04.26.16
Posted in IBM, Law, Microsoft, Patents at 6:13 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
English/Original
Article as ODF
Publicado en IBM, Law, Microsoft, Patentes at 12:13 pmam por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz
IBM también cae en este criterio, en todos sus puntos (cabildeo, financiamienteo, y despidos aspirándo convertirse en una compañíá de orientación licensiadora)
Sumario: Una mirada al esfuérzo de trae una resurgencia de las patentes de software en los Estados Unidos (con un clarísimo rol de Microsoft en él) y la fundación/conf ianza de Microsoften las patentes de software como arma contr Linux/Android porque las ganancias de Windows se están secando y el Windows Phone está al borde del colápso
“Esfuerzo concertado presionándo al Congreso para eliminar las elegibilidad de restricciones de la Sección 101″
ELobjetivo de TECHRIGHTSha girado últimamente* de la EPO hacia la § 101 (en los EE.UU.), en una reacción proporcionada a una nueva clase de asalto a la § 101 de antiguo Director of the USPTO, David Kappos, y aquellos que le pagan su salario para hacerlo (La Sagrada Familia: Microsoft, IBM, Apple, HP, entre otros). Es difícil ignorar el cablildeo de un cada vez más codicióso David Kappos, solventado por la industria de patentes de software (La Sagrada Familia) para aquellos que no se hayan dado cuenta.
Como elProfessor Dennis Crouch lo puso el otro dia: “Esfuerzo concertado presionándo al Congreso para eliminar las elegibilidad de restricciones de la Sección 101″
Este es un esfuerzo para legalizar las patentes de software sin ningún tipo de restricciónes. Quieren que creamos y/o aceptemos que las grandes (mega) corporaciones on más importantes que la Corte Suprema de Estados Unidos y simplemente dejar de lado lo que ella pronunció. “Esa es la sugerencia,” Crouch agregó, “tal vez un límite en “las ideas abstractas como tales.”
¿El cierre de los agujeros que deje la EPO (“como tal”)? Como Benjamin Henrion del la EFF dijo, “no como tal, por favor.”
“Recuérden quien está finánciado a Kappos para que cabildee/presione por las patentes de software.”
“Parece que ambosIBM y Microsoft están en Manióbras”
Recuérden quien está finánciado a Kappos para que cabildee/presione por las patentes de software. Incluso nuestros viejos ‘amigos’ de IAM escribieron: “Parece que ambosIBM y Microsoft están en Manióbras.”
Lo que tenemos aquí es más información (1) de que hay un “Esfuerzo concertado presionándo al Congreso para eliminar las elegibilidad de restricciones de la Sección 101″. Y (2) “Parece que ambosIBM y Microsoft están en Manióbras.”
“Talvez el “nosotros” no es IBM pero IBM asociado con su antiguo empleado, quien se convirtió en Director de la USPTO y ahora un cabildero financiado por IBM contra Alice.”
No sólo nosotros hemos estado viendo esto y escribir sobre ello. Una gran cantidad de estas maniobras o “esfuerzo concertado” son impulsadas por Gene Quinn y sus pro-patentes de software en círculos de IP Watchdog. Hace unos días, escribieron acerca de las patentes de automóviles de conducción (poniendo en algoritmos de lo que las personas han hecho/usado por generaciones), señalando: “Es en este ambiente que Eagle Harbor Holdings, LLC (EHH), de Rolling Bay, WA, está tratando de trazar un curso hacia adelante sobre la venta de una cartera de patentes relacionadas con los vehículos conectados y coches autónomos. A partir de esta semana, EHH será la búsqueda de posibles compradores para una cartera con 74 activos totales, incluyendo 42 patentes concedidas y 17 familias de patentes.”
¿Qué Deberíamos Hacer Con Alice?
Un artículo más revelador fué titulado: ¿Qué Deberíamos Hacer Con Alice? (Nosotros como en IBM)
Escribimos acerca de esta perorata de Schecter la semana pasada y esto es lo que IP Watchdog escribe: “En la mañana del martes 19 de abril de 2016, Manny Schecter, que es el principal asesor de patentes de IBM, hizo una presentación de apertura en los Insights Innography conferencia de 2016 en Austin, Texas. El título de su presentación fue sencilla y directa: ¿Qué debemos hacer con Alice”?
“Hay una fuerte y creciénte cabildeo por las patentes de software financiado por las corporationes en los EE.UU.”
Talvez el “nosotros” no es IBM pero IBM asociado con su antiguo empleado, quien se convirtió en Director de la USPTO y ahora un cabildero financiado por IBM contra Alice. A juzgar por tweets relacionados con el presente (Gen Quinn quien me bloqueó en Twitter no por que haya sido grosero, sino debido a que perdió el argumento, pero todavía puedo ver lo que hace y escribe), estos propagandistas han creado una especie de alianza anti-Alice y algunos son pagados directamente (Kappos por ejemplo), así como indirectamente. No es amor al chancho sino a los chicharrones. Vale la pena recordar que Schecter y Quinn son cercanos (compadres diríamos nosotros).
Vean cómo incluso Martin Goetz (proponente de las patentes de software por mucho tiempo, junto a Quinn) se une a este esfuerzo de presión en IP Watchdog. Esto no es una coincidencia, ¿verdad? Hay una fuerte y creciénte cabildeo por las patentes de software financiado por las corporationes en los EE.UU. en este momento. Más luz necesita ser derramada en esta campaña y estamos contentos de ver que incluso Crouch (Patently-O) así como IAM no pueden negar esto. Los conglomerados de agresión de patentes (por ejemplo, la mencionada Sagrada Familia), junto con sus abogados de patentes, obviamente, tratan – y tratarán – de hacer fracasar la decisión de SCOTUS contra las patentes de software, pero inteligentemente esconden su papel con el fin de evitar o minimizar la inercia.
”Protegiéndo GUIS con Patentes de Diseño”
“El primero de estos ataques, suficiéntemente revelador, vino del antiguo Consejero en Jefe de PatentesChief de Microsoft. El mismo incorrégible/noreformable Microsoft que todavía cabildea y paga a cabilderos para recuperar los colmillos de las patentes de software.”
Alla en MIP, hace unos dias, este artículo aconsejó a compañías a perseguir patentes de diseño (“protegiendo GUIS con patentes de diseño”) cuando las patentes de software sean rechazadas. Para citar al sumario: “la protección útil de patentes para las invenciónes de software ha sido severamente limitada desde la decisión Alice. Tracy-Gene G Durkin considera una alternativa: proteger GUIS con patentes de diseño” (simplemente otra clase de patentes de software, el cual podría muy pronto ser inválidas con intervención de SCOTUS tambiém).
“Estos casos clave ofrecen una oportunidad significativa para establecer aclaraciones muy necesarias.”
Crouch de Patently-Oreconoció que “Hay un esfuerzo concertado presionándo al Congreso para eliminar las elegibilidad de restricciones de la Sección 101″. y parece como si este sitio se ha convertido en un campo de batalla § 101, en medio de esta nueva campaña de presión, basado en tres artículos muy recientes. Éste sobre “el significado del § 101 en un post invitado por Jeffrey A. Lefstin, Profesor de la Universidad de California, Hastings College of Law, y Peter S. Menell, Profesor de la Universidad de California, Berkeley en la Escuela de Derecho.
“Actualmente tener muchas patentes tiene un efecto negativo en la industria, a menos que uno hable de la industria de los abogados de patentes.”
Otra acerca de § 101 proviene de un abogados de patentes, a saber, “Bruce Wexler [...] y Edwin Mok [...] Su práctica se centra en los litigios sobre patentes y ensayos.” (En otras palabras, se beneficiarían del derribo de Alice y un cambio de § 101).
El primero de estos ataques, suficiéntemente revelador, vino del antiguo Consejero en Jefe de PatentesChief de Microsoft. El mismo incorrégible/noreformable Microsoft que todavía cabildea y paga a cabilderos para recuperar los colmillos de las patentes de software. Ahora consigue una plataforma para su cabildeo. Para crédito de Patently-O hay al menos una divulgación de tres artículos. Lo que el ex asesor de patentes en jefe de Microsoft dijo fue: “Estamos en un momento crítico en la definición del alcance y aplicación correcta de la Sección 101. A menos que el poder judicial delinee un marco más claro para permitir la protección de patentes significativa en áreas como la biotecnología y software en el que Estados Unidos tiene sido un líder en tecnología, los EE.UU. podrían perder rápidamente su ventaja competitiva en estas industrias vitales.”
“Su problema no es clarificar; ellos simplemente están molestos que les están negando patentes en las cortes o en la oficina de patentes.”
Esas son mamadas. Actualmente tener muchas patentes tiene un efecto negativo en la industria, a menos que uno hable de la industria de los abogados de patentes. También dijo: “Si bien no creo que todavía es tiempo de adoptar medidas legislativas, llamadas recientes para la abolición de la Sección 101 en su totalidad y la insatisfacción con la aplicación de la prueba de Mayo/Alice está alcanzando un nivel crítico. Estos casos clave ofrecen una oportunidad significativa para establecer ”aclaraciones” necesarias. En caso de que esta oportunidad se puede perder, es difícil ver cómo una intervención del Congreso puede ser evitado.”
Lo para ellos significa “clarificaciones” (estrategia usada por Kappos) es su eliminación. Su problema no es clarificar; ellos simplemente están molestos que les están negando patentes en las cortes o en la oficina de patentes.
“Las ventas de Lumia disminuyeron un 73%, Tiene una venta sólo de 2,3 millones de unidades en total.”
“Windows mobile está prácticamentemuerto.”
Mientras tanto, juzgando por las últimas noticias de Microsoft, sus acciones cayeron como una roca después de los decepcionantes resultados (también disminuyen en la tributación/impuestos de patentes) que conducirá a aún más despidos, como señalamos aquí el viernes. IAM salió con con el titular “Microsoft informa un declive en dinero proveniente de Android y pueda tener que mirar a Asia para cerrar la brecha“. “Microsoft no da a conocer los números de licencia”, escribió IAM “, pero algunos han estimado que la empresa podría estar haciendo la mayor cantidad de $ 6 mil millones cada año a partir de monetizar activos de patentes que las reclamaciones se leen en el sistema operativo Android de Google.” estos son meramente especulaciones, como hemos venido diciendo aquí durante años. Microsoft también utiliza las patentes de coacción, no sólo gravar el dinero, por lo que hay un costo oculto/ganancia del chantaje patentes/extorsión/extorsión (IAM defiende este chantaje a pesar de la Ley RICO). No es difícil ver por qué Microsoft recurrió a estas tácticas feas. Como este nuevo artículo dice: “Sobre la base de la información proporcionada en el informe trimestral reciente de la compañía, los ingresos de la compañía de la división móvil registró un descenso del 46%. Además, en los últimos tres meses, su teléfono inteligente, Lumia, disminuyó sus ventas en un 73%, vendiéndo sólo 2,3 millones de unidades en total.”
“Cazadores de Talentos de Microsoft Buscan Gente de Linux”
“En vez de hacer algo de valor Microsoft actualmente opera como un parásito dentro de ‘anfitrión’, sea Android o lo que sea.”
Windows mobile está virtualmentmuerto. Es un muerto ‘hombre’ caminando. Se le mantiene vivo por malguíadas especulaciónes que pueda recuperárse, pero ni siquiera infiltrándo y destruyendo Nokia contribuyeron a ello. En vez de hacer algo de valor Microsoft actualmente opera como un parásito dentro de ‘anfitrión’, sea Android o lo que sea. Cuando se trata de GNU/Linux en el desktop, Microsoft está tratando de convertirse en su anfitrión para (devorar) GNU/Linux. la extorsión de Microsoft de Linux a través de las patentes de software no obstante, hay un nuevo grupo de artículos (basado en el Canal de Microsoft 9) acerca de cómo logra devorarlo [1, 2, 3] y también aprendemos que Microsoft intenta devorar a los empleados del competidor, simplemente como lo hizo a Borland (vea los artículos “Microsoft está contratando gente de Linux para una secreta unidad de código abierto” y “cazadores de talentos de Microsoft buscan gente de Linux para su secreta unidad de código abierto“). De acuerdo al portavoz de Microsoft (Ina Fried), todo está bien y Microsoft “viene en paz” (cobertura engañosa usualmente). Como una red de noticias conectada a Microsoft lo puso: “. Esta idea proviene de un par de citas dado a volver reportero/citar de Ina Fried esta semana” Fried es más como Microsoft PR desde sus días de CNET, casi no es una reportero objetivo y también una autor de la propuesta de largo plazo de la agresión de patentes de Microsoft. Ella solía ser la principal portavoz de la CBS de Microsoft, le asigna la sección “Microsoft”, donde también habló mal habitualmente Linux. Así que esto parece como otro ejercicio de relaciones públicas.
Mientras Microsoft impulsauna acción antimonopolio contra Android y utiliza las patentes contra Android se supone que debemos creer que hay paz ahora. Para citar: “Microsoft ha discutido mucho con socios de hardware de Google acerca de las supuestas violaciones de patentes de software asociados con el uso de Android, un sistema operativo móvil de código abierto impulsado por Google.”
“Mientras Microsoft impulsa una acción antimonopolio contra Android y utiliza las patentes contra Android se supone que debemos creer que hay paz ahora.”
¿A acabado esto alguna vez? NO
“Microsoft Ha Estado Cazando Furtivamente Completas Linux Distribuciones A Traves de “Sociedades” Con Aquellas Compañíás”
Alla en FOSS Force, Christine Hall afirma que “Microsoft Se Está Convirtiéndoe El Nuevo Pero Exitóso, Novell” (la comparación es débil).
“Microsoft Ha Estado Cazando Furtivamente Completas Linux Distribuciones A Traves de “Sociedades” Con Aquellas Compañíás” Hall nota. No ha cambiado nada desde entonces.
“Fraudulentamente Obtuvo Patentes y Matoneó A Competidores para dominar el Mercado”
“Microsoft puede ahora ser persiguiéndo las patentes de Yahoo, años después de haber destruido afectivamente la empresa (Microsoft recuerdan cómo ‘robó’ las patentes de Novell después de la demolición de la compañía).”
Microsoft puede ahora ser persiguiendo las patentes de Yahoo, años después de haber destruido afectivamente la empresa (recuérden comoMicrosoft ‘robó’ las patentes de Novell después de la demolición de la compañía). Comprar estas patentes on sería tan caro ahor porque, como este nuevo artículo lo pone: “La decisión Alices de 2015 de la Corte Suprema de los EE.UU, “evisceró los métodos de negocios de patentes de varias compañías y daño muchas patentes de software,” dijo la firma.”
¿Cuántos más proyectos y las empresas tienen que ser destruidos antes de que sea ampliamente entendido que Microsoft es malicioso y no se puede confiar en él? Históricamente, y especialmente en la última década (desde que el acuerdo Novell), Microsoft ha utilizado patentes para intimidar a los rivales y monopolizar el mercado, al igual que OptumInsight **. No debería ser sorprendente que detrás de las escenas y detrás de proxies Microsoft ha estado presionando a los reguladores europeos por FRAND (esencialmente patentes de software) en las normas, poner en marcha una acción antimonopolio contra Android (que está matando el monopolio de Windows), y ahora está pagando a Kappos la promoción de las patentes de software en los EE.UU.. ¿Se supone que debemos creer Microsoft ha cambiado realmente? No sean cójudos por favor.
_________
* El ciclo de noticias también ha respondido a la cambio en la atención, con un nuevo artículo señalando que: “La Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos esta semana se negó a revisar la decisión de una corte de apelaciones federal para reactivar un veredicto por violación de patente $ 45 millones en contra de Limelight Networks Inc.” Este es que afecta también a las empresas no tecnológicas, como de acuerdo con esto: “la decisión Genetic Technologies se une a una larga lista de otros casos que demuestran cómo los casos de la Corte Suprema de Mayo y Alice están creando cambios radicales en el sistema de patentes de Estados Unidos.” el uso de 35 USC § 101 para invalidar las patentes de software y la CBM, Samsung se encuentra Alice útil. Para citar: “Samsung presentó inicialmente una petición para instituir método de negocio cubierta (CBM) de revisión de patentes de la reivindicación 11 de la patente de EE.UU. Nº 8.033.458 en base a la afirmación de que la reivindicación 11 se dirige a la patente objeto inelegible bajo 35 USC § 101. Más tarde, Apple presentó una petición para instituir opinión CBM de la reivindicación 11, basándose en la misma planta, y Apple presentó simultáneamente una “Propuesta de Acumulación” de su nuevo caso presentado con el caso previamente establecido de Samsung. El PTAB concedió la petición de Apple y consolida los dos procedimientos “.
** Veán el nuevo artículo de “Arreglos Necesarios en Trifulca de Patentes de Software Medicas”
Un juez federal desestimó el viernes con permiso para modificar una demanda reclamando una empresa de análisis de datos de patentes obtenidas de forma fraudulenta y competidores intimidado a dominar el mercado de la organización de reclamaciones médicas de software.
Cueva Consulting Group, o CCGroup, demandaron OptumInsight en julio de 2015, acusando a la empresa de defensa de violaciónes, publicidad falsa y persecución maliciosa.
CCGroup dice Simmetry Salud Data Systems, adquirida por OptumInsight en 2003, mintió y omitió hechos cuando se solicitó y defendió las patentes con la patente de EE.UU. y la Oficina de Marcas.
Simmetry y más tarde OptumInsight llegó a controlar el 85 al 90 por ciento del mercado de software médico reivindicaciones mero tras demandar dos competidores por infringir sus patentes “mal habidas”, reclamó el CCGroup.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
04.24.16
Posted in IBM, Law, Microsoft, Patents at 12:13 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
IBM too fits these criteria, on all counts (lobbying, funding, and layoffs, aspiration to become patent licensing-oriented)
Shady manipulations behind § 101
Summary: A look at the effort to bring about a software patents resurgence to the US (with clear Microsoft role in it) and Microsoft’s reliance on software patents as a weapon against Linux/Android because Windows profits dry up and Windows Phone is on the verge of collapse
“Concerted Effort to Push Congress to Eliminate the Eligibility Restrictions of Section 101″
THE TECHRIGHTS focus has shifted somewhat from EPO to § 101 (in the US) as of late*, in proportionate reaction to a new kind of assault on § 101 from former Director of the USPTO, David Kappos, and those who pay him to do so. It is too hard to ignore the lobbying from an increasingly greedy David Kappos, bankrolled by the software patents industry (Microsoft included) for and even others have noticed it.
“This is an effort to legalise software patents without any rigid exceptions.”As Professor Dennis Crouch put it the other day: “Concerted effort to push congress to eliminate the eligibility restrictions of Section 101.”
This is an effort to legalise software patents without any rigid exceptions. We are supposed to believe that large (mega) corporations are more important than the US Supreme Court and simply brush aside what the Supreme Court ruled on. “That is the suggestion,” Crouch added, “perhaps a limit on “abstract ideas as such”.”
Borrowing the loopholes of the EPO (“as such”)? As the FFII’s Benjamin Henrion put it, “no as such please.”
“Remember who is bankrolling Kappos to lobby for software patents.”
“It Does Look like Both IBM and Microsoft are on Manouevres”
Remember who is bankrolling Kappos to lobby for software patents. Even our longtime ‘friends’ at IAM wrote: “It does look like both IBM and Microsoft are on manouevres.”
This was said in relation to the above.
What we have here is further affirmation that (1) there is a “Concerted effort to push congress to eliminate the eligibility restrictions of Section 101.” (2) “It does look like both IBM and Microsoft are on manouevres.”
“Maybe the “we” isn’t IBM but IBM along with its former employee, who became USPTO Director and now an IBM-funded lobbyist against Alice.”It’s not just us who have been seeing this and writing about it then. A lot of these manouevres or “Concerted effort” are boosted by Gene Quinn and his pro-software patents circles at IP Watchdog. A few days ago they wrote about car-driving patents (putting in algorithms what people have done for generations), noting: “It’s in this atmosphere that Eagle Harbor Holdings, LLC (EHH), of Rolling Bay, WA, is looking to chart a course forward on the sale of a patent portfolio related to connected vehicles and autonomous cars. Beginning this week, EHH will be seeking out prospective buyers for a portfolio with 74 total assets, including 42 patents issued and 17 patent families.”
“What Should We Do About Alice?”
A more revealing article was titled “What should we do about Alice?” (we as in IBM?)
We wrote about this spiel from Schecter last week and here is what IP Watchdog writes: “On Tuesday morning, April 19, 2016, Manny Schecter, who is IBM’s chief patent counsel, gave a keynote presentation at the Innography Insights 2016 conference in Austin, Texas. The title of his presentation was simple and straightforward: What should we do about Alice?”
“There’s a strong and ever-growing corporations-funded lobby for software patents in the US right now.”Maybe the “we” isn’t IBM but IBM along with its former employee, who became USPTO Director and now an IBM-funded lobbyist against Alice. Judging by tweets related to this (Gene Quinn blocked me in Twitter not because I was rude but because he lost the argument, but I can still get around the block and see what he writes), these propagandists have created some kind of anti-Alice alliance and some are paid for it directly (Kappos for example), not just indirectly. It is worth remembering that Schecter and Quinn are also pretty close.
Watch how even Martin Goetz (longtime proponent of software patents, close to Quinn) joins this lobbying effort over at IP Watchdog. This can’t be a coincidence, can it? There’s a strong and ever-growing corporations-funded lobby for software patents in the US right now. More light needs to be shed on this campaign and we are happy to see that even Crouch (Patently-O) and IAM recognise this. The conglomerates of patent aggression (e.g. IBM and Microsoft) along with their patent lawyers obviously try to derail the SCOTUS decision against software patents, but they cleverly hide their role in order to avoid or minimise backlash.
“Protecting GUIs with Design Patents”
“The first in the series, interestingly enough, came from the former Chief Patent Counsel at Microsoft. That’s the same unreformed Microsoft which still lobbies and pays lobbyists to restore software patents’ teeth.”Over at MIP, just a few days ago, this article advised companies to pursue design patents (“protecting GUIs with design patents”) when software patents are denied. To quote the summary: “Utility patent protection for software inventions has been severely limited since the Alice decision. Tracy-Gene G Durkin considers an alternative: protecting GUIs with design patents” (just another kind of software patents, which might soon become invalid with SCOTUS intervention as well).
“These Key Cases Offer a Significant Opportunity to Establish Much-needed Clarifications”
Patently-O‘s Crouch acknowledged that there’s a “Concerted effort to push congress to eliminate the eligibility restrictions of Section 101″ and it looks as though his site has become a § 101 battleground, amid this new lobbying campaign, based on three very recent articles. This one about “the Meaning of § 101″ is a “Guest post by Jeffrey A. Lefstin, Professor, University of California, Hastings College of Law, and Peter S. Menell, Professor, University of California, at Berkeley School of Law.”
“Having too many patents actually has a negative effect on the industry, unless one speaks of the meta-industry of patent lawyers.”Another one about § 101 comes from a patent lawyers, namely “Bruce Wexler [...] and Edwin Mok [...] Their practice focuses on patent litigation and trials.” (in other words, they would profit from shooting down Alice and changing § 101).
The first in the series, interestingly enough, came from the former Chief Patent Counsel at Microsoft. That’s the same unreformed Microsoft which still lobbies and pays lobbyists to restore software patents’ teeth. It now gets a platform for this lobbying. To Patently-O‘s credit, there is at least a disclosure in all three articles. What the former Chief Patent Counsel at Microsoft said was: “We are at a critical juncture on defining the proper scope and application of Section 101. Unless the judiciary delineates a clearer framework for enabling meaningful patent protection in areas like biotech and software where America has been a technology leader, the U.S. could rapidly lose its competitive edge in these vital industries.”
“Their issue isn’t clarify; they’re just angry that they’re being denied patents either at the courts or at the patent office.”That’s nonsense. Having too many patents actually has a negative effect on the industry, unless one speaks of the meta-industry of patent lawyers. He also said: “While I don’t believe it is yet time to take legislative action, recent calls for the abolition of Section 101 entirely and dissatisfaction with application of the Mayo/Alice test is reaching a critical level. These key cases offer a significant opportunity to establish much-needed clarifications. Should this opportunity be missed, it is hard to see how Congressional action can be avoided.”
What they mean by “clarifications” (the strategy used by Kappos) is elimination. Their issue isn’t clarify; they’re just angry that they’re being denied patents either at the courts or at the patent office.
“Lumia, Has Its Sales Decreased by 73%, Selling Only 2.3 Million Units in Total”
“Windows in mobile is virtually dead.”Meanwhile, judging by the latest Microsoft news, the shares drop like a rock after disappointing results (also decline in patent taxation) which will lead to yet more layoffs, as we noted here on Friday. IAM went along with the headline “Microsoft reports Android royalties decline and may have to look to Asia to plug the gap”. “Microsoft does not release lined-out licensing numbers,” IAM wrote, “but some have estimated that the company could be making as much as $6 billion each year from monetising patent assets that it claims are read on by Google’s Android operating system.” These are purely speculations, as we have been saying here for years. Microsoft also uses patents for coercion, not just tax money, so there’s a hidden cost/gain from patent blackmail/extortion/racketeering (IAM defends this blackmail in spite of the RICO Act). It’s not hard to see why Microsoft resorted to these ugly tactics. As this new article puts it: “Based on the information provided in the company’s recent quarterly report, the company’s revenue from the mobile division saw a fall of 46%. Additionally, in the last three months, its smart phone, Lumia, has its sales decreased by 73%, selling only 2.3 million units in total.”
“Microsoft Headhunters Seek Linux Folk”
“Rather than make something of value Microsoft now operates like a parasite inside a ‘host’, be it Android or whatever.”Windows in mobile is virtually dead. It’s a dead ‘man’ walking. It’s only kept alive because of misguided speculations that there can be a rebound, but not even infiltrating and destroying Nokia contributed towards that. Rather than make something of value Microsoft now operates like a parasite inside a ‘host’, be it Android or whatever. When it comes to GNU/Linux on the desktop, Microsoft is trying to become the host of (devour) GNU/Linux. Microsoft’s extortion of Linux using software patents notwithstanding, there’s a new bunch of articles (based on Microsoft’s Channel 9) about how the devouring it achieved [1, 2, 3] and we also learn that Microsoft tries to devour employees of the competitor, just as it did to Borland (see the articles “Microsoft Is Hiring Linux Folks For A Secret Open Source Unit” and “Microsoft headhunters seek Linux folk for secret open source unit”). According to Microsoft’s mouthpiece (Ina Fried), all is well and Microsoft “comes in peace” (misleading coverage ensued). As a Microsoft-connected news network put it: “That notion comes from a couple of quotes given to re/code reporter Ina Fried this week.” Fried is more like Microsoft PR since her days at CNET, hardly am objective reporter and also a longtime proponent of Microsoft’s patent aggression. She used to be Microsoft’s main CBS mouthpiece, assigned the “Microsoft” section, where she also habitually badmouthed Linux. So this seems like another PR exercise.
While Microsoft pushes for antitrust action against Android and uses patents against Android we’re supposed to believe that there’s peace now. To quote: “Microsoft has long sparred with Google’s hardware partners regarding alleged software patent infringements associated with the use Android, a Google-fostered open source mobile operating system.”
“While Microsoft pushes for antitrust action against Android and uses patents against Android we’re supposed to believe that there’s peace now.”Has that ever stopped? No.
“Microsoft Has Been Poaching Entire Linux Distros Through “Partnerships” With the Companies”
Over at FOSS Force, Christine Hall asserts that “Microsoft’s Becoming the New, but Successful, Novell” (the comparison here is weak).
“Microsoft has been poaching entire Linux distros through “partnerships” with the companies,” Hall notes. Not much has changed since.
“Fraudulently Obtained Patents and Bullied Competitors to Dominate the Market”
“Microsoft may now be pursing Yahoo’s patents, years after affectively destroying the company (remember how Microsoft ‘stole’ Novell’s patents after demolishing the company).”Microsoft may now be pursing Yahoo's patents, years after affectively destroying the company (remember how Microsoft ‘stole’ Novell’s patents after demolishing the company). Buying these patents might not even be so expensive because, as this new article put it: “The US Supreme Court’s 2015 Alice decision, “gutted business method patents and damaged many software patents,” stated the firm.”
How many more projects and companies need to be destroyed before it’s widely understood that Microsoft is malicious and cannot be trusted? Historically, and especially over the past decade (since the Novell deal), Microsoft has used patents to intimidate rivals and monopolise the market, just like OptumInsight**. It shouldn’t be surprising that behind the scenes and behind proxies Microsoft has been pushing European regulators to put FRAND (essentially software patents) in standards, launch antitrust action against Android (which is killing the Windows monopoly), and is now paying Kappos to promote software patents in the US. Are we supposed to really believe Microsoft has changed? █
______
* The news cycle too has responded to the shift in attention, with one new article noting that: “The U.S. Supreme Court this week declined to review a federal appeals court’s decision to revive a $45 million patent infringement verdict against Limelight Networks Inc.” This is affecting also non-technology companies, as according to this: “The Genetic Technologies decision joins a long list of other cases demonstrating how the Supreme Court cases of Mayo and Alice are creating sweeping changes in the US patent system.” Using 35 U.S.C. § 101 to invalidate CBM and software patents, Samsung finds Alice useful. To quote: “Samsung initially filed a Petition to institute covered business method (CBM) patent review of claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 8,033,458 based upon the assertion that claim 11 is directed to patent ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Later, Apple filed a Petition to institute CBM review of claim 11 based on the same ground, and Apple simultaneously filed a “Motion for Joinder” of their newly filed case with Samsung’s previously instituted case. The PTAB granted Apple’s Petition and consolidated the two proceedings.”
** See the new article titled “Fixes Needed in Medical Software Patent Spat”
A federal judge on Friday dismissed with leave to amend a lawsuit claiming a data analytics company fraudulently obtained patents and bullied competitors to dominate the market for medical claims organizing software.
Cave Consulting Group, or CCGroup, sued OptumInsight in July 2015, accusing the firm of antitrust violations, false advertising and malicious prosecution.
CCGroup says Symmetry Health Data Systems, acquired by OptumInsight in 2003, lied and omitted facts when it applied for and defended patents with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
Symmetry and later OptumInsight came to control 85 to 90 percent of the medical claims grouper software market after suing two competitors for infringing its “ill-gotten patents”, CCGroup claims.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
04.22.16
Posted in GNU/Linux, Google, Microsoft, Patents at 3:35 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Many thousands of additional layoffs at Microsoft are reported as the effort to extract lots of ‘protection money’ from Linux falls short of expectations
Matt Rosoff, a Microsoft booster who is professionally close to Microsoft as we pointed out before [1, 2, 3, 4], says “A huge shift in the Android market is hurting Microsoft” (previous headline was, “Microsoft Android patent-licensing revenue falling”).
“In the release,” he wrote, “Microsoft noted that its patent-licensing revenue was down 26% from a year ago. And it’s because of Android.”
“Microsoft may be a dying/rapidly declining company, but it doesn’t mean it won’t try to poach GNU/Linux professionals and ‘steal’ the industry as part of the “extend” phase of E.E.E.”Nevertheless, this strategy evidently continues. Yes, Microsoft’s extortion against Linux is still a core business now that layoffs are unstoppable, in spite of massive tax evasion.
According to this new article, “18,000 Job Cuts Loom in Sight for Microsoft Employees” and to quote: “Microsoft is also cutting 5.500 more jobs because they want to focus on its mobile and cloud productivity software, including Windows Phone, Office 36, Skype, Windows Azure, Bing and OneDrive.”
Microsoft may be a dying/rapidly declining company, but it doesn’t mean it won’t try to poach GNU/Linux professionals and ‘steal’ the industry as part of the “extend” phase of E.E.E. Vigilance is required here. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Free/Libre Software, GNU/Linux, Google, Microsoft, RAND at 3:03 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
English/Original
Article as ODF
Publicado en Europe, Free/Libre Software, GNU/Linux, Google, Microsoft, RAND 9:45 am por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz
¿Y Microsoft nos dijo que ´ama´ a Linux?
Sumario: El Cabildeo de Microsoft’s contra Android in Europe y por FRAND (esenciálmente patentes de software) el los estádares Europeos logra resultados
Las patentes de software en Europa han sido cubiertos aquí por mucho más tiempo que la EPO. Empresas como Microsoft las han venido usando para prohibir efectivamente software de código libre/ abierto (FOSS), o excluir este tipo de software de la política de contratación de acuerdo con las normas. De acuerdo con este nuevo artículo del Dr. Glyn Moody, Microsoft ha tenido éxito con esto, ya que sus grupos de presión siguen presionando por FRAND en Europa [1, 2]. Sí, además de su presión ante la Comisión Europea por muchos años contra el software libre/Android [1, 2, 3], que finalmente consiguió acción antimonopolio contra Google, “Mientrás que Microsoft está ¨adoptando¨al código abierto, la UE está excluyéndolo de la política – como Microsoft demandó originalmente “, para citar a Simon Phipps, quien a su vez cita Moody diciendo:” no es de extrañar que la Comisión estaba tratando de mantener ese detalle en particular escondido, debido a la concesión de licencias FRAND, supuestamente acrónimo de “justo, razonable y no discriminatoria “, es incompatible con el código abierto, el que por lo tanto, se encontrará excluidosde gran parte de la gran nueva estrategia de mercado único digital de la UE. Eso no es una “política de derechos de propiedad intelectual equilibrada“.
“El problema inherente con esta política es que asume erróneamente que las patentes de software tienen legitimidad en la UE”
“El problema con open source es que el estandar licensign puede ser perfectamente justo, razonable y no-discrimínatorio, pero sería sin embargo imposíble de implementar para el open source.Típicamente, el licensiamiento FRAND requiere un pago por copia, pero para el Software Libre, que puede ser compartido innumerables veces, no hay manera de llevar la cuenta en cuántas copuias hay afuera. Incluso si el pago es pequeño, todavía un requerimiénto de licensias que el open source no puede implementar.”
El problema inherente con esta política es que asume erróneamente que las patentes de software tienen legitimidad en la UE. Es una laguna o incluso una distorsión de la legislación Europea. Bueno, no es como si Microsoft trata verdaderamente de obedecer la ley de todos modos … su grupo delantero, la infáme Business Software Alliance, ha adoptado este tipo de política durante casi una década.
“Bueno, no es como si Microsoft trata verdaderamente de obedecer la ley de todos modos …”
Incidentálmente, ayerIP Katpublicó este artículoacerca de la “Patentabilidad del diseño de interface del usuario”, citando al Jurado de Apelaciónesqueparticularmente no es amigable a las patentes de software (a diferencia de la EPO, no busca máximizar ganancias al bajar la calidad de las patentes o al expándir su esfera con el tiempo en desafío a la EPC*).
Un comentario del presidente de la FFII dijo: “Jacob dijo que” redacción técnica “es una reformulación del mismo problema. “Técnico” se convierte en el agujero negro, donde la EPO encuentra manera de evitar el espíritu de la EPC, materias en las que las exclusiones se relaciónan con lo abstracto “.
“Técnico es generalmente un término sin sentido”
Una persona respondió diciéndo: “te has molestado al leer el post? Explica como al contrario, el BoA de la EPO ha rechazado ver algo “técnico” en presentaciónes de información, excepto en tres ahora viejos casos (T 643/00, T 928/03 and T 49/04). Aparte de ello, por una cosa sé que la T 49/04 fué una decisión controversial de la EPO, y esto pueda explicar el porque, después, los Boards no continuaron en el mismo camino.”
Aquí tenemos una persona voluntáriamente ignorando la correlación entre la UPC y las patentes de software (personas de alta reputación han hablado al respecto) y ella dice “conspiración” para desacreditar a aquellos que hablan acerca de ello, matándo al mensajero como sigue:
Si “Zoobab” es el mismo Zoobab de Twitter, parece ser un activista anti-software-patentes y parece ser un fiel seguidor del blog Techrights, quienes ven cualquier cosa que se menciona incluso las patentes de software o la UPC (incluso en un contexto negativo) como evidencia de algún tipo de gran conspiración para defraudar al público europeo.
Da la casualidad de que estoy dudoso acerca de los méritos de las patentes de software o incluso de la UPC. Pero he aprendido que nada menos que totalmente de acuerdo, de todo corazón con las teorías de la conspiración loca de esos personajes es visto como una prueba más de que no hay solamente una conspiración, sino también que eres parte de ella, incluso si comparte ampliamente su recelos si bien por diferentes razones.
Lo anterior pone palabras en la boca de tanto Benjamin Henrion y la mía – palabras que nunca se pronunciaron en absoluto. A pesar del secreto que engendra sospecha **, hay una gran cantidad de información se puede acumular cavando lo suficientemente profundo. En realidad, hay un montón de pruebas que demuestran lo que ambos dijimos (no lo de arriba), la administración de la EPO mantiene la promoción por la UPC *** y las patentes de software (escribimos acerca de ello con ejemplos a principios de este año), y esto llamó la atención de otras personas anoche. “Técnica” es generalmente un término bastante sin sentido (como “innovación¨, “novedoso” y otros marrulleos). Una taza del baño es muy técnivo. Vea esta reacción a la frase “el efecto de un perfil mental particular del usuario puede ser considerado técnico” (respuesta en Español).
______
* “Cliente”, aparentemente, basado en este nuevo tweet, es una nueva palabra por “solicitante” que la EPO heredo de la mentalidad ENA de Pinocho Battistelli.
** La EPO de nuevo (dos veces por semana) promovió a la EUIPO. Recuérden el overlap entre esos dos [1, 2, 3]].
*** He aquí la última Promoción de la UPC por parte de la EPO (last night).
Permalink
Send this to a friend
04.21.16
Posted in Europe, Free/Libre Software, GNU/Linux, Google, Microsoft, RAND at 9:14 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
And Microsoft told us it “loves Linux”…
Summary: Microsoft’s lobbying against Android in Europe and for FRAND (essentially software patents) in European standards yield results
Software patents in Europe have been covered here for much longer than the EPO. Companies like Microsoft were using them to effectively ban Free/Open Source software (FOSS), or exclude such software from procurement policy as per the standards. According to this new article from Dr. Glyn Moody, Microsoft was somewhat successful with this as its lobbyists continue lobbying for FRAND in Europe [1, 2]. Yes, in addition to lobbying the European Commission for many years against FOSS/Android [1, 2, 3], eventually leading to antitrust action against Google, “Just as Microsoft is adopting open source, the EU is excluding it from policy – like Microsoft originally demanded,” to quote Simon Phipps, who in turn cites Moody who’s saying: “It’s no surprise that the Commission was trying to keep that particular detail quiet, because FRAND licensing—the acronym stands for “fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory”—is incompatible with open source, which will therefore find itself excluded from much of the EU’s grand new Digital Single Market strategy. That’s hardly a “balanced IPR policy.”
“An inherent problem with this policy is that it wrongly assumes that patents on software have legitimacy in the EU.”“The problem for open source is that standard licensing can be perfectly fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory, but would nonetheless be impossible for open source code to implement. Typically, FRAND licensing requires a per-copy payment, but for free software, which can be shared any number of times, there’s no way to keep tabs on just how many copies are out there. Even if the per-copy payment is tiny, it’s still a licensing requirement that open source code cannot meet.”
An inherent problem with this policy is that it wrongly assumes that patents on software have legitimacy in the EU. It’s a loophole or even a distortion of European law. Well, it’s not as though Microsoft truly tries to obey the law anyway… its front group, Business Software Alliance, has pursued this kind of policy for nearly a decade now.
“Well, it’s not as though Microsoft truly tries to obey the law anyway…”Incidentally, yesterday IP Kat published this article about “Patentability of user interface designs”, citing the Board of Appeal which isn't particularly software patents-friendly (unlike the EPO, it doesn’t just seek to maximise profit by reducing patent quality or by also expanding patent scope over time, in defiance of the EPC*).
One comment from the FFII’s President said: “Jacob said the “Technical” wording is a restatement of the same problem. “Technical” becomes the black hole where the EPO finds it way to bypass the spirit of the EPC, where all the exclusions concerns abstract matters.”
““Technical” is generally a rather meaningless term.”One person responded by saying: “have you bothered to read the post? It explains how, on the contrary, the BoA of the EPO has refused to see anything “technical” in presentations of information, except in three now rather old cases (T 643/00, T 928/03 and T 49/04). Apart from that, I know for one thing that T 49/04 was an extremely controversial decision within the EPO, and this may explain why, afterwards, the Boards didn’t continue on the same path.”
Here we have a wilfully ignorant person who doesn’t know the correlation between the UPC and software patents (high-profile people have spoken explicitly about it) and s/he says “conspiracy” to discredit those who speak about it, shooting the messengers as follows:
If “Zoobab” is the same Zoobab as on Twitter, s/he seems to be an anti-software-patent activist and appears to be a loyal follower of the Techrights blog, who see anything that even mentions software patents or the UPC (even in a negative context) as evidence of some sort of grand conspiracy to defraud the European public.
As it happens, I’m dubious about the merits of software patents or indeed the UPC. But I’ve learned that anything less than full, wholehearted agreement with the wacky conspiracy theories of such characters is seen as yet further evidence that there’s not only a conspiracy, but also that you’re part of it, even if you broadly share their misgivings albeit for different reasons.
The above puts words in the mouth of both Benjamin Henrion and myself — words that were never at all uttered. In spite of the secrecy which breeds suspicion**, there is a lot of information one can accumulate by digging deep enough. There is actually plenty of evidence to show what we both said (not the above), the EPO’s management keeps promoting both the UPC*** and software patents (we wrote about it with examples earlier this year), and this got the attention of other people last night. “Technical” is generally a rather meaningless term (like “innovative”, “novel” and other such buzzwords). A toilet bowl too is technical. See this reaction to the phrase “the effect of a particular layout on the mental processes of the user could be considered… technical” (response in Spanish). █
______
* “Customer”, apparently, based on this new tweet, is a new word for “applicant” as EPO inherits the ENA mentality of Battistelli.
** The EPO has once again (second time in a week) promoted the EUIPO. Recall the overlaps between those two [1, 2, 3]].
*** Here is the latest UPC promotion from the EPO (last night).
Permalink
Send this to a friend
04.20.16
Posted in Apple, IBM, Law, Microsoft, Patents at 9:09 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Billionaires and their think tanks too get involved
IBM pushing for software patents not just via lobbyists like former IBMer, David Kappos (on IBM’s payroll for lobbying now), but also IBM’s Manny Schecter (above). Photo credit: Esteban Minero
Summary: The law surrounding patents in the United States continues to be manipulated or at least lobbied on by large corporations such as IBM and Microsoft, as well as by think tanks such as CATO Institute
THE PAST few weeks were spent looking at the front group led by David Kappos, who is paid by software firms such as IBM, Microsoft, and more recently Apple, which evidently has a lot at stake (it has just settled a patent lawsuit and here are ten of the earliest reports we were able to find about this [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]). Kappos is trying to diminish if not demolish the impact of Alice so that software patents continue to do their damage (recall the lawsuits from Microsoft against Linux, Apple against Android, and IBM against various Internet companies as of late).
“Kappos is trying to diminish if not demolish the impact of Alice so that software patents continue to do their damage (recall the lawsuits from Microsoft against Linux, Apple against Android, and IBM against various Internet companies as of late).”IAM ‘magazine’, a proponent of this Kappos lobbying agenda (openly so), has just said: “As this blog and others have reported, there has been a general increase in patent activity in the auto sector in recent years, which has brought with it a rise in new infringement lawsuits and activity at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). However according to data recently released by Unified Patents, the number of lawsuits in the sector dropped last year, despite a rise in the overall number of new patent cases in the US. There were 126 new cases filed in 2015 involving carmakers and their suppliers. That was down from 154 in 2014 and 160 the year before.”
Drop in litigation is a good thing, unless one runs a litigious company that is suing rivals or threatening rivals in order to extract ‘protection money’ (settlement). Recent statistics suggest that a vast proportion of patent lawsuits are now being filed by patent trolls, who typically use software patents. According to the above, which refers to trolls using common euphemisms, patent trolls “still account for the lion’s share of new cases with 88 suits filed last year.”
“Drop in litigation is a good thing, unless one runs a litigious company that is suing rivals or threatening rivals in order to extract ‘protection money’ (settlement).”One patent propagandist offers support to his buddy at IBM, which is increasingly a patent aggressor/bully. He previously interviewed him. “IBM’s Manny Schecter,” he wrote, “giving keynote @Innography #Insights2016 today @ 11am CT on “What should we do about Alice?” A very good question!”
One approach embraced by Manny (so far) is rather simple; pay David Kappos, a former IBM employee, to lobby the system. It’s sort of weird that the question is, “What should we do about Alice?”
“One approach embraced by Manny (so far) is rather simple; pay David Kappos, a former IBM employee, to lobby the system.”That’s like asking, “what should we do about the Supreme Court?” IBM seems arrogant enough to attack or discredit the highest court via Kappos (IBM).
The same kind of quote comes from this tweet, which says “IBM Chief Patent Counsel @MannySchecter @Innography Insights – What Should We Do About Alice?” (to his pleasure, based on his response).
“Don’t let IBM, Microsoft, Apple etc. effectively buy the law by ‘buying’ former officials like Kappos.”The one good thing about David Kappos, Manny Schecter and various other proponents of software patents (or boosters of IBM’s patent aggression) is that they help demonstrate/highlight how corrupt the patent system is. One conspiring to shape one’s system by lobbying is not illegal, but to put one’s staff in key positions and to pay to change law may be. Don’t let IBM, Microsoft, Apple etc. effectively buy the law by ‘buying’ former officials like Kappos. It’s a mockery of a system that’s supposed to be shaped by public interests. Ask Manny Schecter how much money, other than lots of salaries, IBM has just paid Kappos to legalise/promote software patents in the US. Generally speaking, try to find out who’s paying to change the law and how much. Yesterday we became aware of a ‘Conservative’ (corporatist) think tank of the Koch Brothers (CATO) publishing a paper on patents (spring edition), downplaying the severity of the patent system’s problems [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9] to essentially defend patent trolls, which mostly come from (or to) Texas. This paper, based on the feedback, is widely liked by patent lawyers from Texas. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
04.19.16
Posted in IBM, Microsoft, Patents at 8:11 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Source: David Kappos interview with Intellectual Property Magazine (2010), modified by us
Summary: Software patents are not as scary as they used to be (because many are effectively found to be of no value, or ruled invalid by US courts), but patent aggressors including IBM and Microsoft work towards a software patents comeback, aided by well-connected officials such as David Kappos (above)
THE reality behind software patents in the United States (or patent policy in general) isn’t just shaped by the USPTO, which grants patents too sparingly, but also by the courts, which increasingly demonstrate that the USPTO isn't doing its job (which should be examination and thus elimination of weak applications).
“Judging by the Bilski case, it might take another decade before Alice is shaken at all (if at all).”According to this new examination of upcoming SCOTUS cases, there is no imminent challenge to Alice. Judging by the Bilski case, it might take another decade before Alice is shaken at all (if at all). “Following its April 15 Conference,” wrote Patently-O, “the Supreme Court denied certiorari in a set of cases, including Vermont v. MPHJ; Limelight v. Akamai; Hemopet v. Hill’s Pet Nutrition; and Tas v. Beachy. In its April 1 Conference, the Court denied cert in Retirement Capital v. US Bancorp. That case had questioned whether subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is a ground specified as a condition for patentability under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b)(2).”
It seems like very good news, unless you’re some patent lawyer or patent aggressor such IBM or Microsoft (they both pay the former Director of the USPTO to discredit SCOTUS rulings and restore the fangs of software patents by altering § 101). Over in Texas (capital of patent trolls, see yesterday's article to that effect) the press now bemoans Alice, i.e. the death of many software patents in the United States. The article was composed by patent lawyers (surprise surprise!) and it says:
Yes, we’re being a bit dramatic here but Alice has been killing patents, and especially software patents, at an impressive clip. In this case, Alice refers to the 2014 U.S. Supreme Court opinion Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank. In that opinion, the Court announced a new two-step process to determine whether an idea is patentable and, ever since, this two-step process has been applied by courts and the Patent Office to disallow patents at an unprecedented rate. Law360 calculated that courts are granting around 70 percent of Alice motions. In raw numbers, there were more patents killed in the 14 months after Alice than in the five years before it.
It all sounds like good news, unless one is a greedy patent lawyer, especially from a place like Texas. Decline in proactive activity which invalidates software patents in the US has just been reported by MIP. To quote: “A total of 118 petitions were filed at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in March, down from 150 in February but up on the 99 in January. In contrast, 145 petitions were filed in March 2015.”
“It all sounds like good news, unless one is a greedy patent lawyer, especially from a place like Texas.”Perhaps — and we are only guessing here — after Alice-led challenges (which ultimately killed patents at the knock of a gavel) more companies realise that software patents would not survive the courts anyway. It means that there’s less incentive to sue at all. Suing can lead to loss of patents. As MIP put it in another article, “Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) petition filing in the first three months of 2016 fell to its lowest quarterly figure for two years.”
What matters, however, is rate/ratio of invalidation.
So less than two years after PTAB’s formation it seems to have become less necessary because the core issue, which is patent scope (or quality), is being addressed/tackled by Alice.
FOSS Force, a site which deals with Free/Open Source software (FOSS) matters, has just run a poll about software patents and here is what it came up with (see charts in page). To quote the author: “In recent years software patents haven’t been nearly as much in the news as they once were. This is partly due to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Alice Corp. vs. CLS Bank which took a slew of patents off the table. Also, thanks to the efforts of companies such as Newegg to duke it out in court instead of rolling over and settling, many patents that had been successfully leveraged by the trolls for years have been invalidated.”
“Both are aggressive patent predators amid layoffs which threaten their very monopolistic existence.”It sure seems like things are improving in the US, but don’t take that for granted. Companies like IBM and Microsoft (or more recently Apple) hire lobbyists in an effort to restore the old state of affairs, enabling more patent extortion against small companies. Recall what Microsoft is still doing against FOSS distributors (using patents on software for coercion and taxation) and then consider IBM's controversial joining. Both are aggressive patent predators amid layoffs which threaten their very monopolistic existence.
As we noted here some days ago, having maliciously destroyed Yahoo, Microsoft might now go after Yahoo’s patents, which MIP says aren’t that expensive anyway. To quote: “It identified 2,000 US patents currently assigned to Yahoo that are active and in-force. Yahoo’s 2015 10-K reveals the company reported almost $300 million in gains related to patent sales between 2013 and 2015.”
As for IBM, there’s some new patent propaganda (just published for IBM marketing), femmewashing its patents and wrongly equating them with “invention”.█
Permalink
Send this to a friend
04.16.16
Posted in Antitrust, GNU/Linux, Java, Microsoft, Mono at 3:05 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Microsoft a serial killer of FOSS
Summary: Microsoft has just killed yet another FOSS project (using money to shut down competitors) — one that was helping Android and Java
THE headline “Embrace, extend – and kill. Microsoft discontinues RoboVM” says it all really. Several people in our IRC channels noticed this original story (from the original statement) rather quickly and later on in the day some people told me about it privately, so it obviously wasn’t overlooked at all.
“Nice,” Lirodon wrote in the afternoon, “and now Microsoft has killed RoboVM dead. It was already dead when they became non-free.”
“Microsoft,” MinceR responded, “where projects go to die [...] just like they killed entire video game developer companies (Terminal Reality and Ensemble Studios)” (we covered this years ago).
Microsoft is just the same old evil company, there is no ‘ new’ Microsoft. Microsoft will try this against GNU/Linux if it can. It’s its classic modus operandi, but taking on a project as big as these (to “extinguish”) is a monumental task.
What Techrights wrote about RoboVM when it was first “embraced” [1, 2, 3] turns out to be true. We foresaw exactly what Microsoft would do about RoboVM once it’s payday (yet again!) for Miguel de Icaza.
Some people still wonder, what exactly happened to RoboVM? Here it is in their own words: “Over the past few weeks, we’ve been working with the teams at Xamarin and Microsoft to assess the technology and business conditions of RoboVM to determine the path forward for the products. After looking at the complete landscape for mobile development with Java, the decision has been made to wind down development of RoboVM.”
After they had made it proprietary (shortly before Xamarin stepped in formally), essentially stabbing the whole community in the back, the Microsoft people (all of them are Microsoft staff now) did this:
For any fools out there who still think Microsoft doesn’t do E.E.E. against FOSS, here we go again. What would it take to wake people up? How many more companies need to die? How could RoboVM not know that Xamarin was an evil proxy of Microsoft? It was common knowledge as it wasn’t hard to see where Xamarin’s money had come from (Microsoft veterans).
Microsoft is now essentially shutting down another pillar of Java, so this is classic E.E.E. via Xamarin. As one person put it to us, “and today Microsoft ordered RoboVM to wind down operation” (linking to the original announcement).
A lot of the utter rubbish about Microsoft “loving Linux” is a villainous lie. It’s the best lie money can buy as it’s clear that Microsoft is still very aggressive; it hates GNU/Linux, it hates Android, and it hates Java. Don’t let the Microsoft-funded media fool you (Microsoft Peter, for instance, moved from the UK to the US to write for Condé Nast, which is paid by Microsoft). Microsoft basically buys articles from various large media networks; it pays networks to tell us that Microsoft has changed, but nothing is changing, it’s only escalating.
The above, says Fernando Cassia, “reminds me of VirtualPC, which was a product of Innotek Gmbh and offerend Windows virtualization under OS/2 hosts….”
He then told me, “guess which product they dropped after being acquired by Microsoft? Yes, Virtual PC for IBM OS/2 :-/”
He further emphasised that “everything Microsoft does is about leveraging its cash cow to hurt competitors or whatever it sees as a menace” and “the war on Java started ten years ago… “Operation Sunblock” never really stopped” (here is the article about “Operation Sunblock”)
“20 years ago,” he added a few hours later, “boy how time flew [...] “+options available…including tools that will help you PORT TO XAMARIN” //Competitor eliminated.Mission accomplished”
When will be the next antitrust probe against Microsoft bribery, racketeering, blackmail, and extortion? Did it get enough lobbyists in all the right places in order to shift any such focus to Google? Remember that Microsoft is still run by the same thugs (only the CEO changed) and they want Android and Linux to be next in the E.E.E. pipeline. Microsoft loves nothing but itself and its own monopoly of lock-in and back doors. New charm offensives try to lull us into sleep and inaction (no defensive/reactionary statements from the community).
As one person told me yesterday: “Remember Microsoft’s charm offensive with Nokia? We all know very well how that ended and what happened to MeeGo & Meltemi.”
We wrote a lot about what Microsoft did to Nokia. How many more Linux and FOSS backers need to die (out of work) before the media acknowledges that Microsoft is a liar and an assassin? █
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