its bullying in Cablegate articles. Microsoft too uses USTR for influence.
“Microsoft too uses USTR for influence.”“USTR complains about Indian block of software patents while they have Alice,” Henrion wrote hours later (he found out about it because of Jamie Love, who is a FOSS supporter and also an affordable medicine advocate). Love wrote: “This is one of the business lobbies that pressures India on IPR issues.”
In their own words: “Special 301 Report: India’s #IP Climate Continues to Discourage Innovation” (whose innovation?).
USTR is basically an imperialistic corporate army and it needs to be treated as such. We gave examples of how it bullies, shames and potentially sanctions nations that don’t play ball for US multinational corporations. Here is the article about it: “The Special 301 Report echoed several of the same outstanding concerns with India’s IP policies that AFTI and its members outlined in recently submitted comments to the USTR. These issues include inadequate trade secret protection in India, continued copyright piracy across India, concerns about compulsory licensing for biopharmaceutical and environmental technology, and unnecessary and burdensome criteria for the patentability of medicines and other products. The USTR report also noted that weak or inadequate IP protections in India have a negative impact on both U.S. and Indian businesses.”
“USTR is basically an imperialistic corporate army and it needs to be treated as such.”That’s nonsense. To quote the PDF from USTR (Henrion has scanned it), “with respect to CII, there was a lack of transparency in the process to adopt the current set of guidelines” (“CII” is just a cheeky term that’s often when trying to evade the better known term, “software patents”).
In [1] below one can find a report about this from IP Watch. No doubt India’s Indians-leaning policies are upsetting some very rich and powerful people in other countries, not just in India. India’s long war against the software patents lobby continues with RCEP's clauses. As SFLC has just put it (copy here) in a press release: “Indian law on patentability of computer programmes is abundantly clear in that Section 3(k) of the Patents Act 1970 explicitly excludes computer programmes per se, mathematical methods and algorithms from patent protection. Moreover the recent Guidelines for Examination of Computer Related Inventions released by the Patent Office on February 19, 2016 ensure that patents are granted only to those inventions where a computer programme is claimed in conjunction with novel hardware. This eliminates the possibility of frivolous patents being granted in the field of software in India. However, recently it has come to light that the Regional Comprehensive Partnership Treaty (RCEP) presently being negotiated proposes a clause on patents in the area of computer programmes that will result in patents being granted in this field.”
“If China and India care about their future and prosperity, then they will give USTR the middle finger, get out of the RCEP ‘trade’ agreement and just carry on developing things (India is big for software, China for hardware), not bickering over patents in courtrooms, where English-speaking (usually foreign) lawyers often become necessary because of language barriers.”We are disgusted to see these attacks on Indian sovereignty, or on politicians who simply try to establish policy based on human rights, innovation and so on. It’s not too hard to see who’s behind these attacks, which impact not only India but also China (see [1] below for context). Right now Chinese censorship, for instance, is being cast a “trade barrier” by think tanks and lobbyists of US corporations. These are just opportunistic excuses which try to frame human rights issues as a barrier to US profits in China. And watch what IAM ‘magazine’ is doing today. When Mr. Schindler says “the Chinese” he probably means “the Chinese lawyers” because IAM believes that more lawsuits are a good thing and wants to increase their frequency. IAM is seemingly worried about barriers to litigation based on yesterday’s article. That’s really what it’s all about. It’s exercising power in the courtroom, usually a large company against a small one or a company from a rich country like the US against another company in a poorer country such as India. In the courts, as virtually everyone knows, those with deeper pockets have the cards stacked in their favour (costs of appeals, experienced lawyers, etc.), so who is this all for? It’s an imperialistic or colonialist system, which India ought to know enough about, having suffered British occupation for a long time.
If China and India care about their future and prosperity, then they will give USTR the middle finger, get out of the RCEP ‘trade’ agreement and just carry on developing things (India is big for software, China for hardware), not bickering over patents in courtrooms, where English-speaking (usually foreign) lawyers often become necessary because of language barriers. █
Related/contextual items from the news:
-
The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) does not hesitate to add even its closest friends to its annual list of concerns about possible inadequate protection of US intellectual property rights. So this year, along with perennial listees China, India and dozens of others, vigorous IP-rights defender Switzerland makes an appearance. The annual Special 301 report was issued today, and in its press release this year, USTR also included its primary client in publishing the list – the rightsholder industry.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
« Previous Page — « Previous entries « Previous Page · Next Page » Next entries » — Next Page »
Content is available under CC-BY-SA