04.30.16
Posted in Asia, Patents at 3:46 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Low-quality software patents (on abstract ideas) are keeping India controlled by foreign multinationals
Bangalore, India
Summary: The growing software giant which is India continues to face cruel and aggressive lobbying from the West, enabling the West to control India by patents that should not exist in the first place
INDIA is currently under a lot of pressure from US lobbyists because it repeatedly rejected software patents. In recent weeks alone we saw the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) putting India under pressure and days ago it was USTR. Colonialism never truly ended and the empire of corporations vainly assumes that it can impose on India whatever law it desires.
“Don’t listen to the IT giants” is the headline of this new article from the Indian Express, which even quotes Bill Gates to highlight his hypocrisy (Microsoft is among the forces now lobbying India for software patents). To quote the start of this good article:
The Indian government has rightly rested its Digital India initiative on a series of measures to liberalise the economy. One of those measures of free-market wisdom, however, the usual government-cheering section suddenly seems to be irrationally against. The PMO will be receiving from the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) on April 30 a report on the Patent Office’s Computer-Related Inventions Guidelines (CRI), in which parties who usually applaud free-market measures are horrified to discover that Section 3(k) of the Patent Act really does prohibit government-awarded monopolies in software, and that the controller of patents is implementing the statutory command.
Software patenting is not a requirement of TRIPs, or of any current international trade law. The controller’s new CRI guidelines actually implement a test for software per se — unpatentable owing to Section 3(k) — which is close to the “machine or transformation” test all-but-imposed by the US Supreme Court in a series of cases over the last five years, in all of which we were amici curiae, urging the court in its current direction.
Software patenting is not in the Indian national economic interest. “Software,” as Bill Gates used to say, “is an IQ business”. When non-Indian firms can get software patents in India, the effect is to hobble the Indian IQ advantage, by making what many talented Indian programmers could otherwise use to make new innovations in software the property of the non-Indian patenting company. As our organisation, SFLC.in, has shown in its research report on the subject, more than 90 per cent of software patents awarded in India, before the rectification imposed by the new guidelines, were issued to foreign corporates.
Incidentally, looking elsewhere in yesterday’s news, Ericsson comes under fire in India because of its use of patent trolls (also in the EU) to extract money out of competitors, using — in part — software patents. As one article put it yesterday: “In March 2013, the Swedish multinational Ericsson sued Micromax for patent infringement, setting in motion a series of events, with the potential to disturb India’s mobile phone dream. Then last month the Delhi High Court recognised the authority of the regulator – the Competition Commission of India (CCI) – to probe Ericsson for its allegedly anti-competitive conduct.”
Indians should get more active (in the activism sense) and work to abolish software patents in India once and for all, identifying all those occupying forces that keep trying to revive the effort for software patents in India (including new loopholes for these). Not only does India have nothing to gain from software patents; it has a lot to lose from them. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
04.28.16
Posted in America, Asia, Deception, Law, Patents at 9:52 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
What is “Special 301 Report”? Check Wikipedia.
Summary: Lobbying body of the US (corporations-led) is trying its usual dirty tactics against India’s sound policy which excludes software/algorithms from patent scope
“USTR complains about block of software patents in India while they have Alice,” Benjamin Henrion wrote today. For those who are not familiar with the antics of USTR, see examples and details of its bullying in Cablegate articles. Microsoft too uses USTR for influence.
“Microsoft too uses USTR for influence.”“USTR complains about Indian block of software patents while they have Alice,” Henrion wrote hours later (he found out about it because of Jamie Love, who is a FOSS supporter and also an affordable medicine advocate). Love wrote: “This is one of the business lobbies that pressures India on IPR issues.”
In their own words: “Special 301 Report: India’s #IP Climate Continues to Discourage Innovation” (whose innovation?).
USTR is basically an imperialistic corporate army and it needs to be treated as such. We gave examples of how it bullies, shames and potentially sanctions nations that don’t play ball for US multinational corporations. Here is the article about it: “The Special 301 Report echoed several of the same outstanding concerns with India’s IP policies that AFTI and its members outlined in recently submitted comments to the USTR. These issues include inadequate trade secret protection in India, continued copyright piracy across India, concerns about compulsory licensing for biopharmaceutical and environmental technology, and unnecessary and burdensome criteria for the patentability of medicines and other products. The USTR report also noted that weak or inadequate IP protections in India have a negative impact on both U.S. and Indian businesses.”
“USTR is basically an imperialistic corporate army and it needs to be treated as such.”That’s nonsense. To quote the PDF from USTR (Henrion has scanned it), “with respect to CII, there was a lack of transparency in the process to adopt the current set of guidelines” (“CII” is just a cheeky term that’s often when trying to evade the better known term, “software patents”).
In [1] below one can find a report about this from IP Watch. No doubt India’s Indians-leaning policies are upsetting some very rich and powerful people in other countries, not just in India. India’s long war against the software patents lobby continues with RCEP's clauses. As SFLC has just put it (copy here) in a press release: “Indian law on patentability of computer programmes is abundantly clear in that Section 3(k) of the Patents Act 1970 explicitly excludes computer programmes per se, mathematical methods and algorithms from patent protection. Moreover the recent Guidelines for Examination of Computer Related Inventions released by the Patent Office on February 19, 2016 ensure that patents are granted only to those inventions where a computer programme is claimed in conjunction with novel hardware. This eliminates the possibility of frivolous patents being granted in the field of software in India. However, recently it has come to light that the Regional Comprehensive Partnership Treaty (RCEP) presently being negotiated proposes a clause on patents in the area of computer programmes that will result in patents being granted in this field.”
“If China and India care about their future and prosperity, then they will give USTR the middle finger, get out of the RCEP ‘trade’ agreement and just carry on developing things (India is big for software, China for hardware), not bickering over patents in courtrooms, where English-speaking (usually foreign) lawyers often become necessary because of language barriers.”We are disgusted to see these attacks on Indian sovereignty, or on politicians who simply try to establish policy based on human rights, innovation and so on. It’s not too hard to see who’s behind these attacks, which impact not only India but also China (see [1] below for context). Right now Chinese censorship, for instance, is being cast a “trade barrier” by think tanks and lobbyists of US corporations. These are just opportunistic excuses which try to frame human rights issues as a barrier to US profits in China. And watch what IAM ‘magazine’ is doing today. When Mr. Schindler says “the Chinese” he probably means “the Chinese lawyers” because IAM believes that more lawsuits are a good thing and wants to increase their frequency. IAM is seemingly worried about barriers to litigation based on yesterday’s article. That’s really what it’s all about. It’s exercising power in the courtroom, usually a large company against a small one or a company from a rich country like the US against another company in a poorer country such as India. In the courts, as virtually everyone knows, those with deeper pockets have the cards stacked in their favour (costs of appeals, experienced lawyers, etc.), so who is this all for? It’s an imperialistic or colonialist system, which India ought to know enough about, having suffered British occupation for a long time.
If China and India care about their future and prosperity, then they will give USTR the middle finger, get out of the RCEP ‘trade’ agreement and just carry on developing things (India is big for software, China for hardware), not bickering over patents in courtrooms, where English-speaking (usually foreign) lawyers often become necessary because of language barriers. █
Related/contextual items from the news:
-
The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) does not hesitate to add even its closest friends to its annual list of concerns about possible inadequate protection of US intellectual property rights. So this year, along with perennial listees China, India and dozens of others, vigorous IP-rights defender Switzerland makes an appearance. The annual Special 301 report was issued today, and in its press release this year, USTR also included its primary client in publishing the list – the rightsholder industry.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
04.27.16
Posted in America, Asia, Deception, Europe, Patents at 8:00 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
English/Original
Article as ODF
Publicado en America, Asia, Deception, Europe, Patents at 8:20 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Sumario: La deceptiva trampa del maximálism de patentes, donde se asume que artficialmente aumentando el número de patentes otorgadas traerá el resultado esperado
En Diciembre 13 del 2014, hace casi un año y medio, The Economist, ocasionalmente un crítico de los mitos de patentes y Nemesis de los propagandistas/egoístas puntos de vista de los de los abogados de patentes, publicó la figura de arriba, del artículo “ficción de Patentes”. Fue uno de varios artículos que desafió la idea que patentes e innovación son proxies/surrogadas unas a las otras (nosotros rechazamos esto hace sólo un par de dias en relación a los EE.UU., donde una nueva clase de patente fue aprobada, anunciado crecimiénto másivo) y que China es de pronto super-innovativa. No deseámos escribir lo que fue hecho el 2014 (y antes) pero sólo para resaltar que es ampliamente reconocido y muy bien sabido que el nuevo amor Chino por las patentes no debe ser considerado erróneamente como innovación.. Como The Economist lo puso (en relación a las figuras/gráfico de arriba): “El reporte resalta el asombroso crecimiento en solicitud de patentes en ese país. El 2010 firmas Chinas llenaron casi el mismo número de aplicaciones de patentes por “invención” (las más rigurosas) como sus contrapartes en Japón y America. Para el 2013 la figura China casi se doble mientras que el grado en esos otros dos países se han mantenido casi el mismo (vean el gráfico).” La misma cosa paso en los EE.UU la década pasada, a pesar de la caída económica; no dice nada acerca de otra cosa pero codicia por patentes está creciéndo y las exáminaciones se estan volviendo mucho más leniente.
“Hoy en día, muy a nuestro pesar, lo que la EPO ofrece es su insuficientemente cualificada gerencia (compadres de Battistelli y familiares), un sindicato amarillo “vendido”a los medios de comunicación, y sugerir erróneamente que un aumento en el número de patentes significa algo (probablemente dice lo mismo como en China o los EE.UU.).”
Esto nos lleva de nuevo a la EPO porque Battistelli, el jefe despistado que convirtió rápidamente la alguna vez respetable Oficina en un hazmerreír, parece estar cegado por los números en lugar de la calidad. Una mentalidad clásica de la ENA. La mini unión de Battistelli, (o su subordinada [ES | ES]) también se ha convertido en un hazmerreír. Como este comentario lo puso al aproximarse el fin de semana se acercó
La “FFPE-EPO, el firmante del memorando de entendimiento, acaba de elegir un nuevo comité. 5 candidatos para 5 puestos. Y el ganador, y el nuevo presidente, consiguieron 9 (nueve) Votos en total. ¿Y Battistelli seriamente los considera un socio ? Cómico. 30 votos fueron emitidos. Y, sin embargo BB insiste en que otros sindicatos deben tener el 40% de un total de 7000 votación, mientras el personal estuvo en huelga ? La FFPE apenas puede reunirse un café por la mañana y mucho menos afirmar de manera creíble su representatividad.”
“Talvez algunas canditatas femeninas podrían ayudar o deberían haber aprendido algo de la SUEPO,” una persona respondió. “REGRESÉNME MIS REPRESENTANTES!!!”
Hoy en día, muy a nuestro pesar, lo que la EPO ofrece es su insuficientemente cualificada gerencia (compadres de Battistelli y familiares), un sindicato amarillo “vendido”a los medios de comunicación, y números cargados [1, 2, 3] sugerir erróneamente que un aumento en el número de patentes significa algo (probablemente dice lo mismo como en China o los EE.UU.). Alguién dice que no hay una traducción de patentes Chinas (Mandarin) en la EPO, sin embargo los sitios de los abogados de patentes dicen cosas como “Aplicaciones Chinas por Patentes en Europa el 2015 creció un 22.2%”, haciendo eco de propaganda China como este nuevo artículo cuyo titular es “Aplicaciones por Patentes de Invenciones creció un 18.7% in 2015″ (“invención de patentes” es un término engañoso que relaciona patente con invención). De acuerdo a este nuevo artículo de la prensa Británica (The Guardian), “Atieva trabajó completamente para perfeciionar y mejorar baterías, llenándo más de 100 patentes y construyendo paquetes de baterías para buses en China” (construir y patentar son dos cosas diferentes).
“Uno necesita decidir si la importancia de patentar sobrepasa la importancia de la vida y el ínteres público.”
No sólo la EPO esta cayendo en esta trampa del maximálismo de patentes (midiéndo lo malo, basado en premisas falsasm). Aquí en el Reino Unido, las vidas humanas importan menos que los interéses corpórativos, así que la UK BioIndustry Association (BIA) queda envuelta en casos de alto perfil en los EE.UU., quejandose de Sequenom v. Ariosa porque una invalidación pone en riesgo su monopolio/altos precios. Esta decisión es buena para salvar vidas, pero NO para los billonarios quienes quieren continuar haciéndo billónes anualmentew, declarando fabricar “medicinas para salvar vidas” miéntras sólo están al alcanze de los ricos. Las medicinas deberíán ser desarrolladas sin muchas patentes también, mucho de ese desarrollo ya es subsidiado por los contribuyentes de todas maneras.
Uno necesita decidir si la importancia de patentar sobrepasa la importancia de la vida y el ínteres público. Si la ‘industria’ de patentes se sale con la suya, habrá muchísimas más patentes, por las mismas razones que la industria de prisiones/penal (infame en los EE.UU.) quiere más gente trás las rejas, compañías de cuidado de salud quieren más enfermedades (i.e. más paciéntes), y los fabricántes de armas quieren crea y profundizar conflictos.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in America, Asia, Europe, Intellectual Monopoly, Patents at 7:53 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
English/Original
Article as ODF
Publicado en America, Asia, Europe, Intellectual Monopoly, Patents at 11:29 am por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Una crítica al decline en la calidad de patentes en algunas de las más grandes oficinas de patentes del mundo, donde aspiración parece ser neo-liberal en el sentido económico
El sistema de patentes – colectivamente hablando – no está funcionando como se suponía que lo fuése. En lugar de fomentar la innovación realiza la innovación hacia abajo, de la misma forma que las leyes de derechos de autor en todo el mundo en estos días otorgan un monopolio más largo que la vida de una persona, lo que significa que el incentivo para producir trabajos más creativos no es muy alta.
“En lugar de fomentar la innovación realiza la innovación hacia abajo, de la misma forma que las leyes de derechos de autor en todo el mundo en estos días otorgan un monopolio más largo que la vida de una persona, lo que significa que el incentivo para producir trabajos más creativos no es muy alta.”
Basado en estas noticias, las patentes de hardware son demandadas cada vez más por las empresas de Estados Unidos , debido al sistema de patentes de Estados Unidos (pero por compañías asiáticas), lo que significa que el sistema de patentes de Estados Unidos no es ni siquiera necesariamente servir los EE.UU., que sirve una clase particular de personas en los EE.UU. y en el extranjero (corporaciones y multimillonarios).
Sitios como IAM, maximalistas de patents (por admisión propia), continúan tratándo de convertir lo negativo en positivo al decir que en China “las subvenciones [están] creciendo más rápidamente que las aplicaciones” (esto se debe a que la oficina de patentes de China es cada vez como una broma, más que un sistema de archivo de un sistema de patentes con el examen de fase/barrera). Por otra parte, la USPTO también es así, sobre todo en los últimos años ya que algunas barreras para la concesión de patentes se doblaron, dispararondóse (casi el doble). Uno podría tener la impresión de que la USPTO es sólo una oficina de registro ahora? No hay control de calidad. Por marcas comerciales y patentes por igual; el afán de lucro llevado a esta (neoliberalismo). El profesor Mark Lemley acaba citado J Breyer diciendo que la USPTO “ha sido la emisión de miles de millones de patentes que no deberían haber sido emitidas – Me exagerar, pero sólo algunos.” Http://1.usa.gov/1Wmel7j
Bueno, “miles de millones de patentes” suena como un esquema de una patente por persona de algún tipo. Teniendo en cuenta que algunas patentes son lo suficientemente triviales parecen haber sido automáticamente generada por un algoritmo o de pensamiento por un estudiante de escuela primaria, esto no sería tan impensable (si las tasas de patentes eran menos prohibitivos).
“La realidad del las patentes en los EE.UU. está cambiando ahora mismo.”
Nicola Searle de IP Kat ha señalado correctamente notando “He tenido la intención de hacer un post hace algún tiempo acerca de por qué las patentes son una mala indicación de la innovación (lo he mencionado antes, pero en realidad no entrado en detalles.) No es un sesgo anti-patentes, es un pro-buen enfoque datos. En cuanto a estrategias de presión y de patentes …
Bueno, tal vez es tiempo que Searle haga un post sobre ello. Es la segunda vez en una semana que él dice algo a ese efecto y abogados de patentes se estresan por ello (en la sección de comentarios).
La realidad del las patentes en los EE.UU. está cambiando ahora mismo. Como este nuevo comunicado de prensa dice, “Las patentes de software en la Ley América Inventa Ley (AIA) son muy difíciles de alcanzar a través de la USPTO.” Son aún más difícil de defender en un tribunal. Para citar a todo el párrafo:
“Esta patente cubre un elemento importante en la fundación de nuestra plataforma de acoplamiento móvil y representa la singularidad de nuestra propiedad intelectual gamification”, dijo el CEO de Blue Calypso, Andrew Levi. “Las patentes de software en el post Leahy-Smith América del Inventa Ley (AIA) era son muy difíciles de alcanzar a través de la USPTO. Anticipamos la expansión de nuestra cartera de patentes para cubrir un amplio conjunto de propiedad intelectual en esta zona, así como los demás.
“A ellos les importa ni la justicia ni la innovación (que son básicamente términos de marketing para ellos).”
No se preocupen, sin embargo, como los abogados de patentes y sus medios están listors para ‘el rescate’. Ellos están atacando AIA, Alice, PTAB, y todo lo que amenaze a los maximálistas de patentes y agresores. He aquí el término “escuadrón de la muerte de patentes” de nuevo, mostrándose en el ‘analysis’ de IAMdeCuozzo en SCOTUS. Porque si, llamar falsas, inválidas patentes, ¿“invalido” te hace un ejecutor? Un “escuadrón de la muerte de patentes”? Escribimos acerca desobreuso de eufémismosy términos de demonización aquí antes. Sitios como IAM son culpables como cualquiera de bias. He aquí más artículos que encontrámos anoche [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]. MIP dijoque “La Corte Suprema ha escuchado argumentos orales en Cuozzo Speed Technologies v Lee, la primera Corte Suprema de considerar una apelación de la decisión PTAB” (PTAB de por sí es una apelación, ¿así que porqué tanto más en términos de matrículas deberíán ser añadidos para mantener a los pobres inventores privados de sus derechos o quebrados?).
Basado en estos ejemplos de anoche [1, 2, 3], los abogados de patentes simplemente están tratando de vender sus servicios. A ellos les importa ni la justicia ni la innovación (que son básicamente términos de marketing para ellos.
“De nuevo vemos a la CAFC envolverse, a pesar de su record de ser pro-aplicante o amigable con ellos (irrespectivamente del contexto y la ley, e.g. acerca de patentes de software).”
Más negocio para los abogados ‘IP’ Se observa en este momento (incluso los colores están convirtiendo en monopolios) Debido a que más pleitos y disputas están siendo medidos en Europa. Como parte de la nueva serie de ayer sobre marcas comerciales en MIP [1, 2, 3] encontramos esta titulada “Los casos de cálculo de la EUvan hacia arriba” y que dice: “2015 fue un año de clara mejora sobre 2014 para las decisiones de diseño de la Corte de justicia y del Tribunal general de Luxemburgo. David Stone explica, sin embargo, que el progreso todavía necesita ser hecho para proporcionar seguridad a los diseñadores y profesionales “(las patentes de diseño estadounidense están bajo el escrutinio de SCOTUS, pero eso no es lo mismo que los diseños registrados). Como Patently-O lo puso ayer: “Después fue protocolizado apelación de Coleman, el Circuito Federal rechazó el” factorizar “regla de que muchos habían leído en Richardson. Como se mencionó anteriormente en este blog, Apple v. Samsung y otra vez en Ethicon v. Covidien, el tribunal insiste en que Richardson no lo hizo, de hecho, requiere la eliminación de los elementos funcionales de las reivindicaciones de patentes de diseño.
De nuevo vemos a la CAFC envolverse, a pesar de su record de ser pro-aplicante o amigable con ellos (irrespectivamente del contexto y la ley, e.g. acerca de patentes de software). La CAFC está plagada de corrupción, especialmente en los últimos años (cubrimos esto varias veces antes). No es mucho mejor que la EPO, que después de haber subvertido medios franceses para la propaganda hace un año lo está haciendo de nuevo, a pesar de los riesgos. la calidad del examen no sólo se redujo debido a las políticas de Battistelli, pero también hay conversaciones acerca de reemplazar los examinadores con máquinas (así es como van a trabajar los sistemas de archivo, capaces de detectar duplicados en el mejor).
“No es mucho mejor que la EPO, que después de haber subvertido medios franceses para la propaganda hace un año lo está haciendo de nuevo, a pesar de los riesgos.”
Un lector nos recuerda un viejo artículo de una víctima conocida de este sistema, y señaló: “Sus conversaciones son largas (que tiene muchos otros), sino que empiezan a explicar, de forma indirecta, lo que está pasando con la EPO y desastres similares . La conclusión es que no hay democracia en Europa, la estructura de poder está fuera de eso y los participantes reales tienen desprecio por la democracia activa.”
¿Cuándo habrá democracia en Europa si llega a haberla después de todo? Al presente unos pocos billonarios y corpóraciones del otro lado del charco deciden por todos nosotros. Hace tres días Obama mencionaba que por el mejor interés del mundo necesitamos una Europa Unida ¿pero bajo quién? ¿Bajo el dominio de las corporaciónes de su país?Se está convirtiéndo como en los EE.UU., donde los partidos son ‘comprados’ (o vendidos a los que dan máß), elecciónes son a la venta, y la USPTO es un poco más que una herramiénta de la Sagrada Familia: IBM, Microsoft, Apple, HP y otros. ¿Y necésitamos más decir acerca del sistema Chino?
Permalink
Send this to a friend
04.26.16
Posted in America, Asia, Europe, Intellectual Monopoly, Patents at 11:29 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: A critique of the declining quality of patents in some of the world’s biggest patent offices, where the aspiration seems to be neo-liberal in the economic sense
THE patent system — collectively speaking — isn’t functioning like it was supposed to. Rather than encourage innovation it slows innovation down, in the same way that worldwide copyright laws these days grant a monopoly longer than a person’s lifetime, meaning that the incentive to produce more creative works isn’t quite there.
“Rather than encourage innovation it slows innovation down, in the same way that worldwide copyright laws these days grant a monopoly longer than a person’s lifetime, meaning that the incentive to produce more creative works isn’t quite there.”Based on this bit of news, hardware patents are getting US companies sued, owing to the US patent system (but by Asian companies), which means that the US patent system isn’t even necessarily serving the US, it serves a particular class of people in the US and abroad (corporations and billionaires).
Sites like IAM, maximalists of patents (by their own admission), keep trying to spin a negative as a positive by saying that in China “grants [are] growing more quickly than applications” (that’s because China’s patent office is increasingly a joke, more like a filing system than a patent system with examination phase/barrier). Then again, the USPTO is also like this, especially in recent years as some barriers to patenting got removed and patent numbers soared (nearly doubled). Might one get the impression that the USPTO is just a filing office now? No quality control. For trademarks and patents alike; the profit motive led to this (neo-liberalism). Professor Mark Lemley has just quoted J Breyer as saying that the USPTO “has been issuing billions of patents that shouldn’t have been issued — I overstate, but only some.” http://1.usa.gov/1Wmel7j
Well, “billions of patents” sounds like a one-patent-per-person scheme of some kind. Given that some patents are trivial enough to have been automatically-generated by an algorithm or thought of by a primary schools student, this would not be so unthinkable (if the patent fees were less prohibitive).
“The reality of patents in the US is changing right now.”IP Kat‘s Nicola Searle has just correctly noted that “I’ve been meaning to do a post for some time on why patents are a poor indication of innovation (I’ve mentioned it before but not really gone into detail.) It’s not an anti-patent bias, it’s a pro-good data approach. As for lobbying and patent strategies…”
Well, maybe it’s time for Searle to do a post about it. It’s the second time in about a week that she says something to that effect and patent lawyers get all worked up about it (in the comments section).
The reality of patents in the US is changing right now. It’s long overdue. As this new press release puts it, “Software patents in the post Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) era are very difficult to attain from the USPTO.” They’re even more difficult to defend in a courtroom. To quote the whole paragraph:
“This patent covers an important element in the foundation of our mobile engagement platform and embodies the uniqueness of our gamification intellectual property,” said Blue Calypso CEO, Andrew Levi. “Software patents in the post Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) era are very difficult to attain from the USPTO. We anticipate expanding our patent portfolio to cover a broad set of intellectual property in this area as well as others.
“They care neither about justice nor innovation (which are basically marketing terms to them).”Worry not, however, as patent lawyers and their media are in there for ‘the rescue’. They’re attacking AIA, Alice, PTAB, and whatever else threatens the patent maximalists and aggressors. Here is the term “patent death squad” again, showing up in IAM’s ‘analysis’ of Cuozzo at SCOTUS. Because yes, calling bogus, invalid patents “invalid” makes you an executioner? A “patent death squad”? We wrote about the overuse of euphemisms and demonisation terms here before. Sites like IAM are as guilty as anyone of bias. Here are ten more articles we found on the subject last night [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]. MIP said that “The Supreme Court has heard oral arguments in Cuozzo Speed Technologies v Lee, the first Supreme Court case to consider an appeal of a PTAB decision” (PTAB is itself already a kind of appeal, so how much more in terms of fees should be added to keep the poor inventors disenfranchised or broke?).
As one might expect, based on these examples from last night [1, 2, 3], patent lawyers are just trying to sell their services. They care neither about justice nor innovation (which are basically marketing terms to them).
“Once again we see CAFC getting involved, despite its track record of being applicant- or plaintiff-friendly (irrespective of the context and the law, e.g. on software patents). “More business for ‘IP’ lawyers is noted right now (even colours are becoming monopolies!) because more lawsuits and feuds are being measured in Europe. As part of yesterday’s new series about trademarks at MIP [1, 2, 3] we found this one titled “EU design cases looking up” and it says: “2015 was a year of definite improvement over 2014 for design decisions from the Court of Justice and the General Court in Luxembourg. David Stone explains, however, that progress still needs to be made to provide certainty for designers and practitioners” (in the US design patent are under SCOTUS scrutiny, but that’s not the same as registered designs). As Patently-O put it yesterday: “After Coleman’s appeal was docketed, the Federal Circuit disavowed the “factoring out” rule that many had read in Richardson. As discussed previously on this blog, in Apple v. Samsung and again in Ethicon v. Covidien, the court insisted that Richardson did not, in fact, require the elimination of functional elements from design patent claims.”
Once again we see CAFC getting involved, despite its track record of being applicant- or plaintiff-friendly (irrespective of the context and the law, e.g. on software patents). CAFC is rife with corruption, especially in recent years (we covered this several times before). It’s not much better than the EPO, which having subverted French media for propaganda a year ago is doing so again, in spite of the risks. Examination quality not only declined because of Battistelli's policies but there are also talks about replacing examiners with machines (that’s how filing systems are likely to work, capable of duplicates detection at best).
“It’s not much better than the EPO, which having subverted French media for propaganda a year ago is doing so again, in spite of the risks.”A reader has just reminded of us an old article from a well-known victim of this system, noting: “His talks are long (he has many others) but they start to explain, indirectly, what is going on with the EPO and similar disasters. The bottom line is that there is no democracy in Europe, the power structure is outside that and the real participants have active contempt for democracy.”
When will there be democracy in Europe if ever at all? Right now few billionaires and non-EU corporations decide for all of us. It is becoming a lot like the US, where political parties are being ‘bought’ (or sold to the highest bidder/s), elections are up for sale, and the USPTO is little more than a corporate tool for very large corporations like IBM and Microsoft. As for China’s system, need we say more? █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
04.24.16
Posted in America, Asia, Deception, Europe, Patents at 8:20 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: The entrapping delusion of patent maximalism, wherein artificially or superficially increasing the number of granted patents is assumed to be a desirable outcome
On December 13th a year and a half ago, The Economist, occasionally a critic of patent myths and Nemesis of patent lawyers’ propagandistic/self-serving views, published the above figure, from the article “Patent fiction”. It was one among several such articles which challenged the idea that patents and innovation are proxies/surrogates (we refuted this just a couple of days ago in relation to the US, where a new kind of patent was approved, heralding massive growth) and that China is suddenly super-innovative. We don’t wish to write again what was written in 2014 (and beforehand) but only to highlight that it’s widely recognised and well known that China’s newfound love of patents oughtn’t be mistaken for innovation. As The Economist put it (in relation to the figures/chart above): “The report highlights the astonishing increase in patents filed in the country. In 2010 Chinese firms filed roughly the same number of applications for “invention” patents (the most rigorous sort) as their counterparts in Japan and America. By 2013 the Chinese figure had nearly doubled even as the rates in the other two countries held steady (see chart).” The same thing happened in the US over the past decade, in spite of the economic meltdown; it doesn’t say anything other than lust for patents growing or examination becoming a lot more lenient.
“Nowadays, much to our regret, what the EPO has to offer is under-qualified management (friends of Battistelli and their family members), a yellow union that’s being ‘sold’ to the media, and bunk numbers which wrongly suggest that a rise in the number of patents means something (probably says the same as in China or the US).”This brings us back to the EPO because Battistelli, the clueless chief who quickly turned the once-respected Office into a laughing stock, seems to be blinded by numbers rather than quality. Classic ENA mentality. The Battistelli-leaning mini union (or minion [EN | ES]) has also become a laughing stock. As this comment put it as the weekend approached: “FFPE-EPO, the signatory of the MoU, has just elected a new committee. 5 candidates for 5 posts. And the winner, and new chairman, got 9 (nine) votes in total. And Battistelli seriously considers them a partner?? Laughable. 30 votes were cast. And yet BB insists that other unions must have 40% of ca. 7000 staff voting in strike ballots?? FFPE can barely muster a morning coffee round let alone a credible claim to representativeness.”
“Maybe some female candidates could help or have they learned something from SUEPO,” one person responded. “I WANT MY REPRESENTATIVES BACK!!!”
Nowadays, much to our regret, what the EPO has to offer is under-qualified management (friends of Battistelli and their family members), a yellow union that’s being ‘sold’ to the media, and bunk numbers [1, 2, 3] which wrongly suggest that a rise in the number of patents means something (probably says the same as in China or the US). Some say there is not even a translation for Chinese patents (Mandarin) at the EPO, yet patent lawyers’ sites say stuff like “China’s Filings of European Patent Applications in 2015 increases 22.2%”, echoing propaganda from China like this new article whose headline is “Invention patent applications rose 18.7% in 2015″ (“invention patent” is a misleading term which conflates invention with filing). According to this new article from the British press (The Guardian), “Atieva worked quietly to perfect batteries and drivetrains, filing more than 100 patents and building battery packs for electric buses in China” (building and patenting are different things).
“One needs to decide if the importance of patenting outweighs the importance of life and the public interest.”Not only the EPO is falling into this trap of patent maximalism (measuring the wrong thing, based on false premises). Here in the UK, lives of people seem to matter less than corporate profits, so the UK BioIndustry Association (BIA) gets involved in high-profile US cases, complaining about Sequenom v. Ariosa because an invalidation jeopardises high prices/monopoly. This decision is good for life saving, but it is not so good for billionaires who want to make billions annually, claiming to develop “life-saving medicines” while only offering such medicines to the rich. Medicine would be developed without lots of patents as well; a lot of such development is already subsidised by taxpayers anyway.
One needs to decide if the importance of patenting outweighs the importance of life and the public interest. If the patent ‘industry’ gets its way, there will be more patents, for the same reasons that the prison/penal industry (infamously in the US) wants more people behind bars, private healthcare wants more illness (i.e. more patients), and arms manufacturers want to create and deepen armed conflicts. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Asia, Patents at 5:22 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
English/Original
Article as ODF
Publicado en Asia, Patentes at 7:45 am por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz
La RCEP amenaza con entorpecer/obstaculizar el desarrollo del (software) en la India
India Gate
Sumario: La amenaza que arrastra otro acuerdo denominado de “comercio” cuyo impacto a favor de los MONOPOLIOS contra los intereses del pueblo de la India y por lo tanto debe ser rechazadas por ellos
LASociedad Regional de Economía Comprehensiva (RCEP) ha sido mencionada en conjunto con la TPP reciéntemente. Por un poco de información acerca de porqué es tan controversial vean la publicación tituladad “MSF Preocupada Acerca de la Nueva Amenaza a Medicines al Alcance en Negociaciones Comerciales con la India y la ASEAN”entre varios otros, incluyendo reportes periódisticos [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]. Tiene todos los elementos de ‘tratado de comercio’ liderado por las grandes multinacionales, donde ellas arriman sus deseos y tratan de hacer sus egoístas leyes multinacionales la norma en todo el mundo, todo en un tiro, usualmente después de negociaciones a puertas cerradas y a veces -leáse frecuentemente – el soborno de politicos (veanlos incidentes en Japon, sin mencionar a Latino América).
“Tiene todos los elementos de ‘tratado de comercio’ liderado por las grandes multinacionales, donde ellas arriman sus deseos y tratan de hacer sus egoístas leyes multinacionales la norma en todo el mundo, todo en un tiro, usualmente después de negociaciones a puertas cerradas y a veces -leáse frecuentemente – el soborno de politicos (veanlos incidentes en Japon, sin mencionar a Latino América).”
Un elemento interesante de la cobertura sobre la RCEP son las “disposiciones TRIPS plus provisiones“. RCEP muestra que la India también se ve afectada por todo este golpe de patentes, siempre que el interés nacional de la India se ven socavados en secreto (ya que el público estaría furioso si se conocieran lo que ocurre a sus espaldas). Un dato aún más interesante es criado en relación con los sindicatos [1, 2] y la próxima semana habrá una reanudación de las conversaciones en Australia (esto adquisición corporativa del mundo parece ser de tendencia anglosajona).
Dado quelas reglas de la India acerca de patentes de software, que se parecen a algo como laEPO uno debe estar vigilánte por el impacto de la patentabilidad del software. Como el Economic Timeslo puso ayer, “las charlas de la RCEP afectarían a las startups al permitir la patentibilidad del software” y para citar al autor:
La Sociedad Regional de Economía Comprensiva (RCEP), un acuerdo comercial Mega siendo negociado entre 16 países, entre ellos la India, podría tener un impacto adverso en las industrias de servicios y tecnología startups, si se permite que una cláusula sobre las patentes de software sería obligada a ser aceptada.
“La cláusula propuesta en el Tratado de Libre Comercio está negociando podría resultar en compuertas están abiertas para las patentes en el campo del software,” dijo Software Freedom Law Centre en una carta al secretario de Comercio, de fecha 18 de abril.
“Esto va a hacer que la escritura de código y la innovación en el campo del software de una propuesta arriesgada similar a pisar un campo de minas, con el revelador al tanto de cuando podría ser accidental infringir una patente. Esto también podría dificultar el éxito del programa “Digital India’ y dañar a la industria/TI nacional de software, así como la iniciativa ‘Hecho en la India” iniciativa”, que la afectaría aún más.
Esto cita al Software Freedom Law Centre (SFLC), quien hizo un excelente trabajo en la India previo al rechazo (de nuevo) de las patentes de software.
Animamos a nuestros lectores de la India a presionar en contra de la RCEP en adelanto a la reunión de la próxima semana. Hay mucho riesgo en esto y los cabilderos y grupos de presión por las patentes de software nunca se cansan ni dejarán de joder, no importa cuántas veces sean derrotados, volverán a las andadas y mientras hayan políticos corruptos encontrarán una manera de infiltrárse de nuevo. !India no bajen la guardia!
Permalink
Send this to a friend
04.23.16
Posted in Asia, Patents at 7:45 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
RCEP threatens to hamper (software) development in India
India Gate
Summary: The creeping threat of another so-called ‘trade’ deal whose impact favours monopolies against the interests on Indians and must thus be rejected by Indians
THE Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) has been mentioned alongside the TPP recently. For a little information about what makes it so controversial see the press release titled “MSF Concerned About New Threat to Affordable Medicines in Trade Negotiations with India and ASEAN” among several others, including media reports [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]. It has all the elements of a corporations-led ‘trade’ deal, where large multi-national corporations pile up their wishlists and try to make their selfish desires multi-national laws, all in one fell swoop, usually after negotiations behind closed doors and sometimes bribery of politicians (see the incidents in Japan for example).
“It has all the elements of a corporations-led ‘trade’ deal, where large multi-national corporations pile up their wishlists and try to make their selfish desires multi-national laws, all in one fell swoop, usually after negotiations behind closed doors and sometimes bribery of politicians (see the incidents in Japan for example).”One interesting element of the coverage about RCEP is the “TRIPS plus provisions”. RCEP shows that India too is affected by this whole patent coup, where the national interests of India are undermined in secret (as the public would be furious if the proceedings were known). An even more interesting tidbit is brought up in relation to unions [1, 2] and next week there will be a resumption of the talks in Australia (this corporate takeover of the world seems to be Anglo-Saxon-leaning).
Given India’s rules on software patents, which resemble somewhat the EPO‘s, one must watch out for the impact on software patenting. As the Economic Times put it yesterday, “RCEP talks could affect startups by allowing patenting of computer software” and to quote the author:
The ongoing Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), a mega trade agreement being negotiated between 16 countries including India, could have an adverse impact on the startup and technology services industries, if a clause on software patents is allowed to pass.
“The proposed clause in the Free Trade Agreement being negotiated could result in floodgates being opened for patents in the field of software,” Software Freedom Law Centre said in a letter to the Commerce Secretary, dated April 18.
“This will make writing code and innovating in the field of software a risky proposition akin to stepping on a minefield, with the developer unaware of when he could be accidentally infringing on a patent. This could also hinder the success of the ‘Digital India’ programme and hurt the domestic software/IT industry as well as the ‘Make in India’ initiative,” it further adds.
This quotes Software Freedom Law Centre (SFLC), which previously did some fine work in India ahead of the rejection (again) of software patents.
We encourage readers who are in India to put pressure against RCEP ahead of next week’s meeting. There is a lot at stake here and lobbyists for software patents never grow tired, no matter how many times they get defeated. █
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