04.28.16
Posted in Europe, Law, Patents at 8:11 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Siegfried Broß (below) previously defended the defamed judge whom Battistelli suspended if not dismissed in spite of supposed independence
Image courtesy: campact.de
Summary: The EPO is still under fire, but a lot of it happens behind the scenes and involves lawyers and/or bureaucrats
The “EPO very silent at the moment,” one person told us yesterday, “what will be the next move? Be prepared!” Well, based on what we know, as few press reports already gradually reveal, there are lawsuits on their way. The defamed judge too seems to be among those who fight back against Caesar Battistelli, who obviously thinks he is above the law and openly brags about it.
“Not even police in Germany or Dutch special forces can go into EPO premises — as strange as it may sound.”Not much is publicly known about these lawsuits. We don’t know how many people are involved, how many people will be named as defendants, how many pertinent lawsuits there are and so on, but we assume that preparation for this is probably keeping SUEPO officials busy and we might soon know more about the basis of the complaints and who is being legally targeted, as the EPO itself is almost immune from lawsuits (my lawyer told me so after the EPO had SLAPPed me and some EPO applicants told me they wished to sue the EPO but didn’t know how because of its outrageous immunity). For instance, doing a search at the EPO (subpoena) requires prior permission from management. Not even police in Germany or Dutch special forces can go into EPO premises — as strange as it may sound. Not even embassies enjoy the same protections which Team Battistelli now flagrantly abuses. The EPO is like Camp X-Ray and suicides oughtn’t be much of a surprise. There is some resemblance to be found there to the UN or WIPO, which is connected to the UN, mostly because it’s chaotic in the legal sense (there are virtually no legal protections for workers).
As this new article from IP Watch puts it this week (yesterday): “To date, there is no consolidated reference text on WIPO’s governance” (and in the EPO there are special rules that are kept secret as they override national/international laws).
“Here we have again, as was the case two months ago, Siegfried Broß comparing the EPO’s legal status to that of Guantánamo Bay.”In his latest blog post, Battistelli, who tried to work for WIPO (he lost to Gurry), cites the WIPO in an effort to gain some legitimacy. It comes amid relative calm, even though Bavarian/German press evidently continues to cover the situation at the EPO (direct link to the video). Moreover, SUEPO has just prepared a translation of “Patentamtsstreit beschäftigt auch Audi”, which it says was published “only in paper version.” Here we have again, as was the case two months ago, Siegfried Broß comparing the EPO’s legal status to that of Guantánamo Bay. It alludes to some of the aforementioned points.
DONAUKURIER 20 APRIL 2016
FORMER CONSTITUTIONAL JUDGE SIEGFRIED BROSS ON THE EPO
Mr. Bross, over the past few months the EPO has been hitting the headlines with a large number of labour law disputes. You are seen as a major critic of the organization. Why is that?
Siegfried Bross: The EPO is the central authority for the protection of patents in Europe. However, it suffers from an underlying flaw in its structure, which slipped in when it was established. It is a creation of a combination of states, and its immunity was recognized. That in itself is in principle not a problem, but within the EPO an
entirely autonomous legal system has been created, which is not based on any effective system of checks and balances.
What does that signify?
Bross: The Patent Office is detached from national systems of law. That has two consequences which are not acceptable in the context of a state governed by law: On the one hand, as can be seen at the present time, there is no legal protection for the workforce. On the other, there is no legal protection either for patent applicants. There are only the Boards of Appeal at the EPO, which are both officials and judges in one, and which, moreover, are subordinate to the President. Anyone who comes to grief there has no further recourse. Nor is the Office subject to any parliamentary monitoring or control.
How could the constitutional arrangements be structured so as to avoid such problems?
Bross: Either a new court would have to be established inside the Patent Organization, which would be independent of the President, or the legal protection would have to be assigned to one of the states where it has a domicile, such as Germany.
In your view, then, the structure as it exists up to now is not reconcilable with applicable law?
Bross: It contravenes the European Convention on Human Rights, because the 38 Member States cannot ensure the status of a state governed by law. It is a basic principle of human rights that states cannot rescind their responsibility to uphold human rights. This means that the organization should never have been established in
the way it was. The combining of administrative and legislative power in one entity is unacceptable. The position of the President contradicts all basic principles of the democratic state governed by law, and the EPO has by now essentially gained autonomy. I have repeatedly said, if this form of thinking were to be followed, Guantanamo on German soil would be possible.
In the attempt to make the Office more efficient, have the states lost sight of the clients and the staff?
Bross: The focus on cutting costs and higher yield from fees have nothing to do with the task of the EPO. The procedures of issuing patents, the aim of which is the protection of intellectual property, are an absolutely inviolable right for the economy. It is a fundamental task of the patent authority to ensure that there are sufficient personnel available for the thorough examination of patents.
Siegfried Bross was a judge at the Federal Constitutional Court from 1998 to 2010. The interview was conducted by Daniel Wenisch. Archive photo: Deck/dpa
As noted in about a dozen recent daily links in Techrights, lawsuits over torture at Guantánamo Bay have just been given the go-ahead (rather unprecedented a development). The people behind torture techniques may be dragged into court. Let’s hope the same happens to the EPO’s management.
“Just watch what monsters Raimund Lutz, for instance, has come to serve.”Working for the EPO as a legal personality (at any capacity) does not legitimise one’s career or improves one’s credibility at this point (unless one is past retirement age, in which case it hardly matters, as is the case for Battistelli and Minnoye). Just watch what monsters Raimund Lutz, for instance, has come to serve. Don’t worry, he’s paid well for this. According to this news update, Justice Arnold too joins the team (probably tempted by big money and power), albeit he’ll be serving the Enlarged Board of Appeal, which is no friend of Battistelli (recall this letter). As IP Kat put it yesterday: “First, the IPKat learned from CIPA that Mr Justice Arnold has been appointed to the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office. The IPKat understands that he is to replace Lord Justice Floyd, who has been the UK external member of the Enlarged Board for some years. One or two external members of the Enlarged Board are included in the panel in cases where there is a referral to the Enlarged Board by an EPO Board of Appeal or the EPO President, and the scope of the matter extends beyond the internal administration of the EPO. Such cases are relatively rare (single numbers per year) and there are over 20 external members, the IPKat does not imagine that Mr Justice Arnold will be having to jet over to Munich very frequently.”
“The next few weeks may be interesting when it comes to the EPO.”In other news, MIP continues writing about the UPC as though it’s definitely coming, irrespective of all the barriers. To quote the summary: “How might a clearing-the-way case proceed once the UPC is in force? In the latest article in our series, David Rose, Nina O’Sullivan and Axel Walz consider the options for a patent challenger who wishes to launch a competing product” (there are already scenarios for this in the existing system, so the UPC solves a problem which does not at all exist, unless you’re a multinational company that’s not even European).
The next few weeks may be interesting when it comes to the EPO. We have mostly omitted all the “Inventor” propaganda which comes out of the EPO these days, even urging people to double-vote and calling in "media partners" like French papers (it’s the same one again) and hoping they won’t notice the poor record of finalists' selection. █
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
Posted in IBM, Law, Microsoft, Patents at 6:13 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
English/Original
Article as ODF
Publicado en IBM, Law, Microsoft, Patentes at 12:13 pmam por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz
IBM también cae en este criterio, en todos sus puntos (cabildeo, financiamienteo, y despidos aspirándo convertirse en una compañíá de orientación licensiadora)
Sumario: Una mirada al esfuérzo de trae una resurgencia de las patentes de software en los Estados Unidos (con un clarísimo rol de Microsoft en él) y la fundación/conf ianza de Microsoften las patentes de software como arma contr Linux/Android porque las ganancias de Windows se están secando y el Windows Phone está al borde del colápso
“Esfuerzo concertado presionándo al Congreso para eliminar las elegibilidad de restricciones de la Sección 101″
ELobjetivo de TECHRIGHTSha girado últimamente* de la EPO hacia la § 101 (en los EE.UU.), en una reacción proporcionada a una nueva clase de asalto a la § 101 de antiguo Director of the USPTO, David Kappos, y aquellos que le pagan su salario para hacerlo (La Sagrada Familia: Microsoft, IBM, Apple, HP, entre otros). Es difícil ignorar el cablildeo de un cada vez más codicióso David Kappos, solventado por la industria de patentes de software (La Sagrada Familia) para aquellos que no se hayan dado cuenta.
Como elProfessor Dennis Crouch lo puso el otro dia: “Esfuerzo concertado presionándo al Congreso para eliminar las elegibilidad de restricciones de la Sección 101″
Este es un esfuerzo para legalizar las patentes de software sin ningún tipo de restricciónes. Quieren que creamos y/o aceptemos que las grandes (mega) corporaciones on más importantes que la Corte Suprema de Estados Unidos y simplemente dejar de lado lo que ella pronunció. “Esa es la sugerencia,” Crouch agregó, “tal vez un límite en “las ideas abstractas como tales.”
¿El cierre de los agujeros que deje la EPO (“como tal”)? Como Benjamin Henrion del la EFF dijo, “no como tal, por favor.”
“Recuérden quien está finánciado a Kappos para que cabildee/presione por las patentes de software.”
“Parece que ambosIBM y Microsoft están en Manióbras”
Recuérden quien está finánciado a Kappos para que cabildee/presione por las patentes de software. Incluso nuestros viejos ‘amigos’ de IAM escribieron: “Parece que ambosIBM y Microsoft están en Manióbras.”
Lo que tenemos aquí es más información (1) de que hay un “Esfuerzo concertado presionándo al Congreso para eliminar las elegibilidad de restricciones de la Sección 101″. Y (2) “Parece que ambosIBM y Microsoft están en Manióbras.”
“Talvez el “nosotros” no es IBM pero IBM asociado con su antiguo empleado, quien se convirtió en Director de la USPTO y ahora un cabildero financiado por IBM contra Alice.”
No sólo nosotros hemos estado viendo esto y escribir sobre ello. Una gran cantidad de estas maniobras o “esfuerzo concertado” son impulsadas por Gene Quinn y sus pro-patentes de software en círculos de IP Watchdog. Hace unos días, escribieron acerca de las patentes de automóviles de conducción (poniendo en algoritmos de lo que las personas han hecho/usado por generaciones), señalando: “Es en este ambiente que Eagle Harbor Holdings, LLC (EHH), de Rolling Bay, WA, está tratando de trazar un curso hacia adelante sobre la venta de una cartera de patentes relacionadas con los vehículos conectados y coches autónomos. A partir de esta semana, EHH será la búsqueda de posibles compradores para una cartera con 74 activos totales, incluyendo 42 patentes concedidas y 17 familias de patentes.”
¿Qué Deberíamos Hacer Con Alice?
Un artículo más revelador fué titulado: ¿Qué Deberíamos Hacer Con Alice? (Nosotros como en IBM)
Escribimos acerca de esta perorata de Schecter la semana pasada y esto es lo que IP Watchdog escribe: “En la mañana del martes 19 de abril de 2016, Manny Schecter, que es el principal asesor de patentes de IBM, hizo una presentación de apertura en los Insights Innography conferencia de 2016 en Austin, Texas. El título de su presentación fue sencilla y directa: ¿Qué debemos hacer con Alice”?
“Hay una fuerte y creciénte cabildeo por las patentes de software financiado por las corporationes en los EE.UU.”
Talvez el “nosotros” no es IBM pero IBM asociado con su antiguo empleado, quien se convirtió en Director de la USPTO y ahora un cabildero financiado por IBM contra Alice. A juzgar por tweets relacionados con el presente (Gen Quinn quien me bloqueó en Twitter no por que haya sido grosero, sino debido a que perdió el argumento, pero todavía puedo ver lo que hace y escribe), estos propagandistas han creado una especie de alianza anti-Alice y algunos son pagados directamente (Kappos por ejemplo), así como indirectamente. No es amor al chancho sino a los chicharrones. Vale la pena recordar que Schecter y Quinn son cercanos (compadres diríamos nosotros).
Vean cómo incluso Martin Goetz (proponente de las patentes de software por mucho tiempo, junto a Quinn) se une a este esfuerzo de presión en IP Watchdog. Esto no es una coincidencia, ¿verdad? Hay una fuerte y creciénte cabildeo por las patentes de software financiado por las corporationes en los EE.UU. en este momento. Más luz necesita ser derramada en esta campaña y estamos contentos de ver que incluso Crouch (Patently-O) así como IAM no pueden negar esto. Los conglomerados de agresión de patentes (por ejemplo, la mencionada Sagrada Familia), junto con sus abogados de patentes, obviamente, tratan – y tratarán – de hacer fracasar la decisión de SCOTUS contra las patentes de software, pero inteligentemente esconden su papel con el fin de evitar o minimizar la inercia.
”Protegiéndo GUIS con Patentes de Diseño”
“El primero de estos ataques, suficiéntemente revelador, vino del antiguo Consejero en Jefe de PatentesChief de Microsoft. El mismo incorrégible/noreformable Microsoft que todavía cabildea y paga a cabilderos para recuperar los colmillos de las patentes de software.”
Alla en MIP, hace unos dias, este artículo aconsejó a compañías a perseguir patentes de diseño (“protegiendo GUIS con patentes de diseño”) cuando las patentes de software sean rechazadas. Para citar al sumario: “la protección útil de patentes para las invenciónes de software ha sido severamente limitada desde la decisión Alice. Tracy-Gene G Durkin considera una alternativa: proteger GUIS con patentes de diseño” (simplemente otra clase de patentes de software, el cual podría muy pronto ser inválidas con intervención de SCOTUS tambiém).
“Estos casos clave ofrecen una oportunidad significativa para establecer aclaraciones muy necesarias.”
Crouch de Patently-Oreconoció que “Hay un esfuerzo concertado presionándo al Congreso para eliminar las elegibilidad de restricciones de la Sección 101″. y parece como si este sitio se ha convertido en un campo de batalla § 101, en medio de esta nueva campaña de presión, basado en tres artículos muy recientes. Éste sobre “el significado del § 101 en un post invitado por Jeffrey A. Lefstin, Profesor de la Universidad de California, Hastings College of Law, y Peter S. Menell, Profesor de la Universidad de California, Berkeley en la Escuela de Derecho.
“Actualmente tener muchas patentes tiene un efecto negativo en la industria, a menos que uno hable de la industria de los abogados de patentes.”
Otra acerca de § 101 proviene de un abogados de patentes, a saber, “Bruce Wexler [...] y Edwin Mok [...] Su práctica se centra en los litigios sobre patentes y ensayos.” (En otras palabras, se beneficiarían del derribo de Alice y un cambio de § 101).
El primero de estos ataques, suficiéntemente revelador, vino del antiguo Consejero en Jefe de PatentesChief de Microsoft. El mismo incorrégible/noreformable Microsoft que todavía cabildea y paga a cabilderos para recuperar los colmillos de las patentes de software. Ahora consigue una plataforma para su cabildeo. Para crédito de Patently-O hay al menos una divulgación de tres artículos. Lo que el ex asesor de patentes en jefe de Microsoft dijo fue: “Estamos en un momento crítico en la definición del alcance y aplicación correcta de la Sección 101. A menos que el poder judicial delinee un marco más claro para permitir la protección de patentes significativa en áreas como la biotecnología y software en el que Estados Unidos tiene sido un líder en tecnología, los EE.UU. podrían perder rápidamente su ventaja competitiva en estas industrias vitales.”
“Su problema no es clarificar; ellos simplemente están molestos que les están negando patentes en las cortes o en la oficina de patentes.”
Esas son mamadas. Actualmente tener muchas patentes tiene un efecto negativo en la industria, a menos que uno hable de la industria de los abogados de patentes. También dijo: “Si bien no creo que todavía es tiempo de adoptar medidas legislativas, llamadas recientes para la abolición de la Sección 101 en su totalidad y la insatisfacción con la aplicación de la prueba de Mayo/Alice está alcanzando un nivel crítico. Estos casos clave ofrecen una oportunidad significativa para establecer ”aclaraciones” necesarias. En caso de que esta oportunidad se puede perder, es difícil ver cómo una intervención del Congreso puede ser evitado.”
Lo para ellos significa “clarificaciones” (estrategia usada por Kappos) es su eliminación. Su problema no es clarificar; ellos simplemente están molestos que les están negando patentes en las cortes o en la oficina de patentes.
“Las ventas de Lumia disminuyeron un 73%, Tiene una venta sólo de 2,3 millones de unidades en total.”
“Windows mobile está prácticamentemuerto.”
Mientras tanto, juzgando por las últimas noticias de Microsoft, sus acciones cayeron como una roca después de los decepcionantes resultados (también disminuyen en la tributación/impuestos de patentes) que conducirá a aún más despidos, como señalamos aquí el viernes. IAM salió con con el titular “Microsoft informa un declive en dinero proveniente de Android y pueda tener que mirar a Asia para cerrar la brecha“. “Microsoft no da a conocer los números de licencia”, escribió IAM “, pero algunos han estimado que la empresa podría estar haciendo la mayor cantidad de $ 6 mil millones cada año a partir de monetizar activos de patentes que las reclamaciones se leen en el sistema operativo Android de Google.” estos son meramente especulaciones, como hemos venido diciendo aquí durante años. Microsoft también utiliza las patentes de coacción, no sólo gravar el dinero, por lo que hay un costo oculto/ganancia del chantaje patentes/extorsión/extorsión (IAM defiende este chantaje a pesar de la Ley RICO). No es difícil ver por qué Microsoft recurrió a estas tácticas feas. Como este nuevo artículo dice: “Sobre la base de la información proporcionada en el informe trimestral reciente de la compañía, los ingresos de la compañía de la división móvil registró un descenso del 46%. Además, en los últimos tres meses, su teléfono inteligente, Lumia, disminuyó sus ventas en un 73%, vendiéndo sólo 2,3 millones de unidades en total.”
“Cazadores de Talentos de Microsoft Buscan Gente de Linux”
“En vez de hacer algo de valor Microsoft actualmente opera como un parásito dentro de ‘anfitrión’, sea Android o lo que sea.”
Windows mobile está virtualmentmuerto. Es un muerto ‘hombre’ caminando. Se le mantiene vivo por malguíadas especulaciónes que pueda recuperárse, pero ni siquiera infiltrándo y destruyendo Nokia contribuyeron a ello. En vez de hacer algo de valor Microsoft actualmente opera como un parásito dentro de ‘anfitrión’, sea Android o lo que sea. Cuando se trata de GNU/Linux en el desktop, Microsoft está tratando de convertirse en su anfitrión para (devorar) GNU/Linux. la extorsión de Microsoft de Linux a través de las patentes de software no obstante, hay un nuevo grupo de artículos (basado en el Canal de Microsoft 9) acerca de cómo logra devorarlo [1, 2, 3] y también aprendemos que Microsoft intenta devorar a los empleados del competidor, simplemente como lo hizo a Borland (vea los artículos “Microsoft está contratando gente de Linux para una secreta unidad de código abierto” y “cazadores de talentos de Microsoft buscan gente de Linux para su secreta unidad de código abierto“). De acuerdo al portavoz de Microsoft (Ina Fried), todo está bien y Microsoft “viene en paz” (cobertura engañosa usualmente). Como una red de noticias conectada a Microsoft lo puso: “. Esta idea proviene de un par de citas dado a volver reportero/citar de Ina Fried esta semana” Fried es más como Microsoft PR desde sus días de CNET, casi no es una reportero objetivo y también una autor de la propuesta de largo plazo de la agresión de patentes de Microsoft. Ella solía ser la principal portavoz de la CBS de Microsoft, le asigna la sección “Microsoft”, donde también habló mal habitualmente Linux. Así que esto parece como otro ejercicio de relaciones públicas.
Mientras Microsoft impulsauna acción antimonopolio contra Android y utiliza las patentes contra Android se supone que debemos creer que hay paz ahora. Para citar: “Microsoft ha discutido mucho con socios de hardware de Google acerca de las supuestas violaciones de patentes de software asociados con el uso de Android, un sistema operativo móvil de código abierto impulsado por Google.”
“Mientras Microsoft impulsa una acción antimonopolio contra Android y utiliza las patentes contra Android se supone que debemos creer que hay paz ahora.”
¿A acabado esto alguna vez? NO
“Microsoft Ha Estado Cazando Furtivamente Completas Linux Distribuciones A Traves de “Sociedades” Con Aquellas Compañíás”
Alla en FOSS Force, Christine Hall afirma que “Microsoft Se Está Convirtiéndoe El Nuevo Pero Exitóso, Novell” (la comparación es débil).
“Microsoft Ha Estado Cazando Furtivamente Completas Linux Distribuciones A Traves de “Sociedades” Con Aquellas Compañíás” Hall nota. No ha cambiado nada desde entonces.
“Fraudulentamente Obtuvo Patentes y Matoneó A Competidores para dominar el Mercado”
“Microsoft puede ahora ser persiguiéndo las patentes de Yahoo, años después de haber destruido afectivamente la empresa (Microsoft recuerdan cómo ‘robó’ las patentes de Novell después de la demolición de la compañía).”
Microsoft puede ahora ser persiguiendo las patentes de Yahoo, años después de haber destruido afectivamente la empresa (recuérden comoMicrosoft ‘robó’ las patentes de Novell después de la demolición de la compañía). Comprar estas patentes on sería tan caro ahor porque, como este nuevo artículo lo pone: “La decisión Alices de 2015 de la Corte Suprema de los EE.UU, “evisceró los métodos de negocios de patentes de varias compañías y daño muchas patentes de software,” dijo la firma.”
¿Cuántos más proyectos y las empresas tienen que ser destruidos antes de que sea ampliamente entendido que Microsoft es malicioso y no se puede confiar en él? Históricamente, y especialmente en la última década (desde que el acuerdo Novell), Microsoft ha utilizado patentes para intimidar a los rivales y monopolizar el mercado, al igual que OptumInsight **. No debería ser sorprendente que detrás de las escenas y detrás de proxies Microsoft ha estado presionando a los reguladores europeos por FRAND (esencialmente patentes de software) en las normas, poner en marcha una acción antimonopolio contra Android (que está matando el monopolio de Windows), y ahora está pagando a Kappos la promoción de las patentes de software en los EE.UU.. ¿Se supone que debemos creer Microsoft ha cambiado realmente? No sean cójudos por favor.
_________
* El ciclo de noticias también ha respondido a la cambio en la atención, con un nuevo artículo señalando que: “La Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos esta semana se negó a revisar la decisión de una corte de apelaciones federal para reactivar un veredicto por violación de patente $ 45 millones en contra de Limelight Networks Inc.” Este es que afecta también a las empresas no tecnológicas, como de acuerdo con esto: “la decisión Genetic Technologies se une a una larga lista de otros casos que demuestran cómo los casos de la Corte Suprema de Mayo y Alice están creando cambios radicales en el sistema de patentes de Estados Unidos.” el uso de 35 USC § 101 para invalidar las patentes de software y la CBM, Samsung se encuentra Alice útil. Para citar: “Samsung presentó inicialmente una petición para instituir método de negocio cubierta (CBM) de revisión de patentes de la reivindicación 11 de la patente de EE.UU. Nº 8.033.458 en base a la afirmación de que la reivindicación 11 se dirige a la patente objeto inelegible bajo 35 USC § 101. Más tarde, Apple presentó una petición para instituir opinión CBM de la reivindicación 11, basándose en la misma planta, y Apple presentó simultáneamente una “Propuesta de Acumulación” de su nuevo caso presentado con el caso previamente establecido de Samsung. El PTAB concedió la petición de Apple y consolida los dos procedimientos “.
** Veán el nuevo artículo de “Arreglos Necesarios en Trifulca de Patentes de Software Medicas”
Un juez federal desestimó el viernes con permiso para modificar una demanda reclamando una empresa de análisis de datos de patentes obtenidas de forma fraudulenta y competidores intimidado a dominar el mercado de la organización de reclamaciones médicas de software.
Cueva Consulting Group, o CCGroup, demandaron OptumInsight en julio de 2015, acusando a la empresa de defensa de violaciónes, publicidad falsa y persecución maliciosa.
CCGroup dice Simmetry Salud Data Systems, adquirida por OptumInsight en 2003, mintió y omitió hechos cuando se solicitó y defendió las patentes con la patente de EE.UU. y la Oficina de Marcas.
Simmetry y más tarde OptumInsight llegó a controlar el 85 al 90 por ciento del mercado de software médico reivindicaciones mero tras demandar dos competidores por infringir sus patentes “mal habidas”, reclamó el CCGroup.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
04.24.16
Posted in IBM, Law, Microsoft, Patents at 12:13 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
IBM too fits these criteria, on all counts (lobbying, funding, and layoffs, aspiration to become patent licensing-oriented)
Shady manipulations behind § 101
Summary: A look at the effort to bring about a software patents resurgence to the US (with clear Microsoft role in it) and Microsoft’s reliance on software patents as a weapon against Linux/Android because Windows profits dry up and Windows Phone is on the verge of collapse
“Concerted Effort to Push Congress to Eliminate the Eligibility Restrictions of Section 101″
THE TECHRIGHTS focus has shifted somewhat from EPO to § 101 (in the US) as of late*, in proportionate reaction to a new kind of assault on § 101 from former Director of the USPTO, David Kappos, and those who pay him to do so. It is too hard to ignore the lobbying from an increasingly greedy David Kappos, bankrolled by the software patents industry (Microsoft included) for and even others have noticed it.
“This is an effort to legalise software patents without any rigid exceptions.”As Professor Dennis Crouch put it the other day: “Concerted effort to push congress to eliminate the eligibility restrictions of Section 101.”
This is an effort to legalise software patents without any rigid exceptions. We are supposed to believe that large (mega) corporations are more important than the US Supreme Court and simply brush aside what the Supreme Court ruled on. “That is the suggestion,” Crouch added, “perhaps a limit on “abstract ideas as such”.”
Borrowing the loopholes of the EPO (“as such”)? As the FFII’s Benjamin Henrion put it, “no as such please.”
“Remember who is bankrolling Kappos to lobby for software patents.”
“It Does Look like Both IBM and Microsoft are on Manouevres”
Remember who is bankrolling Kappos to lobby for software patents. Even our longtime ‘friends’ at IAM wrote: “It does look like both IBM and Microsoft are on manouevres.”
This was said in relation to the above.
What we have here is further affirmation that (1) there is a “Concerted effort to push congress to eliminate the eligibility restrictions of Section 101.” (2) “It does look like both IBM and Microsoft are on manouevres.”
“Maybe the “we” isn’t IBM but IBM along with its former employee, who became USPTO Director and now an IBM-funded lobbyist against Alice.”It’s not just us who have been seeing this and writing about it then. A lot of these manouevres or “Concerted effort” are boosted by Gene Quinn and his pro-software patents circles at IP Watchdog. A few days ago they wrote about car-driving patents (putting in algorithms what people have done for generations), noting: “It’s in this atmosphere that Eagle Harbor Holdings, LLC (EHH), of Rolling Bay, WA, is looking to chart a course forward on the sale of a patent portfolio related to connected vehicles and autonomous cars. Beginning this week, EHH will be seeking out prospective buyers for a portfolio with 74 total assets, including 42 patents issued and 17 patent families.”
“What Should We Do About Alice?”
A more revealing article was titled “What should we do about Alice?” (we as in IBM?)
We wrote about this spiel from Schecter last week and here is what IP Watchdog writes: “On Tuesday morning, April 19, 2016, Manny Schecter, who is IBM’s chief patent counsel, gave a keynote presentation at the Innography Insights 2016 conference in Austin, Texas. The title of his presentation was simple and straightforward: What should we do about Alice?”
“There’s a strong and ever-growing corporations-funded lobby for software patents in the US right now.”Maybe the “we” isn’t IBM but IBM along with its former employee, who became USPTO Director and now an IBM-funded lobbyist against Alice. Judging by tweets related to this (Gene Quinn blocked me in Twitter not because I was rude but because he lost the argument, but I can still get around the block and see what he writes), these propagandists have created some kind of anti-Alice alliance and some are paid for it directly (Kappos for example), not just indirectly. It is worth remembering that Schecter and Quinn are also pretty close.
Watch how even Martin Goetz (longtime proponent of software patents, close to Quinn) joins this lobbying effort over at IP Watchdog. This can’t be a coincidence, can it? There’s a strong and ever-growing corporations-funded lobby for software patents in the US right now. More light needs to be shed on this campaign and we are happy to see that even Crouch (Patently-O) and IAM recognise this. The conglomerates of patent aggression (e.g. IBM and Microsoft) along with their patent lawyers obviously try to derail the SCOTUS decision against software patents, but they cleverly hide their role in order to avoid or minimise backlash.
“Protecting GUIs with Design Patents”
“The first in the series, interestingly enough, came from the former Chief Patent Counsel at Microsoft. That’s the same unreformed Microsoft which still lobbies and pays lobbyists to restore software patents’ teeth.”Over at MIP, just a few days ago, this article advised companies to pursue design patents (“protecting GUIs with design patents”) when software patents are denied. To quote the summary: “Utility patent protection for software inventions has been severely limited since the Alice decision. Tracy-Gene G Durkin considers an alternative: protecting GUIs with design patents” (just another kind of software patents, which might soon become invalid with SCOTUS intervention as well).
“These Key Cases Offer a Significant Opportunity to Establish Much-needed Clarifications”
Patently-O‘s Crouch acknowledged that there’s a “Concerted effort to push congress to eliminate the eligibility restrictions of Section 101″ and it looks as though his site has become a § 101 battleground, amid this new lobbying campaign, based on three very recent articles. This one about “the Meaning of § 101″ is a “Guest post by Jeffrey A. Lefstin, Professor, University of California, Hastings College of Law, and Peter S. Menell, Professor, University of California, at Berkeley School of Law.”
“Having too many patents actually has a negative effect on the industry, unless one speaks of the meta-industry of patent lawyers.”Another one about § 101 comes from a patent lawyers, namely “Bruce Wexler [...] and Edwin Mok [...] Their practice focuses on patent litigation and trials.” (in other words, they would profit from shooting down Alice and changing § 101).
The first in the series, interestingly enough, came from the former Chief Patent Counsel at Microsoft. That’s the same unreformed Microsoft which still lobbies and pays lobbyists to restore software patents’ teeth. It now gets a platform for this lobbying. To Patently-O‘s credit, there is at least a disclosure in all three articles. What the former Chief Patent Counsel at Microsoft said was: “We are at a critical juncture on defining the proper scope and application of Section 101. Unless the judiciary delineates a clearer framework for enabling meaningful patent protection in areas like biotech and software where America has been a technology leader, the U.S. could rapidly lose its competitive edge in these vital industries.”
“Their issue isn’t clarify; they’re just angry that they’re being denied patents either at the courts or at the patent office.”That’s nonsense. Having too many patents actually has a negative effect on the industry, unless one speaks of the meta-industry of patent lawyers. He also said: “While I don’t believe it is yet time to take legislative action, recent calls for the abolition of Section 101 entirely and dissatisfaction with application of the Mayo/Alice test is reaching a critical level. These key cases offer a significant opportunity to establish much-needed clarifications. Should this opportunity be missed, it is hard to see how Congressional action can be avoided.”
What they mean by “clarifications” (the strategy used by Kappos) is elimination. Their issue isn’t clarify; they’re just angry that they’re being denied patents either at the courts or at the patent office.
“Lumia, Has Its Sales Decreased by 73%, Selling Only 2.3 Million Units in Total”
“Windows in mobile is virtually dead.”Meanwhile, judging by the latest Microsoft news, the shares drop like a rock after disappointing results (also decline in patent taxation) which will lead to yet more layoffs, as we noted here on Friday. IAM went along with the headline “Microsoft reports Android royalties decline and may have to look to Asia to plug the gap”. “Microsoft does not release lined-out licensing numbers,” IAM wrote, “but some have estimated that the company could be making as much as $6 billion each year from monetising patent assets that it claims are read on by Google’s Android operating system.” These are purely speculations, as we have been saying here for years. Microsoft also uses patents for coercion, not just tax money, so there’s a hidden cost/gain from patent blackmail/extortion/racketeering (IAM defends this blackmail in spite of the RICO Act). It’s not hard to see why Microsoft resorted to these ugly tactics. As this new article puts it: “Based on the information provided in the company’s recent quarterly report, the company’s revenue from the mobile division saw a fall of 46%. Additionally, in the last three months, its smart phone, Lumia, has its sales decreased by 73%, selling only 2.3 million units in total.”
“Microsoft Headhunters Seek Linux Folk”
“Rather than make something of value Microsoft now operates like a parasite inside a ‘host’, be it Android or whatever.”Windows in mobile is virtually dead. It’s a dead ‘man’ walking. It’s only kept alive because of misguided speculations that there can be a rebound, but not even infiltrating and destroying Nokia contributed towards that. Rather than make something of value Microsoft now operates like a parasite inside a ‘host’, be it Android or whatever. When it comes to GNU/Linux on the desktop, Microsoft is trying to become the host of (devour) GNU/Linux. Microsoft’s extortion of Linux using software patents notwithstanding, there’s a new bunch of articles (based on Microsoft’s Channel 9) about how the devouring it achieved [1, 2, 3] and we also learn that Microsoft tries to devour employees of the competitor, just as it did to Borland (see the articles “Microsoft Is Hiring Linux Folks For A Secret Open Source Unit” and “Microsoft headhunters seek Linux folk for secret open source unit”). According to Microsoft’s mouthpiece (Ina Fried), all is well and Microsoft “comes in peace” (misleading coverage ensued). As a Microsoft-connected news network put it: “That notion comes from a couple of quotes given to re/code reporter Ina Fried this week.” Fried is more like Microsoft PR since her days at CNET, hardly am objective reporter and also a longtime proponent of Microsoft’s patent aggression. She used to be Microsoft’s main CBS mouthpiece, assigned the “Microsoft” section, where she also habitually badmouthed Linux. So this seems like another PR exercise.
While Microsoft pushes for antitrust action against Android and uses patents against Android we’re supposed to believe that there’s peace now. To quote: “Microsoft has long sparred with Google’s hardware partners regarding alleged software patent infringements associated with the use Android, a Google-fostered open source mobile operating system.”
“While Microsoft pushes for antitrust action against Android and uses patents against Android we’re supposed to believe that there’s peace now.”Has that ever stopped? No.
“Microsoft Has Been Poaching Entire Linux Distros Through “Partnerships” With the Companies”
Over at FOSS Force, Christine Hall asserts that “Microsoft’s Becoming the New, but Successful, Novell” (the comparison here is weak).
“Microsoft has been poaching entire Linux distros through “partnerships” with the companies,” Hall notes. Not much has changed since.
“Fraudulently Obtained Patents and Bullied Competitors to Dominate the Market”
“Microsoft may now be pursing Yahoo’s patents, years after affectively destroying the company (remember how Microsoft ‘stole’ Novell’s patents after demolishing the company).”Microsoft may now be pursing Yahoo's patents, years after affectively destroying the company (remember how Microsoft ‘stole’ Novell’s patents after demolishing the company). Buying these patents might not even be so expensive because, as this new article put it: “The US Supreme Court’s 2015 Alice decision, “gutted business method patents and damaged many software patents,” stated the firm.”
How many more projects and companies need to be destroyed before it’s widely understood that Microsoft is malicious and cannot be trusted? Historically, and especially over the past decade (since the Novell deal), Microsoft has used patents to intimidate rivals and monopolise the market, just like OptumInsight**. It shouldn’t be surprising that behind the scenes and behind proxies Microsoft has been pushing European regulators to put FRAND (essentially software patents) in standards, launch antitrust action against Android (which is killing the Windows monopoly), and is now paying Kappos to promote software patents in the US. Are we supposed to really believe Microsoft has changed? █
______
* The news cycle too has responded to the shift in attention, with one new article noting that: “The U.S. Supreme Court this week declined to review a federal appeals court’s decision to revive a $45 million patent infringement verdict against Limelight Networks Inc.” This is affecting also non-technology companies, as according to this: “The Genetic Technologies decision joins a long list of other cases demonstrating how the Supreme Court cases of Mayo and Alice are creating sweeping changes in the US patent system.” Using 35 U.S.C. § 101 to invalidate CBM and software patents, Samsung finds Alice useful. To quote: “Samsung initially filed a Petition to institute covered business method (CBM) patent review of claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 8,033,458 based upon the assertion that claim 11 is directed to patent ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Later, Apple filed a Petition to institute CBM review of claim 11 based on the same ground, and Apple simultaneously filed a “Motion for Joinder” of their newly filed case with Samsung’s previously instituted case. The PTAB granted Apple’s Petition and consolidated the two proceedings.”
** See the new article titled “Fixes Needed in Medical Software Patent Spat”
A federal judge on Friday dismissed with leave to amend a lawsuit claiming a data analytics company fraudulently obtained patents and bullied competitors to dominate the market for medical claims organizing software.
Cave Consulting Group, or CCGroup, sued OptumInsight in July 2015, accusing the firm of antitrust violations, false advertising and malicious prosecution.
CCGroup says Symmetry Health Data Systems, acquired by OptumInsight in 2003, lied and omitted facts when it applied for and defended patents with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
Symmetry and later OptumInsight came to control 85 to 90 percent of the medical claims grouper software market after suing two competitors for infringing its “ill-gotten patents”, CCGroup claims.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Apple, HP, Patents at 9:30 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Various strands of news about patents, focused on issues raised in the latter half of last week
WE habitually publish outlines of news about patent injustice. While we’re not inherently against patents, there are some domains that oughtn’t have patents in them because collective goals are being impeded rather than advanced by them.
Patents on Marijuana Plants
We start this roundup with the eye-catching article about patents on marijuana. To quote Vice: “On August 4, 2015, US officials quietly made history by approving the first-ever patent for a plant containing significant amounts of THC, the main psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, according to the patent’s holders, their lawyers, and outside experts in intellectual property law.
“One has to wonder how this relates to already-controversial patents on plants, putting aside the controversy surrounding legalisation of cannabis.”“Patent No. 9095554, issued to a group of breeders in California, “relates to specialty cannabis plants, compositions and methods for making and using said cannabis plants and compositions derived thereof,” according to the 145-page document, which is filled with charts, graphs, and reams of scientific jargon describing a range of hybrid strains with distinctive ratios of cannabinoids.”
One has to wonder how this relates to already-controversial patents on plants, putting aside the controversy surrounding legalisation of cannabis.
Patent Misconceptions
An article by Terry Ludlow, CEO at Chipworks, recently referred to patents as something one “develops” (rather than applies for after actually developing something), which probably highlights a common misconception about what patents actually are (many conflate them with physical objects — things that have had patents applied to them).
“Johnson’s assertion that maintaining high patent quality is important should be commended.”
Hewlett Packard
Hewlett Packard (HP), as showed here in past years, promoted software patents even outside the US and MIP has this new interview with HP’s IP litigation counsel. “The California-based counsel shares her views on the state of the IP environment in the US and how professionals can contribute to improvements, particularly in the patent field,” wrote MIP. One part of the interview said this: ‘Johnson adds that “creating and maintaining a balanced patent system that promotes innovation and good, valid patents, while also ensuring that bad, low quality patents are not used to abuse the system and ultimately undermine its effectiveness” is one of the biggest challenges in patent law. She says: “There are three main US venues that address patent disputes – the ITC, PTO, and federal courts. IP litigation counsel in my position have to stay vigilant about understanding trends and the discourse around all three of these venues.”’
We don’t generally regard HP to be so bad on the patent front, either because it doesn’t attack companies using patents all that often or because it doesn’t lobby for software patents as often as companies like GE, Intel, Microsoft, and IBM (comparable in terms of scale). Johnson’s assertion that maintaining high patent quality is important should be commended. Later today we are going to show that Microsoft and IBM push in the opposite direction.
Marathon Patent Group and Satellite Strategies
“It’s important to understand that what we have here is a patent company (or troll) acting as a satellite for another — an increasingly-common loophole to ensure no reactionary lawsuits.”Regarding a case which was mentioned here recently, MIP writes a decent article and so does IP Kat, which said late on Friday: “Dynamic Advances parent company, Marathon Patent Group (a patent licensing company) , stated in its SEC filing that under the terms of the settlement Apple will be granted a licence for the patent and a 3-year covenant not to sue. In exchange, Apple will pay $24.9 million under the agreement, with $5 million of that sum payable upon dismissal of the litigation.”
It’s important to understand that what we have here is a patent company (or troll) acting as a satellite for another — an increasingly-common loophole to ensure no reactionary lawsuits. It’s an anti-deterrence tactic. This discredits the theory of “defensive” patents; how can patents be used defensively against entities which have no products at all? As the headline of this article from a trolls expert put it, “Apple pays $25M to a university—and the patent troll it cut a deal with” (summarised accurately and succinctly).
“So one can see that Marathon Patent Group is nothing but a new (ish) kind of troll.”“Apple has agreed to pay $24.9 million to a “patent troll”,” it says, in order “to end a lawsuit over its Siri voice system, according to documents filed yesterday with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Publicly traded Marathon Patent Group, whose business is focused on patent licensing and lawsuits, will split the settlement cash with Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI), the New York technical university that provided the patents.”
So one can see that Marathon Patent Group is nothing but a new (ish) kind of troll.
‘Killing’ Patent Trolls
The Week has published a new article titled “How to kill patent trolls once and for all”. Composed by Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry, who describes himself as “a writer and fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center,” the article starts with some useful background: “Why are patent trolls so deleterious? Well, these companies exist for no other reason than to gobble up patents and then file frivolous lawsuits over semantic patent violations against any target they can find, with the hope of cashing in with a big settlement. Needless to say, this can wreck the finances of startup companies. (If you want more details, listen to this brilliant This American Life investigation of patent trolls from 2011.)”
“Militarisation of the world’s patent systems isn’t new; a lot of weapons manufacturers want a monopoly on ‘innovative’ new ways to kill people.”A commonly-cited (but controversial) study is then cited: “Patent trolls cost defendant firms $29 billion per year in out-of-pocket costs, according to one study. But the drag on innovation is much bigger than that. Think of all the fledgling companies that miss crucial time-to-market opportunities, and whose products don’t reach their full potential, because they have to fight patent trolls. Some would-be entrepreneurs are surely so frightened of patent trolls that they don’t even bother trying.”
The concluding words are these: “Always, always stand up to the bully. It’s the right thing to do, and it also happens to be the smart thing to do.”
That’s what NewEgg has been doing. It can at least afford to.
Patent Wars
Militarisation of the world’s patent systems isn’t new; a lot of weapons manufacturers want a monopoly on ‘innovative’ new ways to kill people. A new article, “The Pentagon Turns to Intellectual Property to Protect U.S. Military Dominance”, wants us to believe that there’s something to be cheered for because ‘we’ (readers), supposedly as US citizens, are ‘protected’ by the patent system, which keeps ‘our’ military strong, as if rival armies (like China’s or Russia’s) will bow to some patent offices abroad and pay patent royalties to corporations that try to nuke their nation (if it wasn’t for mutually-assured destruction and other forms of deterrence).
“The excesses/abundance/saturations reduce productivity, waste resources, generally slow down development in various fields, and ultimately help nobody but patent lawyers and their largest clients (usually global monopolists).”
Patent Merchants
It’s not so unusual to find patent lawyers in the media. They keep spewing out their pro-war/feud (in the patent sense) propaganda and they try to ‘sell’ patents (applications, lawsuits and other such ‘products’), in the same way arms manufacturers do. An article which misses the point that not all patents are equal and similar, e.g. software patents, was published in the Canadian press a couple of days ago. “Patents are no barrier to innovation, despite the myths,” says the headline. Well, ask software engineers about it and see what they say. The author wrote that “Canadian entrepreneurs should be vigilant to protest against measures that would cripple our patent system to the disadvantage of innovators. This vigilance should extend to monitoring changes that may be proposed to our laws pursuant to international treaty negotiations.”
Well, actually, some patents may be good (we don’t deny this), but their breadth and number made them so shallow and impractical to keep track of. The excesses/abundance/saturations reduce productivity, waste resources, generally slow down development in various fields, and ultimately help nobody but patent lawyers and their largest clients (usually global monopolists). A Web site of lawyers in Indiana has just said “Indiana patent law delaying demand letters” and an Australian law firm celebrates “Growth, Growth & More Growth” in so-called ‘IP’ (growth for patent lawyers, not for the economy). The Australian, a paper owned by News Corp. (‘Conservative’), plays along with this type of agenda, having just published “Innovators miss the bus on filing home patents”. The Financial Express, in the mean time, calls “a market-oriented approach (corporate-leaning) to patent box regime. Because hey, who cares what the general public thinks, right?
“WIPO doesn’t care about development. It doesn’t care about people. It doesn’t even care about its own staff, which it sometimes drives to suicide.”In contrast to this, based on this report from Africa, there is some resistance from a minister. “A South African cabinet minister speaking at an international conference on intellectual property has challenged the view that protecting the rights of creators and inventors leads to innovation,” says this report. “Rob Davies, the country’s trade minister, raised eyebrows recently when he told the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) – the global HQ of patents – that the role of patent protection in promoting innovation has been controversial.”
WIPO doesn’t care about development. It doesn’t care about people. It doesn't even care about its own staff, which it sometimes drives to suicide. It’s Gurry’s way or the highway, just like at the EPO where Battistelli (previously competed with Gurry for the WIPO position) believes he is a king, so no opposition — however minute — can be tolerated. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
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
« Previous Page — « Previous entries « Previous Page · Next Page » Next entries » — Next Page »
Content is available under CC-BY-SA