01.28.16
Posted in America, Deception, Patents at 6:45 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Helping patent trolls, whose weapon of choice is software patents
Robert L. Stoll speaks at an event of the Chemical Heritage Foundation, not to be mistaken for a greedy, Koch Industries-tied, right-wing anti-science think tank called the Heritage Foundation (photo source)
Summary: The latest example of biased, incomplete coverage regarding patents, where people who profit from patent feuds pretend to speak for US interests rather than themselves and mega-corporations which they came from
THE MEDIA’S reporting on issues such as patents is poor if not outright appalling. The media likes speaking to patent lawyers rather than people who are actually impacted by patents. The media also speaks to officials of the patent system, such as David Kappos, an IBM employee who ran the USPTO and now makes money from patent maximalism inside a patents-centric firm (from public office to private vultures, or revolving doors). He promotes software patents these days.
“The media likes speaking to patent lawyers rather than people who are actually impacted by patents.”Speaking of IBM, as we noted here the other day, Forbes keeps hyping up the accumulation of patents (“Why Does IBM’s Intellectual Property Revenue Continue To Decline”) for reasons that are to do with ownership (of media). As long as large corporations dominate the media, the bias will be embedded and many people will just take it for granted, unless they read alternative media or blogs such as this.
The propaganda persists today, courtesy of what The Hill misleadingly labels “contributor” (sounds innocent enough); supported by patent lawyers who love software patents, Robert L. Stoll has just published in lobbyists’ media an attack on the Alice-related tests. “New patent subject-matter eligibility test hurts US competitiveness” says the headline. What utter nonsense. One again the USPTO or some patent lawyer pretends that software patents are good for the US economy (maybe good for his own parasitic occupation, contrary to the real economy). “For this reason,” he concludes, our courts must reexamine the “two-prong test” on patent subject-matter eligibility. America’s innovation economy and the jobs it creates cannot long survive the abandonment of the broad subject-matter eligibility that has made us world leaders in innovation for the past century.”
“The policies they advocate also help patent trolls and software patents proponents such as IBM (which Kappos came from).”What jobs has Stoll held which actually produced something? Has Stoll even written a single line of code in his lifetime? Who is Stoll anyway? By his own description, “Stoll is a partner and co-chair of the intellectual property group at Drinker Biddle & Reath and a former commissioner for patents at the United States Patent and Trademark Office.” According to his work profile: “He earned his law degree from Catholic University while working at the USPTO. He received his bachelor’s degree in chemical engineering from the University of Maryland.” Nothing at all to do with software then.
It’s sad that those reading the corporate/mainstream media are exposed to views from the likes of Stoll and Kappos. They don’t care about “America’s innovation economy and the jobs” as they claim. They just care about their own job, which involves taxing (patent tax) those who actually create stuff. The policies they advocate also help patent trolls and software patents proponents such as IBM (which Kappos came from). █
“If you would persuade, you must appeal to interest rather than intellect.”
–Benjamin Franklin
Permalink
Send this to a friend
01.27.16
Posted in America, Patents at 5:59 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
English/Original
Publicado en Patents at 12:19 pm por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz
La ganancia como motivo distorsiónan las noticias o la naturaleza de los debates públicos
Puede un tratado normalizar las relaciones de Occidente con Irán y poner límites a su desarrollo de tecnología nuclear llevar a un más pacífico menos armado Medio Oriente.
Sumario: Como el Complejo Militar Industrial, los abogados del establishment trabajan duro para perpetuar el sistema que continua ordeñando, ganando por juicios y riesgos percibidos (armamento de patentes)
TECHRIGHTS está logrando un objetivo a largo plazo con el fin de muchas patentes de software en los Estados Unidos. El ruling de la Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos (SCOTUS) en Alice se convirtió en una pesadilla para un montón de abogados de patentes y muchos de esos EGOÍSTAS maximalistas de patentes rabian acerca de más casos de SCOTUS, tanto como en Bilski en su momento. Hemos venido a confíar en la Corte Suprema, cuyos veredictos son citados frecuentemente (a veces ambos Alice y Bilski) para ayudar a los jueces a invalidar las patentes y descartar juicios de patentes.
Este sitio web de abogados de patentes ha públicado el ¨Reporte Anual en Casos de Propiedad Intelectual de China¨ (dado por la Corte Suprema del Pueblo en Abril 21, 2015) y dijo: ¨En 2014, la Corte Suprema del Pueblo se adherió a la administracion de justicia para el pueblo e impartir justicia¨ como sus temas de trabajo, activamente implementados en su estrategia de casos de propiedad intelectual del estado, plenamente resaltando el rol judicial en la protección intelectual, intensificar la reforma judicial de propiedad intelectual, continuamente reforzando las capacidades juiciales y credibilidad asi como expander su esfera internacional de protección de la propiedad intelectual, haciendo así positivas contribuciones al desarrollo de la innovación en una China bajo el gobierno de la ley.¨
Ahora que mucho de la industria productiva se ha mudado a China, uno se pregunta si China es tierra fértil para los abogados de patentes Occidentales también. El sistema de patentes de los Estados Unidos seguro no les muestra mucho amor, especialmente sí se trata de patentes de software (que están en le núclo de un largo número de casos de patentes actualmente basado en figuras accessibles al público).
Veán este artículo del Enterpreuner titulado ¨Consigue una Patente de Software para Protegerte, Pero Preparate para un Proceso Frustante¨ (titular engañoso).
¨Para una compañía de software nueva,¨ dice el autor, ¨una patente puede ser la propiedad intelectual que le dé una clave ventaja competitiva, o puede ser una onerosa no-defendible pesadilla burocrática- o ambos. Todavía aconsejo a estas nuevas compañías solicitar una patente para poner una barrera a la competencia e aumentar su valor ante los inversores, pero cada empresario necesita entender los pros y cons.¨
Bueno hemos explicado repetidamente por que las patentes no lo hacen y no pueden ayudar a las compañías nuevas, especialmente en el area de software. No pueden enjuciar a Trolls de Patentes así como a gigantescas corporaciones porque cada pieza de software esta garantizada de infringir muchas diferentes patentes; aquellos que cuenten con un arsenal de ellas siempre ganan. El autor dice: ¨La libre y creciente comunidad del Software Libre, que cubre la mayoría de apps móbiles y de web, se oponen a ellas como un IMPEDIMIENTO O PROHIBICIÓN de distribuír software libre. Por definición, las patentes limitan la comercialización, frecuencia y rango de nuevas innovaciones.¨
“Hemos venido a confíar en la Corte Suprema, cuyos veredictos son citados frecuentemente (a veces ambos Alice y Bilski) para ayudar a los jueces a invalidar las patentes y descartar juicios de patentes.”¨El título de aquella parte dice ¨Patentes existen para contrarrestar las iniciativas de Open Source y Software Libre.¨ Por ello nos metimos en este tipo de activismo en primer lugar, allá por 2006.¨
Rob Tiller (Red Hat) reciéntemente hablo acerca de ¨hackeando el sistema de patentes¨ – articulo que le trajo un montón de críticas de parte de varias figuras de la FFII por que en lugar de combatir las patentes de software el trata de ¨hackear¨ el sistema. Las patentes de software no pueden coexistir con el Sofware Libre, pero Tiller ¨alcanzó a Daniel Nazer de la Fundación de Frontera Electrónica (EFF) para presentar unas preguntas relatadas con patentes de software. Daniel is un abogado de la EFF, donde ocupa es el líder de Mark Cuban para eliminar ESTÚPIDAS PATENTES y enfocarse en una reforma de patentes.¨
Es un diálogo entre dos abogados, uno de ellos financiado por un troll de patentes, Vringo, y el otro por un aplicante de patentes de software, Red Hat.
Recuérden que los abogados de patentes hacen dinero de las disputas. Para una persona como Tiller, las patentes son dinero, así que naturalmente no quiere que estas desaparezcan. Por ello Red Hat le paga un salario. Generalmente confíamos en programadores (o exáminadores) mucho más que abogados. Es notable resaltar que Tiller disfruta (como plataforma de publicación) un sitio de ¨noticias¨ de Red Hat que no son realmente noticias (simplemente marketing de Red Hat, tours y promoción servil).
“El sistema de patentes de los Estados Unidos seguro no les muestra mucho amor, especialmente si se trata de patentes de software…”¨Hay mucha gente allí, especialmente abogados de patentes y sus ricos clientes (como Microsoft), que trabajan duro para expandir la esfera de las patentes. Son maxímalistas. Tienen su propia media, que ellos llaman/consideran ¨magazines¨, ¨news¨, etc.
En el ´magazine´ IAM, que recibe dinero de la OEP, abogados de patenes y sus chacales dicen que la India necesita más patentes, probablemente patentes de software; es como Raytheon diciendo que necesitamos más guerras. Esto se relaciona mucho con diferentes reports (vimos docenas de ellos) acerca de Modi tratándo de animar patentización incluso cuando claramente es mal guíado.
Dos artículos [1, 2] de Dennis Crouch, otro proponente de más patentes (maximalist)echa gasolina a la fogata de patentes. Una dice ¨la corte afirmo el otorgamiento de la firma Regla 12(b)(6) moción para descartar una queja que en términos amplios alega que la firma Finnegan tuvo un conflicto por que represnento al acusado y otr cliente en obtener patentes aplicando por lentes sin montura. Hay dos amplios problemas: cuando la prosecución de patentes para un cliente y ser adverso para el otro, cuando dos patentes son tan similares que perseguirlas limita la habilidad del abogado para representar a cualquiera de ellos.¨
“…explicamos repetidamente por que las patents son inhábiles y no pueden ayudar a las compañías nuevas, especialmente en el area del software.”¨Otra dice que el Circuíto Federa rechazó el desafío de Carl Coopers a la propiedad constitucional al sistema de revisión de interpartes (IPR) implementado por la USPTO. Problemas similares han sido decididos en MCM versus HP (Fed Cir 2015). En ese caso el Circuíto Federal sostuvo que el sistema IPR no viola el artículo III de la Constitución de los Estados Unidos tampoco el Septimo Ammendment de ella. Como escribí en diciembre, la decisión MCM ¨esencialmente cierra las paralelas procedimientos de Carl Cooper.¨¨
Por detalles acerca de los biases de CAFC vean el previos post acerca de Alice y patentes en los Estados Unidos. Previamente escribimos acerca de la corrupcion en la CAFC y generalmente consideramos esta corte estar en los bolsillos de los abogados de patentes.
Temprano en December, un caso contra Mercedes fue mencionado aquí. Fue acerca de patentes de sofware. Justin Blows abogado de patentes australiano (Australia es muy suave en patentes de software dicen los abogados de patentes de Australia este mes) escribió acerca de este caso (¨Inteligencia Vehicular versus Mercedes Benz, a 101/Caso Alice¨) y notó: ¨Quejas de US patente 7,393,392 en el nombre de Inteligencia Vehicular y Seguridad LLC fueron encontrados no dignos de patentes bajo la 35 USC 101 porque el reclamo sólo cubre ideas abstractas junto con rutinarios recojo de datos y convencional actividad de ordenardor.¨
“Recuerden que los abogados de patentes hacen dinero de las disputa.”¨Este fue otro caso donde Alice venció las patentes de software. ¨Patentabilidad de software es generalmente materia subjetiva,¨ añadió Blows en relación con otro caso, ¨sin embargo si el propósito de la invención de software es materia abstracta entonces debe haber un mayor concepto inventivo que apropiadamente limite los reclamos para evitar prohibición de un vasto futuro de actividad inventiva.¨
Blows citó también este caso a favor de patentes de software resaltando: ¨para ser patentable, una invención informática debe ser necesariamente enraízada en ella para sobreponerse a un problema surgido en ella misma¨
Bueno la USPTO ha cambiado sus manuales por lo menos una vez desde el caso Alice, pero a diferencia de las cortes, es motivada por los dólares y otorga muchisímas patentes (92% de aplicaciones).
“Hay mucha gente allí, especialmente abogados de patentes y sus ricos clientes (como Microsoft), que trabajan duro para expandir la esfera de las patentes.”¨Girando puertas¨ son una materia común en la USPTO (gobernada por gente de IBM o Google) y ahora su ´ex´ empleados de Oracle serán confíados con el gobierno de la USPTO en Colorado. Como lo puso WIPR el otro día, ¨Kocialski previamente trabajó en Oracle como veterano en consejo de patentes y su experiencia en post-otorgamiento y investigaciones de patentes.¨
Hay un serio problema cuando un sistema de patentes es governado por políticos, la EPO sirve para mostrarlo. Es discutiblemente mucho peor cuando la gente de las grandes corporaciones la gobiernan. He aquí la opinión de IAM en el rol del presidente en el sistema de patentes (este rol no debería existir). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
01.26.16
Posted in America, Patents at 2:58 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: A long roundup of recent patent news from the US, where things are changing for the better in some aspects but are still pretty grim, mostly because of the centralisation of patents (very few corporations holding the lion’s share) and widespread exploitation by trolls
THINGS in the United States have changed rather drastically since the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) ruled on Alice with that silly software patent. Gradually, if not reluctantly too, the USPTO amended its guidelines so as to become more in line with courts’ judgments (which as a consequence of Alice chose to invalidate a lot of software patents). This long post will provide an overview of some of the things that happened earlier this month.
CAFC
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, often referred to as CAFC (shorthand), is where software patents got started. It’s also where many of them came to survive, or to receive the court’s blessings. We covered many examples of this before and after the Bilski case. According to the patents-centric (and pro-software patents) blog Patently-O, patent litigation continues to be a major headache where only lawyers win. “The Federal Circuit did not award fees or costs to either party,” the post concludes. Patent examiners and applicants ought to be aware of what patent lawyers are really after when they encourage patenting, lawsuits, etc. They always win, irrespective of the outcome (who wins).
Patent Lawyers
Patent lawyers who are also the most vocal software patents proponents are now trying to lecture the world about the views of opponents of software patents. One of them says: “The loudest argument against software patents is not that software shouldn’t be patented because it is not innovative, but rather that patents are not needed because with software it is all about speed to market and the advantage that the so-called first mover will achieve. As the theory goes, all you need to do is get to market first and a tremendous advantage will be achieved by getting early adopters to use the software and integrate it into their lives, or businesses.”
Actually, this isn’t the argument I ever hear from opponents of software patents, not even the FFII. It’s easy to debunk or to refute an argument which was never made in the first place, like a straw man or a red herring.
Patent Profiteers
Going back to Patently-O, a maximalist of patents (watch who runs the site), in a series of recent posts [1, 2, 3] it wrote a lot about SCOTUS and the Constitution. If one actually follows the US Constitution, then one soon realises that those who wrote it would most likely oppose software patents. We covered this one particular aspect of the law several years back. The SCOTUS rulings seem to agree with our views on that, hence the Alice case.
“Wow,” wrote this one patent lawyer from Europe, the “US software patent invalidation rate [is] at 82,9% due to Alice abstract idea test!”
This one lawyer, Bastian Best, profits from patent maximalism and realises that software patents got too tough a business. He has just written a detailed post about it.
All sorts of patent lawyers, not just in Europe but also in Australia, have become interested in US patent law. One of them, Mr. Blows (real name), posts lots of analyses of US cases involving Alice [1, 2]. Blows says that the “US position on software patents has gone through a significant change in the last five or so years, from being broadly accepting to becoming a difficult jurisdiction. [...] What precipitated this? If the concurring opinion of Circuit Judge Mayer in ULTRAMERICIAL, INC. v HUKU, LLC 2010-1544 (Fe. Cir. 2014) is to given credit, then the blame rests squarely with vexatious litigants, particularly “patent trolls”. [...] Many believe however, that the legal framework (the Alice 2-step abstract idea test) that has been developed is a blunt tool that throws the baby out with the bathwater. It is a shame, and it would be desirable if more targeted approach could be found. [...] Determining if a computer implemented invention is patentable in the US can be difficult. This heavily cited decision is clearer than most, and shows how a routine implementation of an “abstract idea” may be found to be patent ineligible.”
We have been gratified to learn of cases since the middle of 2014 where software patents got squashed by citing Alice. There’s no sign of changing this and no foreseeable case at SCOTUS level that can reverse this.
Non-litigating Academics
We are big fans of Bessen and his colleagues or co-authors. We last mentioned him two months ago. Over the years Bessen wrote many papers and articles about software patents, patent trolls, and so on. Here he is quoted in “The Rise of Lawyer 2.0″ as follows: “James Bessen, a BU School of Law researcher, found a positive relationship between the degree of computerization in a particular job category and employment growth. A good example of this for lawyers is e-Discovery. It has created more document review work for lawyers. At the same time, it has also accelerated the disaggregation process and has ushered in the age of legal service providers.”
Patent lawyers think about patent lawyers. Bessen is not a patent lawyer but more of an economist. His academic page describes him as a professor who “studies the economics of innovation and patents. He has also been a successful innovator and CEO of a software company.”
Rather than listen to sites such as IAM (Intellectual Asset Management) more people out there should pay attention to the likes of Bessen. He has nothing to gain from bias.
Corporate/Wall Street Media
Of course it’s not just patent lawyers who want more patents everywhere. What’s with Forbes (the plutocrats’ rag) publishing so many pro-patents (and pro-software patents too) pieces as of late? Well, look who’s writing pieces such as this. To quote his own introduction: “I am the chairman and CEO of the intellectual property (IP) advisory and optimization firm Dominion Harbor Group, and have been named one of the world’s top intellectual property strategists by Intellectual Asset Management magazine.”
Intellectual Asset Management ‘magazine’ (IAM) is an EPO-funded propaganda site for patents. That explains his bias and patent maximalism, which IAM is known (or notorious) for.
The solution to this is twofold. First, expose the issues with the current ‘news’ sites that claim to be covering patents (a lot of them are funded by patent lawyers, who are considered subscribers and thus command the agenda/bias). On the other hand, waste no time trying to change corporate media. It won’t work. Make alternatives to it. Lead to a situation whereby corporate media dies (too expensive to maintain) and people go to sites such as Groklaw for information about patents.
IAM: A Case Apart
IAM is not an ordinary site. It’s a parallel universe. This, for example, is pro-patents propaganda titled “US start-up employment and sales growth rates boosted by patents, new research reveals” (‘research’ in scare quotes).
It has nothing to do with patents; they are doing fine, in some cases, IN SPITE of patents, not thanks to them. IAM is the voice of the occupiers in the patent world; the EPO-funded IAM ‘magazine’ is now crying for patent aggressors such as SEP trolls (similar to NPE trolls). Here is IAM defending the patent mafia Sisvel under the headline “German appeal court halts Sisvel injunction in key SEP litigation case”.
People who invalidate patents are “death squad” in the minds of IAM ‘magazine’ (writers there are people who call patents “assets”/”property”, not man-made monopolies on ideas).
IBM Glamour Over Patents
About a week ago Florian Müller linked to this article titled “If Patents Are So Valuable Why Does IBM’s Intellectual Property Revenue Continue To Decline”. This article too is from Forbes and it says: “While the value of patents isn’t calculated just by the revenue they generate, it is interesting to see how IBM is doing with this financial line item. Between 2008 and 2012 IBM’s patent portfolio generated between $1.1 and $1.2 billion per year. It has fallen each year since then to $742 million in 2014 and could fall again in 2015 to under $700 million.”
Another noteworthy article which mentioned IBM (there were plenty, but most just mentioned the number of US patents granted to IBM) was titled “2015 “Most patent disputes in history”, IBM most patents again”. Citing UnifiedPatents, the article said:
A wave of patent reports has been doing the rounds at the start of this year, as legal experts from a range of industries attempt to summarize the sometimes complex field – from the myriad of patent disputes to the countless patents granted or declined.
A patent dispute report from UnifiedPatents, which observes filings with both the US Patent and Trademark Office and disputes in federal district courts, found that overall patent disputes totaled 5,500 in 2015 – an increase of 13% compared to the previous year, and the highest ever recorded.
By industry, UnifiedPatents reported that the majority of patent litigation in 2015 involved high-tech patents (patents covering technologies related to computing or consumer electronics) that were asserted against high-tech and non-tech companies. Of all the high-tech litigation cases of 2015, a mammoth 87.6% involved non-practicing entities (NPEs), otherwise known as patent trolls.
We wrote a lot of articles about this before, including a few articles about the latest figures from IBM and from UnifiedPatents. Proponents of software patents are doing a lot of damage to the USPTO because it now tops the lowest of leagues (lowest patent quality) by doubling the number of patents granted. This isn’t innovation, it’s dilution and lowering of a bar. “Small guy”/”poor inventor” IBM also helps debunk the “small guy”/”poor inventor” myth. Who is this system really intended to serve? Articles such as “IBM keeps top spot as US patent leader, study says” and “IBM tops patent list for 23rd time” remind us that it’s not a new problem.
Patent Trolls Love It
“88% Patent Troll rate,” claimed this person earlier this month, sharing the image below.
Does that help support the “small guy”/”poor inventor” myth? No, it serves to show that the only “small” entity which benefits is a parasite, or a troll. “Patent Trolls Laughed All the Way to the Bank Last Year,” says this recent headline from Spectator. To quote some key bits: “Lost in the haze of New Year’s Resolutions and wall-to-wall election coverage, a very disturbing fact for America’s inventors emerged early this month: The number of lawsuits filed by non-practicing entities (NPEs), more properly known as “patent trolls,” increased by 25 percent in 2015. As a quick reminder for those who might not have followed the issue yet, patent trolls are companies that exist solely to extort money for (often comically vague and totally unused) patents, at the expense of actual inventors and small businesses.
“Indeed, patent abuse in general had a pretty strong year in 2015, with its poster boy probably being Martin Shkreli, the infamously extortionate hedge fund manager who jacked up the price of the drug Daraprim by over 5000 percent simply because he owned the (expired) patent for it. Shkreli, fortunately, was quickly outcompeted by generic drug manufacturers, who took advantage of the patent’s expiration, but not everyone was so easily saved from patent profiteers.”
A short while ago even the patent lawyers from IP Kat found themselves having to admit that there’s a problem here . “Much ado about the patent troll problem,” one section said. “Earlier this month,” wrote their biggest proponent of software patents (‘Amerikat’), “an analysis published by RPX Corp reported that non-practicing entities (NPEs) filed over 3,600 patent cases in the US in 2015. This was an increase of over 700 cases from the previous year. With NPEs being the most active in the high tech sector, it is no surprise that their 2015 top target was Samsung with 71 cases brought against it by NPEs. AT&T (50), HP (43), Apple (40) and Dell (40) were not too far behind.”
There’s no decent way to justify this or characterise this as desirable.
ACSLaw also weighed in very recently. It asked: “Why are so many patent cases filed in the Eastern District of Texas? It’s not for the barbecue. And it’s not because the remote, largely rural district is a technology hub. Rather, it’s because local rules and practices make the district attractive to patent plaintiffs. More specifically, local practices make the district very attractive to companies – known as patent trolls – whose sole business model is to buy patents and sue.”
People from FFII haven’t been saying much about patent trolls, which basically stole the thunder of the debate about software patents (that patent trolls typically use). “Does not change much on the inability of independent developers to defend themselves,” ranted the FFII’s President the other week, “then focus on curing the disease, not the symptoms like it is proposed.” (see context here)
“EDTX [Eastern District of Texas] had 95% Patent Troll rate overall last year,” one account is quoted as saying. “89% of Patent Trolls Target Tech,” this account added, citing Figure 10 from some unknown paper:
Locked behind a paywall is this article about the known issue in Texas. It says:
The United States has 94 federal judicial districts, but in 2015, almost half of all new patent cases were filed in just one—the Eastern District of Texas.
Texas is also mentioned in this analysis about change of patent venue (to courts more favourable to the plaintiff, usually the trolls). “In the pending mandamus action of TC Heartland,” it says, “the merits panel has taken one step forward by ordering oral arguments – set for March 11, 2016. Although the order was a per curiam decision by the Merits Panel, it does not, on its face, reveal the identity of the three judge panel. The petition asks the Federal Circuit to change its rule on patent venue and personal jurisdiction. If the petitioner here wins, we could see a dramatic shift in the geographic distribution of patent cases. In other words, it would become much more difficult to bring an infringement action in the ongoing hot-spot of the Eastern District of Texas.”
Texas, the patent trolls’ haven, may lose a lot of business if the rules do change. Expect Texas to fight to keep this kind of wild west of patent litigation.
It’s not always trolls that sue over patents or even more specifically software patents. Here is a recent example that made the news:
Two major providers of police body-worn cameras have become embroiled in a patent battle.
Kansas-based Digital Ally sued Arizona-based Taser International late last week. The company accused Taser’s Axon Flex body cameras of infringing its US Patent No. 8,781,292. The patent describes linking together a body-worn camera, a vehicle-based camera, and a “managing apparatus” that communicate with each other.
IDG recently published the article “What’s next for patent trolls, and can the Supreme Court stop them?”
Well, in order to stop them one needs to check who gives them (or funnels to them) patents in the first place and what for.
It seems like a case of some obscure LLC versus Cisco may soon reach the Supreme Court. Remember that Patent Troll Tracker was a Cisco lawyer at the time. Cisco had suffered a lot from patent trolls.
Troll Feeders
It is worth noting that many trolls, including those that act as Microsoft’s satellites, play a role for large companies. They engage in proxy wars. Blackberry, as we warned in many articles in the past, is feeding (or prepares to feed) a lot of patent parasites for money. This is sad news, especially in light of Blackberry’s adoption of Android, but it back in September that “the company’s CEO John Chen talked about monetisation of its 44,000-strong patent portfolio as being “an important aspect of our turnaround”.”
We recently mentioned some patent trolls that effectively act as Microsoft’s henchmen. We mentioned Finjan in the distant past and recently revisited it. Watch this article which says: “Finjan Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: FNJN), a cybersecurity company, [subsidiary Finjan, Inc.] today announced that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) for the United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) denied six of Symantec Corporations petitions for Inter Partes Review (IPR) of Finjan patents with two serial petitions denied on 7,756,996 (’996 Patent), and further denials on Finjan’s patents 8,141,154 (’154 Patent), 8,015,182 (’182 Patent), 7,930,299 (’299 Patent) and 7,757,289 (’289 Patent).”
Finjan is rapidly becoming a medium-side patent troll, smaller than entities such as Acacia or Intellectual Ventures (Microsoft-connected). The latter two entities have the advantage of being effectively immune from litigation because they have no products of their own, unlike Microsoft or its friends at Finjan.
A new article by Joe Mullin, titled “Wait… we sued who?! Patent troll drops case one day after Newegg’s lawyer calls”, shows that in some rare cases patent trolls can actually be deterred by something, despite having no products to be sued over. To quote Mullin: “A shell company that sued dozens of computer peripheral makers has quickly dropped Newegg house brand Rosewill from its list of defendants. The motion to dismiss, filed yesterday, comes just days after Newegg’s lawyers filed notices of their appearance in the case.
“Minero Digital LLC dismissed its case against Rosewill one day after Newegg Chief Legal Officer Lee Cheng authorized his outside lawyer to try to settle the case in exchange for a “nominal donation to charity.” During that conversation (the attorneys’ first discussion about the case), Newegg’s outside counsel said that although the proposed agreement wouldn’t pay Minero anything, it was likely to be Newegg’s best and final offer. He suggested Minero search the Internet for news articles about Newegg’s policies on settling “patent troll” type cases. (The short version: Newegg doesn’t pay patent trolls.)”
Software Patents
Patent maximalist Dennis Crouch wrote the other day about Alice. Crouch gives an overview of SCOTUS patent cases, which is handy, among other things, but this time he said that a “patent is not permitted to effectively claim an abstract idea. In Mayo/Alice, the Supreme Court outlined a two-step process for determining whether this exception applies to Section 101’s otherwise broad eligibility principles: (1) is the claim at issue directed to a patent-ineligible concept and (2) if so, does the claim include an “inventive concept … sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.””
Techrights was always (and still is) predominantly opposed to software patents, not patents as a whole. We hope that when the US gives a deathblow to software patents the rest of the world will too. This includes the out-of-control EPO. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
01.24.16
Posted in America, Law, Patents at 10:54 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Even the United Stated (US) Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), the original creator of software patents, is required to obey the law
Summary: Additional evidence of the consistent demise of software patents in the US, which had gradually become more lenient on the subject/domain and after the SCOTUS ruled against software patents any court which follows caselaw is now becoming strict, even reluctantly so
THE PAST fortnight brought us several new examples where software patents got invalidated — once brought before a court — thanks to the Alice case. This will be the subject of some imminent posts of ours. One example, as covered by Patent Hawk the other day, says: “First Choice Loan Services sued Mortgage Grader for infringing its financial transaction patents. In light of the Supreme Court’s Alice decision, the district court found the patent claims directed to unpatentable abstract ideas. The CAFC affirmed (2012-1042). “Computational methods which can be performed entirely in the human mind are the types of methods that embody the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are free to all men and reserved exclusively to none.””
There is another report about it, composed by Andrew Chung and published by Reuters. It stated: “The owner of two patents on technology used for selecting mortgages online has learned the hard way just how much of a sea change the U.S. Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision was after a U.S. appeals court upheld the patents’ cancellation on Wednesday.
“A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said a California federal judge did not abuse his discretion in allowing, and then granting, a late-filed Alice-based motion to invalidate Mortgage Grader Inc’s patent claims.”
“A lot of campaigners against software patents are now seeing what 5 years ago they considered impossible.”A similar report (behind paywall) was composed by/for lawyers and asked: “Remember when some experts said the 2014 Supreme Court ruling wasn’t likely to be a game changer?” (the title of this report is “Federal Circuit [CAFC] Strikes Two Software Patents Under ‘Alice’“)
So who was right, the patent lawyers or Techrights? To his credit, Gene Quinn too predicted it would become a game changer.
CAFC is probably the most software patents-friendly court, perhaps in the whole world. Here is an article about a recent decision of CAFC, courtesy of patent maximalists. Patent lawyers still try to understand why software patents are collapsing even in the US and they study cases such as this one where “Claims of US patents 6,398,646 and 6,656,045 in the name of Planet Bingo, LLC were found not to be patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101 because the claims are directed to the abstract idea of managing a game of bingo, which is merely implemented on a computer executing purely conventional functions.”
Time permitting, we shall strive to cover as many cases like this as we can. There is an unambiguous trend in the US and it involves the demise of software patents, thanks to SCOTUS. A lot of campaigners against software patents are now seeing what 5 years ago they considered impossible. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
01.20.16
Posted in America, Europe, Patents at 7:39 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Corporate takeover of Europe by means of UPC
A civil war in Europe between the very rich Europeans (who help their rich friends overseas) and the rest of Europe
Summary: The EPO is liaising with patent lawyers and large US (or international) corporations to help make the Unitary Patent a reality, irrespective of the impact on European citizens
THE EPO is scandalous for many reasons, one of which is the loyalty to multinational corporations at the expense of Europe. IAM ‘magazine’, which organises an event in favour of the UPC (with funding from the EPO), said earlier this morning that the event “boasts a world-class speaking faculty, with senior representatives from the likes of the European Patent Office, Google, Microsoft, IBM, Nokia and Ericsson, as well as a number of leading European-based private practice lawyers, attorneys and intermediaries, all slated to take part.”
“And there’s a firm in the US, FTI Consulting, helping to fund this (at the behest of the EPO) by paying a publisher.”So what we have here are many US companies, patent lawyers, and EPO managers. Great, isn’t it? And there’s a firm in the US, FTI Consulting, helping to fund this (at the behest of the EPO) by paying a publisher. Nothing wrong here. Not at all! Shut your eyes and pretend that everything Battistelli says about the UPC is true. Battistelli would never lie!
‘Amerikat’ (Annsley Merelle Ward), a booster of software patents and of the UPC (for quite some time now), currently speaks about the UPC as though it’s already some kind of inevitable reality (it’s not). Dugie Standeford from IP Watch speaks about the UPC as a “priority in 2016,” but whose? Patent lawyers’ and Team Battistelli’s? “Work on the unitary patent system continues,” he wrote, “and there’s an increased focus on the issue of patents versus plant breeders’ rights.”
We wrote about patents on plants many times before, sometimes in relation to Europe. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
01.15.16
Posted in America, Patents at 7:17 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
English/Original
Publicado in America, Patents at 9:21 am por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Donde el dinero manda, las CORPORACIONES y sus DUEÑOS casi siempre consiguen sus deseos a expensas del público
Sumario: Comentario el el sistema de patentes de los Estados Unidos y por que nunca se ha saneado a sí mismo, ni será capaz de hacerlo si como ahora grandes corporaciones DOMINAN a las figuras políticas.
ANTES que nos enfoquemos en la OEP, habíamos estado escribiendo literalmente miles de artículos acerca de la Oficina de Patentes y Marcas de los Estados Unidos (USPTO), la que está completamente disfuncional, INJUSTA, y DETRIMENTAL al progreso humano.
IP watch, un sitio mayormente crítico del los existentes sistemas o estructuras, reciéntemente ha dicho que ¨Más de 50 miembros del Congreso de los Estados Unidos hoy envíaron una carta urgiendo al Departamente de Salud y Servicios Humanos (HHS) así como al Instituto Nacional de Salud (NIH) a ejercer su autoridad legal para exigir patentes medicas que han surgido de projectos de investigación médica financiados por el gobierno sean razonablemente y con términos posibles para uso público.
“Ayuda mostrar que las patentes frecuentemente tienen que ver con el PROTECCIONISMO que con innovación o servicio público. Es todo acerca de las CORPORACIONES, no el pueblo.”¨La letra [pdf], nacida en una creciente preocupacion del público por la alza de precios de medicinas prescribidas, discuten que la falla de usare esta medida nos lleva a imaginarnos que el gobierno de los Estados Unidos financia projectos con dinero de los contribuyentes que permiten ganancias sobre los pacientes llenos de dificultades y sus familias en vez de conseguir suficiente ganancia para investigación futura y los ingresos de los investigadores mismos.¨
Es fácil notar los problemas inherentes aquí, viendo lo absurdo de otorgar un monopolio de patentes, un monopolio obligado por el gobierno, derivado del dinero de los contribuyentes la cual el gobierno ordena ser dada. Ayuda mostrar que las patentes frecuentemente tienen que ver con el PROTECCIONISMO que con innovación o servicio público. Es todo acerca de las CORPORACIONES, no el pueblo.
Un nuevo artículo de centros de información de los banqueros alude al caso del Banco CLS, que es más conocido por el nombre del demandante, Alice. He aquí lo que dice acerca de las patentes de software:
Un caso prominente en esta área fue la decisión de 2014 acerca de Alice Corp. vs el CLS Bank, en la que la Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos juzgo que patentes de software relacionadas a pagos de seguridades son unpatentables, ya que los reclamos de patentes fuerón fundados en ideas abstractas.
¨Pienso que hay un movimiento en las cortes y el Congreso para restringir el alcanze de la patentibiildad del software,¨ dijo Knight.
Si, bueno hace tiempo hubo un saludable debate acerca de que las patentes de software deberían ser abolidas. Aquellos días están lejanos después que grandes corporaciones secuestraron los debates y los distorsionaron en debates acerca de trolls de patentes (significando pequeñas entidades (PYMEs) quienes las usan, contra corporaciones grandes). Toda esta ¨reforma¨ (para las largas corporaciones) virtualmente se han desvanecido (de las noticias y la política) después de las vacaciones de verano. Todo quedo aplastado y perdió su impulso. Esto es política. Est totalmente una locura cuando esta OBSTRUIDA por ¨PATRONES¨, ¨DONANTES¨ etc.
“…hace tiempo hubo un saludable debate acerca de que las patentes de software deberían ser abolidas.”Florian Müller dice a IP trackeador de Trolles (Steph): ¨Estoy de acuerdo que el focus en trolss es una justificación pobre para la reforma. Los trolls son simplemente un simptoma del problema.¨ El también pregunta ¨¿Así que también sientes que los promotores de reforma de patentes han sido muy tímidos hasta ahora en su formulación del problema y sus propuestas?¨
Esto fue después de que escribió una larga y emocionada declamación acerca del rol de corrección política (o talvez en el sexto sentido que es dinero para contribuir a campañas) en la reluctancia a deshacernos de un sistema que PROMUEVE chantajeadores de patentes. Para citar la parte apolítica (no promoción del GOP):
Los promotores de reforma de patentes ha sido desilucionados termino trás termino, presidencia tras presidencia. Washington tiene a una reputacion de ¨haz nada¨, pero un mar de cambios se avistan en la esquina, y también pueda ayudar a crear un ambiente en el cual, finalmente los masivos y drámaticos problemas causados por un sistema de patentes quebrado pueda ser corregido más fuerte y con coraje que antes.
Correción política tiene terribles efectos por que evita que los políticos, medios de comunicación y el público en general discutan los asuntos reales sin disfrazar palabras, y cuando tu no puedes incluso hablar de los asuntos reales, estás muy lejos de identificar e implementar soluciones.
Corrección política es la causa raíz de muchos problemas no sólo en tales contextos como política de inmigracion o el problema de ciertas etnías índices de criminalidad.
Hay muchas areas en las cuales un dogma ha sido convertido en un axioma. Aunque soy un ambientalista (mi casa tiene un subterráneo bomba de agua caliente y usa agua subterránea para refrescar), Me gustaría estar allí para una discusión más abierta de las causas del calentamiento global. Sólo un ejemplo.
Corrección política es también un tremendo problema en el debate acerca de la reforma de patentes en los Estados Unidos. Organizaciones e individuos temem ser ¨anti-americanos¨ si simplemente dicen que el sistema de patentes de los Estados Unidos esta quebrado y NO SIRVE a los verdaderos innovadores.
En todos esos reuniones del congreso acerca de la reforma de patentes que he observado, cada uno y todo político repitió el MANTRA del systema de patentes de los Estados Unidos ´siendo´ clave para la innovación y la envidia del mundo, cuando la realidad es que es el motivo de risa de patentes y los profesionales industriales del resto del mundo. A través de los años he hablado a muchos abogados de patentes de Europa, Asia, e incluso los examinadores de patentes (aunque no a los que la OEP acusa de haber estado en contacto conmigo), acerca de la situación, y nadie cree que los jurados de los Estados Unidos están calificados para determinar infracciones e materias de validez, nadie ha mostrado desacuerdo con la calidad de las patentes otorgadas por la USPTO es generalmente más baja que de las patentes europeas.
Una reforma de patentes de impacto en los Estados Unidos no sucederá hasta que por lo menos un porcentaje de politicos y dueños de acciones participando en el debate comienzen a DECIR LA VERDAD, la que es que la mayoria de ciencias de la comunicación e informática patentes son INVALIDAMENTE otorgadas, que un alto porcentaje de todos las decisiones de reclamo son nulificadas a través de apelaciones, que incluso aquellas patentes que no son invalidas son ultimamente infringidas generalmente no protegen nada que justifique un MONOPOLIO DE VEINTE AÑOS, y que no hay objeto en incentivación a ser ¨el primero en someter¨ cuando la combinacion de derechos de autor, marcas y secretos de comercio, asi como el primer movimiento de ventaja en relativamente campos cambiantes son más que suficientes para proteger invertir en innovación. Proponentes de reformas deben poner enfásis en la realidad que ahora más que nunca patentes de los Estados Unidos no son otorgadas a compañías estadounidenses, simplemente como la mayoría de patentes europeas no pertenecen a compañías europeas. Debe ser dicho que la correlación entre patentes e innovación en determinado país es raramente causado por patentes promoviendo innovación, que las patentes sirve como substituto en vez de un incentivo para la innovación, y que estudios que unen patentes a innovación estan basados en lógica circular, considerando cada patente como innovación.
Menos es más. Cómo puede uno seriamente creer que inflación de patentes tiene algo que ver con mayor actividad innovadora? Creería alguién que a mayor cantidad de dinero impreso crea prosperidad? Proponentes de reformas deberían hablar acerca de como gradualmente disminuir el número de patentes por año a una fracción del rango presente.
El systema de patentes de los Estados Unidos noe es el único permitiendo patentes de software. Bajo el régimen (como el ¨tal como¨ salida de Brimelow) muchas compañias aplican y consiguen patentes de software en Europa. A los abogados de patentes les gusta por que significa MAYORES NEGOCIOS (entradas) para ellos. Mirando a sitios de abogados de patentes (IAM por ejemplo), encontramos reciénte evidencia que el sistema de patentes NO FUNCIONA como fué diseñado al principio (cuando leyes de patentes fueron concebidas como medios de incentivar a aquellos publicando sus propias invenciones). Como parte de la campaña de Xiaomi de amasar miles de patentes, está actualmente comprando patentes de Broadcom. Así que vemos de nuevo clara evidencia de patentes de hardware siendo pasadas de mano en mano, vendidas, cambiadas en terminos de propiedad/asignatura, sirviendo para mostrar que como recompensa para innovar NO FUNCIONA, no como la letra escrita. Son como ARMAS o HERRAMIENTAS de COERCIÓN.
“Una manera de enfrentar estos asuntos es informar al público, no a los políticos, quienes son facílmente INFLUENCIADOS POR EL DINERO DE LAS CORPORACIONES (sobórnos, donaciones, puertas giratorias) y son por lo tánto menos creíble de ser parte de la solución.”¨En una assignación fechada Octubre 23 del 2015 y archivada con el USPTO el 7 de Diciembre,¨ IAM escribió, ¨la compañía de conductores Broadcom transferió 19 patentes a una entidad llamada Xiaomi H.K.Ltd.¨
En noticias similares, ¨Qualcomm pidió a la Corte de los Estados Unidos forzar a Apple, Samsumg y otros a entregar documentos¨ y el ¨Indice de Patentes Públic declinó un 24.4% en el 2015¨.
El término ¨compañía licensiadora de patentes¨ puede ser visto como un géntil termino por TROLES DE PATENTES, como la connectada con Microsoft Acacia, que habitualmente ataca a Linux con patentes (chacal de Microsoft) De acuerdo con este reporte de ´IAM´ a Acacia no le está yendo bien. Para citar: ¨Terminó el año de continua caida de precios de acciones y la renunica de su gerente Mattew Vella. Su salida vino despues que la NPE estuvo en el mal sitio de una decisión dañina en el Distrito del Este de Texas cuando un jurado falló a favor de los acusados, incluyendo Alcate, Lucent, decreatando que la patente de Acacia era inválida y no infringida. Si aquel fallo hubiese sido favorable, es justo decir que Vella todavía tendría su trabajo.
Irrespetivamente de este trol de patentes y poniendo aparte el impacto de Alice en las patentes de sofware, el problema esta muy lejos de resolverse y algunas de las observaciones de Muller (no en la dirección política) se han ganado menciones de aprobación de criticos del systema de patentes, como Jamie Love. Una manera de enfrentar estos asuntos es informar al público, no a los políticos, quienes son facílmente INFLUENCIADOS POR EL DINERO DE LAS CORPORACIONES (sobórnos, donaciones, puertas giratorias) y son por lo tánto menos creíble de ser parte de la solución. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
01.14.16
Posted in America, Patents at 6:58 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
The higher one goes, the lesser/lower the quality
Summary: Numerical evidence of the great decline in US patents quality, which in recent years gave way to a lot more patent litigation, patent trolls (that exploit software patents), complaints about the patent system, and invalidations inside US courts
BOTH the EPO and the USPTO pretend that more patents would be better. It’s a dangerous, popular but nevertheless wrong assumption. IP Watch wrote yesterday that:
The number of patent applications filed worldwide continues to increase, up by 4.6 percent in 2014 for a total of nearly 2.7 million, according to the 2015 edition of the World Intellectual Property Indicators. The increasing number of patents filed worldwide demonstrates the strength of ongoing innovation and the value companies put on protecting their intellectual property where they wish to do business. The filing numbers would likely be even higher, and across more countries, if the filers were more prepared for the costs associated with filing patents.
An article by Dennis Crouch says that “the Federal Circuit has ruled that the IPR procedure allowing the same PTAB panel to both institute an IPR and issue the final decision cancelling the claims. in the process, the divided court rejected both a constitutional and statutory challenge.” Another new piece from Crouch says: “As expected, the USPTO issued just under 300,000 utility patents in calendar year 2015. The new number represents a drop from 2014 – the first drop since President Obama took office and appointed David Kappos as USPTO Director. Barring a new radical transformation of the Office, I expect that the grant numbers will hover around this mark for the next several years.”
“IBM has a history of patent aggression and it promotes software patents in Europe and in New Zealand, not just in the US.”Under David Kappos, the Office has been pressuring examiners to just approve faster, leading to the unbelievable situation where 92% of applications are ultimately approved. What’s even the point of examination with such high acceptance rates? Innovation didn’t accelerate, but the number of patents nearly doubled, which means that the quality of patents went down considerably (unless one has another explanation; the economic downturn definitely wasn’t it).
“IBM tops US patent list for 23rd year,” WIPR wrote yesterday, noting that “IBM has topped the list of recipients of US patents in 2015, beating Samsung and Canon to the top spot, but there has been a slight decline in the overall number of patents granted since 2014.”
IBM has a history of patent aggression and it promotes software patents in Europe and in New Zealand, not just in the US.
Here is what Reuters wrote about it: “International Business Machines Corp (IBM.N) was granted the most U.S. patents for the 23rd year in a row in 2015, according to a ranking by patent analysis firm IFI Claims Patents Services.
“There were 298,407 utility patents granted in 2015, down slightly from 2014, IFI Claims said on Wednesday. IBM gained 7,355 patents last year. Utility patents cover function rather than design.”
Who on Earth can conceivably keep track of this many patents. The whole purpose of this system is lost due to overload. It’s good for patent lawyers (and their richest clients), bad for everybody else.
Over at TechDirt there’s a summary of some of these issues, based on a writeup from Masnick. “Qualcomm Says It’s Fighting For The Little Guy, While Really Blocking Patent Reform That Would Help The Little Guy” is the headline. To quote a part which covers trolls and Alice: “Three out of the five panelists — Kate Doerksen, Lee Cheng and Brian Mennell — represented victims of patent trolls. Kate and Brian both have experienced the perils of being a small startup and getting hit with patent lawsuits that have the potential to destroy their businesses. You can read Kate’s story here, in which she’s being sued by a large company trying to keep her startup from competing altogether. It’s even reached the point where Kate agreed to something of a deal with the devil: Erich Spangenberg. As we’ve discussed, Spangenberg, who was one of the most aggressive patent trolls, recently shifted his business into being a sort of reverse patent troll, where he makes deals with small companies like Kate’s, taking an ownership stake in the company in exchange for “helping” the company deal with patent trolls, usually by seeking post-grant review to invalidate the patents being asserted against the startups.
“Mennell has the classic patent troll story of running a startup and getting hit by a patent troll that undermines the ability of the company to stay in business (and also notes that the Supreme Court’s Alice decision made him lose a business method patent, though he doesn’t seem to see that as problematic).”
In this current landscape of patents/patenting it is only good to be a massive corporation such as IBM, a patent troll, or a patent lawyer. Finjan, which has become a bit like a patent troll, isn’t doing too badly.
If examiners are led to believe that more patents mean more “success”, then they probably need to reassess their views. More patents typically mean lower barrier to acceptance or, in other words, lower quality of patents. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
01.13.16
Posted in America, Patents at 4:57 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
English/Original
Publicado en America, Patents at 6:35 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
No sólo la OEP arma extorsiónadores de patentes
Sumario: La USPTO esta finalmente siendo acusada por compañías y personas que están sufriendo por las patentes (aquellos a quienes habitualmente se las otorga), de habilitar ¨extorsiónadores y chantajistas¨ citando un periódista respetable quien atendió o cubrió una sessión.
La reciéntemente finalizade exposición CES en los Estados Unidos, reveló los primerors CES ataques [1, 2] de los que estamos enterados. En realidad sólo en Europa hemos escucahdo/visto tales escenas antes [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13]. Compañías que estuvieron en la CES reportaron que se quejaron a la USPTO acerca de lo que está pasando. Un altamente respedado periodista escribió que ¨la industria tecnológica todavía odia a los trolls de patentes, pero esta comenzando a haver buenas cosas que decir acerca de la agencia de govierno que otorga las patentes esos trolls convierten en extorsión legalizada.¨
“Cuando acusamos a la OEP de hacer algo similar la OEP nos AMENAZÓ CON ENJUICIARNOS.”Bueno, compañías como MICROSOFT hacen lo mismo también, no sólo los trolls de patentes. Chantaje es lo que es, or un ¨extorsiónador de patentes.¨ Hemos estado diciendo esto por años. Cuando acusamos a la OEP de hacer algo similar nos amenazó con enjuiciarnos. El report continua con: ¨Eso fue la sorprendente conclusión de un panel de discusión en la CES el pásado viernes en la mañana que puso en el ojo público algunos de los más criticos del presente sistema de patentes – y fue intoducido por Michelle Lee, el Director de lo Oficina de Patentes y Marcas de los Estados Unidos.¨
La USPTO todavía otorga patentes de software (y otorgó mucho más antes); estas son la clase de patentes que casi todos los trolls de patentes están usando, así que la USPTO DEBE SER POR LO MENOS PARCIALMENTE RESPONSABLE. Desde que la Corte de Apelaciones por el Circuito Federal (CAFC) dió la luz verde a las patentes de software la USPTO ha otorgado cientos de miles de patentes de software. CAFC, como lo hemos mostrado antes, esta CORRUPTA en varios niveles (vea los artículos pasados) y he aquí ALTAMENTE FAVORABLES. Frentes representates de los abogados de patentes como el Post-Grand Practice Group (ENRIQUECIÉNDOSE CON EL MAXIMALISMO DE PATENTES) se han aferrado a la CAFC, como era de esperarse, diciendo ¨eficacia de objetiva evidencia de lo no obvio (i.e indices secundarios) gira en la habilidad de demostrar un ¨nexo¨ entre la evidencia y el sujeto de la patente reclamada. Esto es porque tal evidencia no puede ser de acuerdo al peso sustancial ausente un *nexus a la invención reclamada. Cuando es señalado fuera en un correo anterior un obligando mostrando de *nexus es más probablemente en las artes imprevisibles donde formulaciones específicas, dosificadas y como es más fácilmente correlativamente a lo secundario indica éxito comercial y mucho tiempo-sentida pero de necesidades no resueltas.”
“Es evidente que compañías que producen tecnología (excluyendo MONOPOLIOS que usan sus marcas y sus patentes no producción) están NO SATISFECHAS con el status quo.”El arreglo de palabras en el artículo/blog de arriba está designado a confundir (son díficiles de leer/seguir por que la claridad no es el objetivo). Lo que están tratando de aludir, en términos simples, es que lo ¨no-obvious¨ (i.e, la dificultad de conseguir una idea) puede ser demostrado por reclamos (en la aplicación de patentes) y la evidencia. Mucho de este lenguaje extraño (o crypticos) términos es la manera que los abogados de patentes hacen negocios. Ellos hacen el lenguaje (leguliyada) díficil de entender para mucha gente (incluso para el examinador quienes son puramente técnicos) y de esta manera TIMAR a la gente a otorgar lo que no es otorgable (patente-ineligible).
Todavía necesita emerger un movimiento fuerte y lo suficiente comprehensivo para antagonizar aquellos como la CAFC, la USPTO, y a los abogados de patentes porque todos ellos son PATENTES MAXIMALISTAS. Esto los BENEFICIA DIRECTAMENTE. Es evidente que compañías que producen tecnología (excluyendo MONOPOLIOS que usan sus marcas y sus patentes no producción) están NO SATISFECHAS con el status quo. █
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