05.22.16
The Circus of Patent ‘Reporting’ (by Omission) on the Subject of Software Patents in the US and USPTO Bias
Like asking army generals about the needs of war…
Summary: A look at some of the latest oddities in the US patent system and much of the reporting about software patenting (more or less monopolised by those who profit from it, not harmed by it)
THE USPTO keeps snubbing SCOTUS (the Supreme Court) and ignoring decisions like those which annihilate software patents, unlike the Enfish v Microsoft decision [1, 2, 3]. What kind of a rigged office is this? And it’s not even a private company, it’s portrayed or framed as an institution that exists for the common good.
Based on what we constantly find online, patent lawyers are now selling services (like a webinar in this case) around the uncertainty, promising to be the ‘experts’ for getting around the rules at the USPTO (while the USPTO often accommodates this, for various different nefarious reasons). Some people in this meta-industry even produce some kind of ‘cheatsheet’, or “Top Ten 101 Patent Eligibility Patent Drafting Rules…and an Enfish Sideshow,” as one patent attorney has just put it, linking to this PDF.
“See what David Kappos is doing nowadays on behalf of large corporations that pay him, including his former employer.”The USPTO, as we noted here several days ago, is heavily biased, sometimes by omission. It just wants to grant more and more patents, so restrictions (like patent scope limitations) are considered to be an ‘enemy’ and a perceived threat to ‘results’ (or ‘growth’). Matt Levy, whose wife works at the USPTO, has just posted a list of USPTO case studies following additional reports (patents ‘industry’ sites [1, 2]) which say that the USPTO adopts a pro-software patents decision, incorporating it into the examiners’ guidance. Why not do anything about a decision from the same court that was against software patents just a few days later? Or many dozens before it, which were also against software patents (at CAFC)? Let’s face it, this system is rigged and money (or moneyed interests, or large corporations with their lobbyists) determine what happens. See what David Kappos is doing nowadays on behalf of large corporations that pay him, including his former employer. Kappos was the Director of the USPTO until not so long ago, namely a few years. Like David Petraeus (see image above), the former CIA Director, David Kappos now makes a killing by selling influence and suggesting horrific policies to his ‘connections’ (doors have revolved). Kappos is paid to do this. His mouth is basically up for sale. He is a lobbyist of the most dangerous kind and thus a source of shame to the system he came from (as it’s indicative of institutional corruption).
As one might expect, especially because we showed dozens of examples in the past week alone, patent lawyers continue to ignore almost every CAFC case and instead cherry-pick to add ‘detergent’ to their shameless never-ending brainwash. Here are 4 new examples [1, 2, 3, 4]. They just keep cropping up at an amazing pace, sending across the message that software patents are now magically patentable again, provided one hires the ‘witty’ lawyers who write these columns. It’s all marketing. Lawyers are typically liars, with few exceptions in many people’s experience. They have a client to serve, they’re not judges. Brainwash from them can be found aplenty in the Oracle v Google case right now, where the jury and judge hardly know what FOSS and API are. Lawyers of Oracle mislead them every day (we post a lot of links about this case) and the more ignorant the judge and jury remain, the better off Oracle will be. In fact, this whole case is ludicrous and should have been thrown out before it even reached a court. Unfortunately, not programmers assess such cases for their actual merit (or lack thereof).
“They just keep cropping up at an amazing pace, sending across the message that software patents are now magically patentable again, provided one hires the ‘witty’ lawyers who write these columns.”Some of these same patents ‘industry’ sites now use the aforementioned cases to further stretch the limits of patenting (see “Patents For Self-referential Computer Database Are Not Categorically Unpatentable as Abstract”), but it isn’t exactly shocking, is it? We found only one single new report about the Vehicle Intelligence case (a case we have covered here for months), which resulted in software patents being chucked away, as is usually the case after Alice. That’s not what the patents ‘industry’ wants people to hear about, so it nonchalantly ignores this ruling. █
Content is available under CC-BY-SA