02.06.16
Posted in Apple, Patents, Samsung at 12:25 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: What the media really ought to be talking about after the high-profile VirnetX case, rather than obsess about the status of Apple or patent trolls in the Eastern District of Texas
EARLIER this week Apple made headlines because VirnetX had ‘lectured’ Apple on patents. Apple got hit by a troll and it will have to pay a lot of money unless a miracle happens. Apple will not blame software patents (which are inherently the issue almost everywhere) but just “trolls” (the small ones). Joe Mullin, a trolls expert, called VirnetX a “Patent-based company”. When a troll’s value depends just on patents (or a patent) the share price can double because of a court’s ruling. The jury bumped the stock by 88% (the members of this jury may as well have just invested in this troll before the ruling), so there we have an example of non-practicing entities doing little more than just litigation.
A patent lawyers’ site said that a “jury in the Eastern District of Texas has awarded VirnetX $626m after finding Apple had infringed four patents. The PTAB instituted inter partes reviews on the patents last October, however, the results of which could affect the district court case” (that’s from MIP).
Notice the role of the Eastern District of Texas again. It’s not a coincidence. Trolls love the Eastern District of Texas. There’s no lack of coverage of this ruling. Within a few hours we saw more than 100 headlines (too much for exhaustive listing here), some of them included [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28] for the record. “Apple now owes VirnetX more than what Samsung owes it”; that’s one way to put it.
Samsung is the leading Android (Linux) OEM, so this is very relevant to us. Even EPO-funded sites mentioned this and then took note of a lesser known patent lawsuit against Apple in China. The author wrote: “Court records from the Chinese manufacturing hub of Shenzhen show that BYD has dropped two patent infringement lawsuits that it filed against client Apple back in May 2015. But since the two cases were closed in late December, the legal back-and-forth has continued in a California federal court, as Apple argues that its supplier breached an IP non-assert clause in their contract and should be compelled to participate in arbitration.”
“This clearly serves to discredit the way this patent system works.”According to software patents fans, some of the patents Apple uses against Samsung are now being challenged at PTAB, and Florian Müller, who spent years promoting/bolstering Apple’s side before defecting, has just published the decision’s PDF and said: “Apple has just responded to Samsung’s mid-December petition for writ of certiorari (request for Supreme Court review) regarding two legal questions concerning design patents and, in the same document, to amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) briefs from major industry players, many IP law professors and various public interest advocates, all of whom agree with Samsung that the top U.S. court should take a look at this matter.”
One can find the PDF of the troll’s case here in Patently-O, which also debated other interesting patent-related matters this week.
“In this case,” wrote Patently-O in one of the above, “the district court found that Lotan had assigned his rights to AngioScore and that his later purported assignment to TriReme actually transferred no rights. These two conclusions led to the final dismissal with a holding that TriReme had no standing to bring its claim.”
This clearly serves to discredit the way this patent system works. The latter analysis, also about the district court, involves Google and says:
In Cioffi v. Google, the Federal Circuit sided with the patentee, Cioffi — holding that the district court erred in its construction of the asserted patent claims and thus vacated the holdings non-infringement and invalidity via indefiniteness. (Non-precedential opinion). Now, Google has petitioned the court for an en banc rehearing asking the court to “strictly construe” claim amendments against the patentee.
This again is about software patents. In fact, pretty much all the above is about software patents, which is what we ought to focus on if these severe issues are ever to be resolved. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
01.29.16
Posted in America, Apple, Patents, Samsung at 9:03 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Original/English
Publicado en America, Apple, Patents, Samsung at 7:29 am por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Esta reciente foto de Rick Frenkel (del Newegg Chief Legal Officer Lee Cheng) nos muestra y recuerda que Frenkel todavía esta combatiendo a los troles de patentes.
Sumario: Eventos reciéntes en el mundo de los trolles de patentes, incluyendo los relacionados a Apple y Linux/Android, donde las batallas de patentes de software persisten y se han convertido en un factor considerable.
La decadencia de Apple puede ser explicada en muchas maneras (Android/Linux tiene mucho que ver con ello). Pero estamos particularmente interesados en la asquerosa estrategia de litigación de patentes de Apple, que motivo nuestro llamado a un BOYCOTT hace media decada (el que seguimos motivando), despues de sus primeros ataques (contra una menos armada HTC). La OEP comparte la culpa aquí como que facilitó muchos de esos ataques por erróneamente otorgar patentes que más tarde fueron encontrada ser invalidas.
Los más vocales proponentes de patentes de software nos han hecho recordar que ¨Samsung va a pagar a Apple aproximadamente $546 millones en daños como parte de una continua disputa de infingimiento de patentes entre los dos gigantes.¨
“La OEP comparte la culpa aquí como que facilitó muchos de esos ataques por erróneamente otorgar patentes que más tarde fueron encontrada ser invalidas.”Esto es acerca de patentes de software. Apple las esta usando para sacar ganancias de productos rivales pero también para prohibirlos. Pero es una espada de doble filo por que Apple también ha sido demandada por un monto similar (medio millón de dolares) por un trol de patentes. Esta vez, como siempre, son patentes de software (los trolles de patentes rarámente usan otra clase de patentes). El desgraciado troll de patentes VirnetX quiere que ej jurado le dé medio millón de dólares de Apple. Hay algo poético acerca de esto, dada las noticias de arriba. Cuando un troll de patentes ataca a Apple, como este nuevo artículo de Joe Mullin ayuda a mostrar, grandes cantidades de dinero son exigidas. ¨Un juicio reciéntemente empezó en el lugar perferido de las patentes: East Texas,¨ escribió Mullin, ¨ y es uno grande. VirtnetX, una compañía poseedora de patentes que dice ser dueña un buen número de ellas relatadas a Networks Privados Virtuales (VPNs), se está enfrentando a Apple.
¨VirnetX dice que la VPN tecnología usada por Apple, así como su mensajero reconocedor de caras, infringen patentes de la compañía. Un jucio comenzó hoy, y VirnetX busca $532 millones en daños.¨
“Esto es acerca de patentes de software. Apple las esta usando para sacar ganancias de productos rivales pero también para prohibirlos.”Hemos escrito mucho acerca de VirnetX y East Texas en el pasado. Esto es un gran ejemplo de lo que las patentes de software hacen a los trolles de patentes.
Hablando de East Texas, parece que el rastreador de trolles de patentes (Rick Frenkel) esta ocupadísimo ahora mismo. Escribió bastante acerca de Fish & Richardson PC, especialmente cuando el padre de trolles de patentes, Sr. Niro los enjuició (antes que Frenkel y su empleador Cisco fueran enjuiciados). Recuerden que lo que trajo problemas al rastreador de trolles de patentes (muchos articulos acerca de esto aquí). Fish & Richardson tuviero que ver mucho con ello directa o indirectamente. Fish & Richardson es una compañía que trabajo por multinacionales como Samsung y Nokia en patentes. Ahora expresa amor de la UPC (hace menos de un día en medios de abogados). La publicación de ellos ayer dice: ¨el próximo gran paso por la UPC sera la selección de jueces. Aproximadamente 1,300 personas han expresado su interés, incluyendo muchos jueces altamente calificados, abogados de leyes y abogados de patentes. El comite preparatorio es esperado adoptar una selección de procedimiento en su reunión de Febrero 24-25, 2016 y comenzar el proceso inmediatamente despues.
“Resulta que el Rastreador de Trolles de Patentes Todavía los esta combatiendo.”Fish & Richardson en sí es una firma de abogados de patentes, y una que representa clientes que les puede traer muchísimo dinero cuando una compañía como Apple, por no hablar de algunos pequeños trolles de patentes, tomen ventaja de la UPC por juicios de gran escala sin fronteras. Tengan esto en mente; ven que podrida esta la UPC; MUESTRA QUIÉN SE BENEFICIARÍA DE ELLA. Por supuesto no las PYMEs europeas.
Suficientemente interesado, Joe Mullin ha escrito esta pieza acerca de trolles de patentes que atacaron Newegg y rápidamente se lamentaron. Resulta que el Rastreador de Trolles de Patentes Todavía los esta combatiendo. Los juicios de difamación en su contra de parte de los trolles no lo han detenido. Ante lo cual nos sacamos el sombrero delante de tan magnífico caballero. Para citar de la de arriba: “Latham & Watkins socio Rick Frenkel, quien representa a Newegg en algunos de sus casos de patentes. Frenkel y Cheng hicieron una parada para barbacoa y pasteles fritos en un reciente viaje a la zona activa de patente de este de Texas “. Buen provecho Señores. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
01.28.16
Posted in America, Apple, Patents, Samsung at 7:29 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
This recent photograph of Rick Frenkel (from Newegg Chief Legal Officer Lee Cheng) shows or reminds us that Frenkel is still fighting patent trolls
Summary: Recent developments in the world of patent trolls, including the relation to Apple and Linux/Android, where (software) patent battles persist and have become a considerable factor
THE decline of Apple can be explained in all sorts of ways (Android/Linux had a lot to do with it). But what we’re particularly interested in is Apple’s nasty patent litigation strategy, which motivated our call for a boycott half a decade ago, some time after the seminal attacks (on a lesser-armed HTC). The EPO shares the blame here as it too facilitated some of these attacks by incorrectly granting patents which were only later found to be invalid.
The most vocal proponents of software patents have just reminds us that “Samsung is going to pay Apple approximately $546 million in damages as part of the ongoing patent infringement dispute between the two technology giants.”
“The EPO shares the blame here as it too facilitated some of these attacks by incorrectly granting patents which were only later found to be invalid.”This is about software patents. Apple is trying to use them not just to tax rival products but also ban these. But it’s a two-edged sword because Apple is being sued for a similar amount (half a billion dollars) by a patent troll. This time, as always, it’s software patents (patent trolls rarely use any other kind of patents). The infamous patent troll VirnetX wants jury to give it a half-billion dollars of Apple’s cash. There’s something poetic about it, given the above news. When patent trolls hit Apple, as this new article from Joe Mullin helps show, big damages are being claimed. “A trial has just kicked off in the patent hotspot of East Texas,” Mullin wrote, “and it’s a big one. VirnetX, a patent-holding company that says it owns wide-ranging rights to Virtual Private Networks (VPNs), is facing off against Apple.
“VirnetX says that Apple’s VPN technology, as well as its FaceTime video-messaging, both infringe the company’s patents. A jury trial began today, and VirnetX seeks $532 million in damages.”
“This is about software patents. Apple is trying to use them not just to tax rival products but also ban these.”We have written a lot about VirnetX and about East Texas in the past. This is a great example of what software patents do for patent trolls.
Speaking of East Texas, it turns out that Patent Troll Tracker (Rick Frenkel) is busy there right now. He wrote a lot about Fish & Richardson PC, especially when the father of patent trolling, Mr. Niro, sued them (before Frenkel and his employer Cisco got sued). Recall what got Patent Troll Tracker in trouble (lots of articles about this here). Fish & Richardson had a lot to do with that, even if indirectly. Fish & Richardson is a firm that worked for multinationals such as Samsung and Nokia on patents. It now expresses love of the UPC (less than a day ago in lawyer’s media). Yesterday’s publication from them says: “The next big step for the UPC will be selection of judges. Approximately 1,300 persons have indicated an interest, including many highly qualified judges, attorneys-at-law and patent attorneys. The Preparatory Committee is expected to adopt a selection procedure at their meeting on February 24-25, 2016 and begin the process immediately thereafter.”
“It turns out that Patent Troll Tracker is still fighting patent trolls.”Fish & Richardson itself is a firm of patent lawyers, and one that represents clients who can bring a lot of income when a company such as Apple, for instance, let alone some small patent troll, takes advantage of the UPC for large-scale cross-border lawsuits. Bear this in mind; see who’s rooting for the UPC; it shows who would benefit from it. Nothing at all to do with European SMEs.
Interestingly enough, Joe Mullin has just published this piece about patent trolls that attacked Newegg and quickly regretted it. It turns out that Patent Troll Tracker is still fighting patent trolls. Defamation lawsuits from trolls did not stop him. To quote from the top: “Latham & Watkins partner Rick Frenkel, who represents Newegg in some of its patent cases. Frenkel and Cheng made a stop for BBQ and fried pies on a recent trip to the patent hotspot of East Texas.” █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
01.24.16
Posted in Apple, Patents, Samsung at 10:26 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Nearly challenging the price of gold now
Phones now a pocket-sized patent thicket
Summary: A roundup of recent news about patents that affect phones in particular, notably patents on software rather than hardware
THE SUBJECT which is software patents hasn’t been covered here recently. It’s due to other important issues. “How to get around software patents” is an article published nearly a week ago. To quote part of it: “Isn’t is possible to work around software patents and use [...] In some cases it is really possible. The Ogg/Vorbis developers have done patent research and hope their format won’t vulnerate patents in the United States.”
“The patent attacks on Chinese companies have led some of them to a pursuit of patents akin to stockpiling.”Well, Apple’s Steve Jobs attacked Ogg, as we wrote here several times in past years (well before Jobs’ death). Don’t forget that, when it comes to patents, Apple is not only a foe of Linux (and by extension Android) but of FOSS as a whole. There’s a long tradition to it, as we showed here over the years.
Earlier this month and later last year we wrote about Xiaomi, a rival of Apple, craving or lusting for patents (perhaps as many as 10,000). Two recent articles from IAM [1, 2] said more about this area, noting that “Xiaomi’s latest gambit in its quest to find sales growth outside of its home market of China was a short-lived one. The company launched its first phones in South Korea last Monday, 4th January, through KT Corporation, the nation’s second largest mobile carrier. Just two days later, the handsets were abruptly pulled from the market, based on what KT described as “legal matters related to sales”. There are several possibilities for what has happened, but given the company’s history of IP troubles, some in the media have wondered whether a patent dispute is behind the setback. If that does prove to be the case, it would raise some serious questions about Xiaomi’s IP strategy and its ability to gauge its own freedom to operate.”
The patent attacks on Chinese companies have led some of them to a pursuit of patents akin to stockpiling. Over a week ago we learned about Huawei and Ericsson signing a patent agreement [1, 2] and it is worth noting that Ericsson uses patent trolls as fronts. “As the battle for patents rages on,” said one report, “and tech giants are at each other’s throats on court, arguing who has the right to use what technology, two companies have extended their agreement to use each other’s patents without much hassle.
“Imagine higher prices on everything (the lawyers’ tax), including mobile phones whose prices are artificially high.”“Those two companies are Ericsson and Huawei and they have, according to a recent press release, extended their global patent licence agreement that includes patents regarding wireless communication technology.”
This new report about Ericsson’s troll, Unwired Planet (formerly Openwave Systems), shows that Ericsson has become a big liability to Android companies. Unwired Planet has become a leading example of patent trolls serving even European companies, or a proxy war with SEPs. This is what UPC would lead to more of (given growing momentum it’s easy to be pessimistic, especially now that UK-IPO and British patent lawyers make decisions behind closed doors), making Europe more accessible to patent trolls from the US as well. To quote lawyers’ media: “The UK government has prepared legislation to give effect to EU legislation on the unitary patent and to the Agreement on the Unified Patent Court (UPC), which backs the creation of a new UPC for resolving disputes over new unitary patents.”
Imagine higher prices on everything (the lawyers’ tax), including mobile phones whose prices are artificially high. That’s where we are today.
Earlier this month, Florian Müller chose to focus again on Apple’s patent war with Android [1, 2]. “Today I received a really interesting Lex Machina press release,” he wrote. “Lex Machina, a LexisNexis company, operates the Legal Analytics platform and claims that companies such as Microsoft, Google, Nike and eBay as well as various top-notch law firms are among its clients. Its new “Patent Trial and Appeal Board 2015 Report” provides lots of insight about last year’s trials before the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board, i.e., the USPTO’s in-house court system.” This study, Müller says, shows that Apple and Samsung now use so-called ‘patent death squads’.
“We have written so much about the so-called slide-to-unlock patent, which is effectively a software patent.”In other news [1, 2], “Samsung is appealing its Apple infringement case to the Supreme Court because a very old law is a bad fit with very modern technology” (with the CCIA’s support).
The case, which we have grown quite tired of after half a decade, is still the subject of much media coverage (the latest development is that Apple is suing Samsung for embargoes to be belatedly enforced and technology giants take Samsung’s side [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]) and legal sites too.
“Devices that cost just several dollars to make (on the basis of material) end up being sold for almost a thousand dollars in some cases.”As Müller put it earlier this month: “The ’721 slide-to-unlock patent, whose European sibling has already been held invalid by 15 judges, is irrelevant not only because it will likely be held invalid but also because it covers only certain graphical variants of the slide-to-unlock mechanism, but not the slide-to-unlock functionality as a whole.”
We have written so much about the so-called slide-to-unlock patent, which is effectively a software patent. We don’t wish to spend too much time debating it again, but we are gratified to learn that Apple too receives a reminder of the harms of software patents. “Apple has been targeted in a patent infringement complaint centring on its voice recognition technology Siri,” said WIPR the other day.
The bottom line — if there is one — might be that patents are very destructive in the so-called ‘smart’ phone space (smartphone). Devices that cost just several dollars to make (on the basis of material) end up being sold for almost a thousand dollars in some cases. Who benefits from this? █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
01.04.16
Posted in America, Apple, GNU/Linux, Microsoft, Patents, Samsung at 8:15 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Copyright already covers many designs, so why extend so-called ‘protection’ to the vastly broader domain of patents?
Slide to unlock: put it on a computer and you’re apparently a genius deserving a patent
Summary: A fine demonstration of how dumb a lot of patents in the United States have become, including so-called ‘design’ patents that pertain to an abstraction on a computer (hence software patents)
IN SOME sense, many design patents are inherently software patents, as schematics attached to patent applications often serve to show. I have personally reviewed some patents before, so I know how particular lawyers — not programmers — try to give a ‘life’ (or a form) to algorithms by drawing things*. Doodles are not algorithms. They’re often a spurious presentation that attempts to give a physical form to something which is inherently abstract. It can mislead examiners and judges, presumably by intention. Just look at the many post-Alice articles composed by patent lawyers; just look at the tips they’re giving to one another. They almost self-incriminate.
“Doodles are not algorithms. They’re often a spurious presentation that attempts to give a physical form to something which is inherently abstract.”Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols called Microsoft’s latest high-profile patent attack “design patent wars” and said that the “Electronic Frontier Foundation has declared “User Interface for a Portion of a Display Screen” to be this month’s stupid patent. Here’s what’s really going on between Microsoft and Corel over the Office ribbon design patent.”
We wrote about this in last week's coverage regarding Corel. “The EFF named Microsoft’s design patent for a slider as its Stupid Patent of the Month,” one person wrote to us, just over a week after it all happened. But actually, it’s more of a software patent, or something in the blurry line/s between design and software (like interface elements).
“Just because one takes something that has existed for thousands of years before computers (like a fence/gate’s metal or wooden lock) and draw it on a computer with some callback function/s doesn’t (or shouldn’t) make it magically patent-worthy, just as doing something “over the Internet” doesn’t make old and trivial ideas patent-eligible.”Consider today’s patent lawyers’ views [1, 2] about Apple’s attacks on Samsung, which include the infamous slide-to-unlock patent (slider again, amongst other patents). And speaking of sliding, how about the “LANDSLIDE article” mentioned by Patently-O today? “And as a larger policy issue,” said the author, “it’s questionable whether verbal claim dissection is either desirable or appropriate in the context of design patents. The better approach may be, as Chris Carani argued in the LANDSLIDE article mentioned above, to simply instruct juries “that design patents only protect the appearance of the overall design depicted in the drawings, and not any functional attributes, purposes or characteristics embodied in the claimed design.””
We wrote quite a lot about Apple’s so-called ‘design’ patents (in principle software patents) more than half a decade ago when Apple’s patent war against Linux/Android began. When authors mention terms like “design patents” it would only be fair to read or interpret this as software patents, or a particular subclass of these. These patents don’t allude to any physical thing like a bar that you slide, only an abstraction thereof. Just because one takes something that has existed for thousands of years before computers (like a fence/gate’s metal or wooden lock) and draw it on a computer with some callback function/s doesn’t (or shouldn’t) make it magically patent-worthy, just as doing something “over the Internet” doesn’t make old and trivial ideas patent-eligible. Then again, this is what the USPTO brought about with its laughable quality control. █
____
* I am a software professional with experience both as a programmer and a researcher, having reviewed papers for the world’s top international journals (even in my twenties), which meant I needed to identify prior art (existing/published research) in areas like computer vision and machine learning.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
12.15.15
Posted in Apple, Courtroom, Free/Libre Software, Patents, Samsung at 11:56 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
The Koreans believe that a US court might actually rule against an influential US company
Summary: Remarks about Apple’s relentless attacks on Free/Open Source software (FOSS), using dubious software patents and patents on vague/generic ‘designs’ that probably never ought to have been granted in the first place
THE USPTO-granted patents, especially after the SCOTUS ruling on Alice, are a lot more limited, primarily but not only when it comes to software. Does it mean that SCOTUS can offer redemption to Samsung, and by extension to Android? Well, only if the Apple-connected government actually allows the case to proceed to SCOTUS, which we very highly doubt (see Oracle v. Android [sic] with the government’s now-infamous denial [1, 2, 3]). SCOTUS should really be dealing with important human rights issues and landmark decisions pertaining to civil liberties, not Apple fanatics who almost religiously believe that Apple invented everything (even when the necro-worshiped leader publicly admits "stealing" ideas but still acts like a spoiled brat [1, 2]).
“Samsung may need to waste a lot of money on lawyers and also pursue rather silly patents because Apple is aggressive and is constantly attacking whoever sells the best of Android.”Nevertheless, as we have demonstrated here for a number of years, Apple was stockpiling a lot of software patents after it had struggled with the rise of Android, which is of course based on Linux and is Free/Open Source software (FOSS). Apple attacked Samsung after it had viciously attacked HTC (with a far smaller patent portfolio, hence an easier target). Samsung must now tread more carefully or at least wisely. It needs to be smart, not just pursuing justice at all costs (which can be enormous costs, as has been proven to be the case thus far), so “Samsung is on track to unseat IBM as the number one company when it comes to winning U.S. utility patents,” according to this new article. Another new article, titled “Apple Stealing the Show with New Patents”, says: “As we know Apple frequently steals the show with marvelous patents that it files with the passage of time prior to its new offerings. The number of patents under Apple’s belt is so exceptional and that is why Apple has been appreciated by millions across the globe. The new feather in Apple’s cap is the awe-inspiring patent that the company has filed with the Patent and Trademark Office.”
Samsung may need to waste a lot of money on lawyers and also pursue rather silly patents because Apple is aggressive and is constantly attacking whoever sells the best of Android. All these fees are passed down the customers; phones become more expensive and sometimes, despite market demand and free code already being available (FOSS), key features are removed for fear of litigation. Cui bono? That’s why we even called for a boycott of Apple nearly half a decade ago. It was all to do with patents and these shameless attacks on FOSS. Does Apple even have the humility to claim to be some kind of “Open Source” leader? What ever happened to dignity and adherence to truth? Brand worship won’t last forever if Apple is launching an assault on truth itself.
“Does Apple even have the humility to claim to be some kind of “Open Source” leader?”Anyway, the massive news last night was the latest important move from Samsung. it was covered bty the Wall Street (actually News Corp.) Journal and many other sites, in articles such as:
There are many more articles about this. Is this what ‘innovation’ is supposed to look like? It looks more like protectionism, for those who are affluent and infinitely greedy. What ever happened to the myths of patents as protectors of the ‘little guy’? Well, these were just myths intended to help ‘sell’ an unjust system to the wider public, ensuring consent that is based on misapprehension, misconceptions, and misinterpretations.
Rajesh Vallabh of Foley Hoag (patent lawyers, i.e. those who profit from patents at the expense of everyone else) now gives advice to startups regarding patents. We’re rather appalled that he can write this with a straight face; it was published only in a journal of patent lawyers (for the most part) and it says things like “Patents can be vitally important for protecting the innovations of a start-up company” (and he sounds like he’s actually serious).
Start-ups are massively overwhelmed by trolls (see what happens in the US these days) and also crushed by companies with far more patents, even broader ones. Empirical evidence serves to suggest that the real benefactors in today’s largest patent systems are companies such as Apple. These systems are used for monopolisation, occupation, etc.
“Empirical evidence serves to suggest that the real benefactors in today’s largest patent systems are companies such as Apple.”Nowadays, considering how the patent systems have devolved, patents primarily exist to benefit large multinationals. Just see how the EPO already works primarily for large multinationals and even discriminates in their favour. Those who point this out (hi!) are threatened with lawsuits. Saying this and providing evidence of this thus becomes the unsayable. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
12.13.15
Posted in America, Apple, Microsoft, Patents at 4:19 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Depositing money using weaponised patents, for the benefit or enrichment of patent trolls, monopolists, and those working for them
Summary: A week’s roundup of news about software patents in the United States, primarily from sources that stand to gain from them (software monopolists and patent lawyers)
THE US patent system, the USPTO (which also combines another aspect, trademarks), is arguably creating a chilling environment that at times can discourage innovation. This has been a subject of active debate for quite some time because in some domains, such as software, any development work can be done quickly by a single person, to whom it is infeasible to study a lot of patents before undertaking the development work. To make matter worse, because a lot of software is reducible to logic or mathematics, there may not be any workarounds, especially when the patent is so vague that it covers a whole breadth of different approaches (patent on a progress bar for instance).
“To make matter worse, because a lot of software is reducible to logic or mathematics, there may not be any workarounds, especially when the patent is so vague that it covers a whole breadth of different approaches (patent on a progress bar for instance).”The world’s prominent patent maximalists (and occasional proponents of patent trolls) promoted the potency of software patents back in September, in spite of Alice. Also see Amanda Ciccatelli’s “How the USPTO’s “analysis paralysis” changed the software patent game”. She said that “As of late, the USPTO has invalidated an increasing number of software patents and denied numerous patent applications that deal with software that’s too abstract. With so much uncertainty about the patentability of software-related inventions, there are steps that patent-seekers take to ensure compliance with §101.”
Looking to this new article from a lawyers’ site, it becomes clearer just how some patents can discourage creation, either pre-actively, out of fear, or after the work was already done. To quote: “Receiving a cease and desist letter that alleges patent infringement is becoming more common in today’s competitive business markets and may come as a shock to the recipient, particularly if the sender is unknown to them and the recipient is unaware of the patents referenced in the cease and desist letter. That shock may quickly evolve into an emotional reaction based on an assumption or suspicion that the sender may be a “patent troll”, which may result in the letter being tossed into the garbage.”
“Software patents are the weapon of choice of patent trolls and patent lawyers universally like these because they profit from feuds.”Software patents are the weapon of choice of patent trolls and patent lawyers universally like these because they profit from feuds. The more litigation, the more business they get. That’s just how this market works; companies don’t just amass patents for publicity, vanity, etc. as though these are trophies. They use these offensively.
This new article by Tony Dutra speaks of a new story about patent trolls. To quote the gist of it: “A Harvard Business School study released Dec. 9 claims that patents on inventions in the financial services industry score lower on standard measures of quality compared to patents in non-financial fields.
“Professor Josh Lerner and his team looked at patents awarded by the Patent and Trademark Office after the Federal Circuit’s 1998 State Street Bank decision opened the door to business method patents. The patents featured fewer citations to other documentation—non-patent literature, leading academic journals, etc.—that is likely to show an exhaustive prior art search for patentability assessments.”
“That’s just how this market works; companies don’t just amass patents for publicity, vanity, etc. as though these are trophies. They use these offensively.”According to this new report from the Financial Times, Goldman Sachs “had applied to patent a virtual currency settlement system” (we mentioned this some days ago). The intersection between patents on business methods and on software were previously explored by SCOTUS with the Bilski case.
Justin Blows, an Australian patent attorney, speaks about the recent trolling with encryption patents (patents on software). He called it “the rise of US software patents”, but in reality, software patents are a declining market in the US. Blows says that in “the Alice decision, a two-step test for patent-eligible subject matter was created. In a first step, it is considered if the claims are directed to an abstract idea. If so, in a second step it is considered whether the claims have a sufficient “inventive concept” to render the idea patent-eligible. A summary of the two-step test can be found here.
“I do not believe that anyone would dispute that encryption is directed to an abstract idea. In fact, many computer implemented calculations relate to an abstract idea and so this question is particularly interesting.”
“…Microsoft and Apple are now lobbying for software patents, not so surprisingly (they both use software patents against GNU, Linux, Free software and so forth).”Software patents are still on their way out (as we have shown here before, with some exceptions). Based on this new report, titled “Court to hear animation case some call broad threat to software patents”, Microsoft and Apple are now lobbying for software patents, not so surprisingly (they both use software patents against GNU, Linux, Free software and so forth).
To quote Reuters, “McRO Inc, its attorneys at MoloLamken and Mishcon de Reya, and an industry group that counts Apple Inc and Microsoft Corp among its members, say that a ruling last year from a district court in California canceling McRO’s patent puts the software industry in jeopardy.”
Interesting to see the litigation/litigious firm which the EPO uses to attack me (Mishcon de Reya) on the same side as Microsoft. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
12.04.15
Posted in Apple, Deception, Europe, Patents at 6:40 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: A bunch of EPO puff pieces served through the Web this week, and they don’t stand up to basic scrutiny based on facts
ALTHOUGH Wikipedia calls EurActiv “independent”, we oftentimes wonder why it promotes corporate interests and all sorts of villainous ‘trade’ deals. Over the years it has also been a platform for Microsoft lobbyists in Europe. In our humble assessment, there was always something dubious if not odious about EurActiv‘s agenda.
“In our humble assessment, there was always something dubious if not odious about EurActiv‘s agenda.”Yesterday we noticed this article (puff piece, EPO-sponsored?) from EurActiv, complete with softball questions for Battistelli, almost staged. Why not just make it a “guest post” of Battistelli, as if he was a journalist using this platform? Questions include loaded ones like: “Will the first unitary patents be granted in 2016?”
Well, UPC is not even a reality yet. Talk about jumping the gun…
The title of the piece is click-bait (probably for more hits/traffic) and a response to it has just been posted in IP Kat, saying:
Have you seen this?
Battistelli: Many Apple patents would not have been granted in Europe
In response to a question regarding “patent war” litigation between tech companies such as Samsung (a closer-contact-with-major-applicants-pilot-project member) and Apple (NOT a closer-contact-with-major-applicants-pilot-project member), Battistelli states that the reason this ‘patent war’ is “happening mainly in the US and not Europe” is “because there are many patents in the US granted to Apple which would have not been granted in Europe because we are more rigorous and more selective than in the US. In my [Battistelli's] view, this ‘patent war’ is largely due to dysfunction of the US system.”
What a remarkable statement!
Battistelli manages – in fewer than 50 words – to appear not only to defame Apple’s patent portfolio, but also manages to pooh-pooh the US system as “dysfunctional”!
I guess Battistelli doesn’t remember that the infamous “slide to unlock” patent (EP1964022) was granted by the EPO, and only later invalidated by the German Bundesgerichtshof…
(http://ipkitten.blogspot.fr/2015/09/apples-european-slide-to-unlock-patent.html)
He probably also doesn’t recall that the reason the Apple-Samsung ‘patent war’ is fought mainly in the US is because Apple and Samsung have agreed to end all patent lawsuits outside the US between themselves.
I wonder if Battistelli would be willing to identify individual Apple patents granted in the US that would-not-be or were-not granted in Europe?
How should Apple feel about such statements..?
How should Apple investors feel about such statements?
We too were surprised that Battistelli can pretend Apple is in no way abusive in Europe (we wrote a lot about it). Has he lived up a tree for the past 3-4 years? Is he willfully misleading or just misinformed? We don’t know what’s worse…
“The whole piece was basically constructed to be a megaphone for Battistelli and be some kind of positive “media presence” for the EPO.”The whole piece was basically constructed to be a megaphone for Battistelli and be some kind of positive “media presence” for the EPO. We kindly ask readers to recall that the EPO is 'planting' puff pieces in the media and spends obscene amounts of money doing so right now (newly-leaked contract), so we can only make guesses about EurActiv‘s motivations. We are seeing some other pro-UPC pieces right now, in lawyers’ Web sites (no mainstream reach though). One of them has just parroted the EPO: “According to a publication on the website of the European Patent Office (www.epo.org), significant progress has recently been made towards the unitary patent. The Select Committee, which was set up by the original 25 member states participating in the unitary patent, has agreed on the distribution of income generated by the payment of the uniform renewal fees to the European Patent Office (EPO).”
We don’t know what motivated the writers to just repeat the EPO’s claims. The EPO has a very poor record on accuracy and honesty. Remember what it told The Register earlier this week about freedom of the press. It was almost hilarious.
Meanwhile, the EPO-sponsored bloggers from IAM are shaming Germany into accepting the EPO’s ambition of making UPC a reality (more injunctions, damages, patent scope), but this does not exactly surprise us. We have come to expect this from IAM, which has written virtually nothing about EPO scandals (lies by omission). It mostly did ‘damage control’ for the EPO amid these scandals.
“The EPO has a very poor record on accuracy and honesty.”Looking at IP Kat for a moment, one new article speaks about a new topic and states that “The Technical Board wanted to know whether a notice of appeal that was filed after the time limit according to art. 108 EPC was to be deemed inadmissibleor not filed (note that this question is different from the one in G2/14, where the notice was filed timely, but the fee was paid late. G2/14 was terminated because the patent in question lapsed for non-payment of the annual fee).”
Another new article speaks about the big scandal regarding discriminatory treatment of applicants. “Merpel is also a bit annoyed,” she said, “because she has heard of European attorneys being asked about the new PACE provisions by applicants in Japan, who apparently heard it from visiting Examiners well before this announcement. Merpel is not against Examiners visiting applicants, but it is unhelpful to say the least to announce changes to users of the European patent system who require representation without representatives having been given the chance to inform themselves.”
Well, imagine what would happen if everyone applied for PACE. This whole system is a sham. It’s designed to eliminate patent neutrality while maintaining the illusion that it doesn’t.
Watch this new comment that says: “Not only letters to applicants are changed.
“Nowadays, Eponia is more concerned about generating, artificially, positive media coverage, not actually correcting its many ills.”“I was involved in a case where the division had decided to grant, and all members had signed. The director went to the second examiner and the chairman and stated that he did not agree, and that they should have consideration for their staff reports.
“He then went to the entrusted examiner and said that the grant would not go out and a refusal should be written.
“When the first examiner went to consult with the other two members they said that the director had already been to see them and please do the refusal (obviously in fear of reprisals).
“So what does the poor first examiner do? Write a refusal (keeping the original signed and dated grant, since Mr. Director was swiftly before pension and the examiner feared a rebuke from DG3 if the file would be appealed). Yes, strange happenings in EPONIA.”
Nowadays, Eponia is more concerned about generating, artificially, positive media coverage, not actually correcting its many ills. Do these people wonder why even politicians took an interest in this wasteful media manipulation?
The protest in Munich is going on right now. We hope to find some press coverage about it as early as Monday, if not in Sunday newspapers (Germany has several of those).
Colonel Battistelli must be feeling like there’s a dire need to brainwash his staff right now. █
“Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich.”
–Napoleon Bonaparte
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