02.23.16
Posted in America, Patents at 2:55 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Original/English
Publicado en America, Patents at 8:37 am por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz
“Si fuera a llenar el tanque de su coche con tinta de Hewlett-Packard o Lexmark, le costaría $ 100,000,” dijo Gerald Chamales, presidente de Rhinotek Computer Products, un fabricante de cartuchos de tinta y tóner de Carson (Los Angeles County), que son compatibles con las impresoras de marca. “Si llenase una piscina olímpica con tinta de los cartuchos de inyección de tinta HP o Lexmark, le costaría $ 5.9 mil millones con B.” – See original article
Sumario: Revisión del cubrimiento de prensa acerca del caso de patentes de Lexmark, donde el grotesco SOBREPRECIO de la tinta fue defendido por el Circuito Federal
LAS noticias han sido dominadas hasta cierto grado por reportajes acerca del Circuito Federan haciendo un deservicio a la sociedad (de nuevo).
Como la EFF (Fundación De Frontera Electrónica) lo puso esta semana: “El Dictámen del Circuito Federal da privilegios a los dueños de patentes en vez de a los consumidores en los productos que ellos compran¨
“El Dictámen del Circuito Federal da privilegios a los dueños de patentes en vez de a los consumidores, y asegura incluso menos competencia en el mercado de reventas.”
–EFFSin duda, muchas firmas y sitios de abogados estan escribiendo acerca de esto ahora mismo, e.g. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14].
Vale la pena notar el hecho que firmas de abogados escribieron 10 veces más artículos que otros sitios de noticias generales (o sitios de tecnología) acerca de este caso, e.g. [1, 2]. Mucha gente no entiende patentes tampoco los reporteros. Ellos usarían frases como ¨patentes de inventos¨ o ¨hacer patentes¨. La propaganda trabaja para ellos y no piensan fuera de ella.
“En este caso, el tribunal sostuvo que este tipo de restricción es aplicable para Lexmark, pero sólo porque el producto de Lexmark está protegida por derechos de patentes.”
–Dennis CrouchAquí esta el mejor reportaje que hemos encontrado en esta materia (hasta ahora). TechDirt, que ha cubierto esta materia por más de una década (yendo atras hasta 2004 si no antes), escribió: ¨si tu fallas bloquear la competencia de una manera, aparentemente tu puedes hacerlo de otra -y enventualmentee terminarás en la Corte de Apelaciones del Distrito Federal, quienes enredarán todo y matarán a la competencia por tí. La compañía de printers Lexmark ha estado en guerra contra distribuidores alternativos de tinta por más de una década. Como estarán enterados tinta para impresoras es vergonzósamente CARÍSIMA, con tal estimado (de hace más de una década) de que en order de llenar una píscina olimpica con ella, te costaría $5.9 BILLIONS (si con ¨b¨) en la caja registradora de tu tienda local. Los fabricantes de impresoras notablemente han tomado un ¨regalo de impresora y ´baratísimas´ de bajo costo, y compensarla con seriamente sobretasados precios por tinta en su negocio. Esta clase de negocio trabaja hasta que alguién sale y trata de vender tinta más barata.¨
Suficientemente decir este caso es acerca de coservar los precios artificialmente CAROS (muchísimos mas altos en magnitud que los costos de producción). Una respuesta publicada por Dennis Crouch dijo: ¨Me sorprendió la plena decisión del Circuito Federal en el caso Lexmark de re-afirmar Mallingckrodt – DAR AL VENDEDOR EL PODER DE BLOQUEAR LA FUTURA REVENTA Y REUSO DE UN PRODUCTO PATENTADO. Mi sorpresa se basa en la larga tradición de la ley de propiedad Americana de promover el flujo libre de comercio al rechazar servidumbres que limitan la alienación e reuso de bienes. Para ser claro, las cortes han enforzado contractos entre partidos voluntarios para este fin, pero esas mismas cortes han rechazado permitir convenios restrictivos para aferrarse al bien y bloquear cualquier subsequente comprador. Aqui, la corte sostuvo que este tipo de restricción es enforzable por Lexmark, pero sólo por que es un producto Lexmark cubierto por derechos de patentes.
“Recuerde que CAFC es responsable de muchas otras decisiones igualmente sin tacto.”No fue la primera vez que el blog de Crouch cubrió este caso en días reciéntes (mencionamos esto unas pocas veces en los posts de la semana pasada). Básicamente, Lexmark TUERCE Y DOBLA LA LAY POR PRECIO ARREGLADO/ALZA DE PRECIOS. Otras compañías como HP, sin duda se beneficiarían de esto a expensas del público. Para citar el blog de Crouch: ¨Las presumpciones son de alguna importancia para aquellos operando en el terreno. Aquí la Corte de los Estados Unidos presumirá que las ventas de un producto no acaban con los derechos de una patente estadounidense. Esto para un importador significa que debe obtener un permiso/licensia de esos derechos para evitar querellas (asumiendo un válida así como una patente infringida). Por supuesto, que la licensia puede ser implícita de esos derechos para evitar querellas proveyendo noticias del intento importador. En adición, dependiendo del lugar de ventas, UCC 2-312 (o su equivalente foránea) puede crear un presumpución de licensia dependiendo de la situación.¨
Cuando leyes son promulgadas para protejer modelos de ventas o a largas corporaciones a expensas del público, ¿Son esas leyes legítimas? ¿No deberíamos sentirnos libres de desafiarlas o mejor aún, ponernos en desobediencia civil? Recuérden que la CAFC es responsable por muchas otras decisiones sin tacto. También fue la CAFC LA QUE COMENZÓ LAS PATENTES DE SOFTWARE, NO SÓLO EN LOS eSTADOS uNIDOS SINO EN TODO EL MUNDO. En el pasado hemos mostrado evidencia de corrupción institucional dentro de la CAFC. █
“Cínico es el hombre que conoce el precio de todo y el valor de nada.”
–Oscar Wilde
Permalink
Send this to a friend
02.20.16
Posted in America, Patents at 3:32 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: A positive take on recent developments, impacting statistics in the United States, which serve to highlight the importance of abolishing software patents
IN THE previous post, the decline or demise of software patents was noted, backed by new examples. CAFC‘s introduction of software patents nearly 4 decades ago in the United States has reached a crossroad or a turning point. No longer are the weapons of patent trolls effective, unless the trolls manage to settle out of court (as is usually the case when they silently extort small companies). It’s nothing other than “protection money”, shrewdly disguised as “business as usual” or a legitimate “business model”. According to the EPO-funded IAM ‘magazine’, there is a “Big fall in US patent suit filings following pleading standards change” (they cite a respected data source which keeps track of the numbers). Remember that IAM ‘magazine’ is again, by its own admission (as was the case last year), being paid by patent trolls (sorry, we mean, “NPEs”). The alleged decline in lawsuits must be a cause of concern for these patent maximalists. It means less money for patent lawyers.
Alluding to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), Dennis Crouch writes that it “has released an interesting new (though non-precedential) decision on patent exhaustion – in particular the court affirmed a lower court finding of exhaustion based upon a retroactive sublicense filed after the lawsuit was filed and the patents had expired. The case offers some further guidance as to how patent licenses are treated in complex mergers.”
“No longer are the weapons of patent trolls effective, unless the trolls manage to settle out of court (as is usually the case when they silently extort small companies).”This is noteworthy as it further serves to limit passage of patents for aggression before expiry (this is where a lot of patent trolling comes from).
Another noteworthy report says that Google, which is less than 20 years old (the lifetime of a patent), is hiding software patents. Jesse Drucker wrote: “More than a decade ago, Google moved a chunk of its software patents offshore as part of a Double Irish.” Slashdot is meanwhile indicating that “Google Submits Patent Application For Online Voting”. That’s very clearly and unambiguously a software patent. To quote Slashdot: “Google has outlined a concept for real-time online voting in the Google home page in a patent to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Entitled ‘Social Voting-Based Campaigns in Search’, the application proposes a voting user interface (VUI) that will enable a user to submit one or more votes in a voting-based campaign, giving the hypothetical example of a campaign to vote for the ‘Top American Singer’, with users authenticated via Google log-ins. If implemented, the system would represent a new foray for Google into generating rather than recording analytics and metrics of popularity.”
“The alleged decline in lawsuits must be a cause of concern for these patent maximalists. It means less money for patent lawyers.”It will be interesting to see if some time in the future Google might choose to disseminate patents to trolls (for attacks, or weaponisation through proxies) in the same way that Microsoft gives patents to trolls which soon thereafter attack Linux (we gave several examples of this in the past), often addressing/sending the lawsuits and letters to Red Hat and Google. Some of the above news, regarding lawsuit numbers, potency of software patents and a new decision from CAFC serve to reassure us that things may be getting better faster than they get worse. But we must all be vigilant. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in America, Microsoft, Patents at 2:58 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: An overview of some very recent cases involving software patents and situations in which the US Supreme Court’s stance helps squash them
THE US Supreme Court‘s ruling on Alice is the best thing that ever happened regarding software patents as far as Techrights is concerned. It helped stop software patents (or significantly slow them down). The 2014 ruling exceeded our expectations in the sense that its breadth touched CAFC as well (CAFC is where software patents were originally ‘born’). Every week we learn of new cases in which Alice helps crush software patents, sending a warning sign to anyone who considers patenting software or wants to sue a company using software patents.
“I think the Supreme Court is going to be pretty sick of Apple by the end of this year,” wrote this person the other day. “Apple v Samsung also may be heard by the justices,” based on this update from SCOTUS blog. Apple apparently cannot effectively compete without suing companies using software patents and design patents, which typically resemble software patents. According to this, “Samsung v. Apple appeal to the Supreme Court: petition & response are now available.”
Patently-O, a reasonably reliable source of information on these matters, has just published a useful list of SCOTUS cases regarding patents. Will SCOTUS set even a stronger precedence regarding software patents?
According to this update, “US Pat 7,072,849, Network Comm Patent Survived Alice Attack in DE” (one of the few cases where Alice does not work in eliminating software patents). Contrariwise, according to lawyers’ media (published a few days ago), “The Supreme Court’s Decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Has Taken a Heavy Toll on Patents for Computer-Related Inventions” (even patent lawyers admit the undeniable impact on software patents). To quote the opening paragraph: “The patent statue broadly defines patent-eligible subject matter as “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter” and any improvements. But inventors cannot patent laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas. The prohibition on patenting abstract ideas has caused federal courts to declare hundreds of patents for computer-related inventions invalid since the Supreme Court’s June 2014 decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank. After Alice, about 70% of challenges for failure to claim patent-eligible subject matter have succeeded.”
The key part is in that last sentence. We saw even worse estimates, e.g. with over 90% courtesy of Bilski Blog. John R. Harris, a patent lawyer, noted that: “Other law firm agrees that Alice decision taken heavy toll on patents for computer-related technologies” (more specifically, software patents).
The other day another lawyers’ site wrote: “The patent attorney often faces the problem that broad claims for a class can be rejected when prior art surfaces for one of the members of the class. One strategy is to exclude those members of the class found in the prior art, and to claim the rest of the class.”
Notice how patent lawyers basically tend to work, always looking for loopholes when applying for patents and suing. Here are the patent maximalists that the EPO funds saying (just a few days ago): “Two years ago the Supreme Court opened the floodgates for attacks on computer-implemented inventions in Alice Corp Pty, Ltd v CLS Bank International. The Supreme Court set out a “two-step framework” for determining whether patents are claiming laws of nature, natural phenomena or abstract ideas, as opposed to patent-eligible applications of those concepts. Under the first step, courts must determine whether the claims at issue are directed to a patent ineligible concept, such as an abstract idea. If so, the courts must look for an “inventive concept” – that is, an element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure the patent amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea or ineligible concept itself.
“Mortgage Grader joins the post-Alice wave of cases invalidating computer-implemented inventions in various forms. The court agreed that the claims were directed to the abstract idea of “anonymous loan shopping”, and that the claims as a whole recited nothing more than the collection of information to generate a “credit grading” and facilitate anonymous loan shopping. In particular, the court noted that the series of steps covered by the asserted claims could all be performed by humans without a computer.”
The noteworthy thing right here is that a lot of the worst maximalists out there have come to grips with the fact that Alice is a game changer. There’s no point denying that as anyone who does deny it simply discredits himself or herself. To IP Watchdog‘s credit, it did foresee the impact of Alice early on (shortly after SCOTUS had published the ruling), despite dissent from fellow patent maximalists. It wasn’t long afterwards that even the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) reinforced the precedence set by SCOTUS and software patents dropped like flies.
Speaking of CAFC, Secure Web has just lost to Microsoft, as this new post written by patent lawyer indicated the other day. It’s a win for Microsoft, but a loss for software patents, which Microsoft so heavily relies on. It turns out, based on this article, that the two software patents were aimed at Microsoft’s worse spyware (in some regards Skype is the worst). To quote WIPR: “Microsoft’s Skype computer program did not infringe two patents related to data encryption, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has ruled.
“Yesterday, February 17, the federal circuit said the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas correctly constructed the claims in two patents asserted by technology company Secure Web Conference.”
In a sense, for a change, we are happy that Microsoft won this court case as it serves to show that software patents are a dying thing, or a bubble that’s busting, even in the Eastern District of Texas, patent trolls’ capital. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
02.19.16
Posted in America, Europe, Patents at 11:16 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
It’s already happening right here in the UK…
Summary: The role played by patents, increasingly bolstered by self-serving patent maximalists, outweighs actual creativity, innovation and production which patents were, in principle, supposed to encourage and advance
PATENT trolls are a huge problem, but the corporate media, owned and/or influenced by large corporations, does not pay attention to the fact that patent trolls almost always use software patents. Therein lies the bigger problem. It’s the core problem. Software patents should never have existed in the first place, as evidence always served to show that they would be counter-productive.
Here we see a new article from the British mass media, which was summarised this week (just a couple of days ago) as follows: “Apple has been told to pay a hefty fine to a small company for patent infringement. So why aren’t we celebrating the victory of a ‘David’? Because the little guy is a ‘patent troll’, stifling innovation by abusing the system, says Rhodri Marsden” (he says nothing about the nature of the patent/s or Apple‘s own patent aggression, including its 6-year patent war against Linux/Android).
As we put it earlier this month, "VirnetX Case Against Apple Shows Not the Problem With Patent Trolls But With Software Patents."
In other news, as noted here yesterday, “IV [Intellectual Ventures] Invention Fund Teams with Fraunhofer in Europe” (Fraunhofer is a notorious actor when it comes to software patents in Europe).
The EPO-funded bloggers wrote a puff piece for Intellectual Ventures, the world’s largest patent troll. This trolls-funded mouthpiece (also EPO-funded) went with the headline “The Intellectual Ventures invention fund teams up with Fraunhofer in major move into Europe”. UPC would help more such trolls penetrate Europe, giving jobs to patent lawyers who profit from an increase in litigation, or “patent warming” as the FFII’s President calls it.
Who would more likely settle with patent trolls? Take a guess. It’s European SMEs, which make up a lot of the industry here (we don’t have Googles and IBMs here, except for branches of these US firms). It makes SMEs a very attractive bunch of targets for trolls, especially in Europe. To quote United For Patent Reform (from the other day): “Did you know patent trolls are disproportionately hurting smaller, more vulnerable firms?” There is a valuable reference there with additional information and it links to this paper (published less than a year ago by James Bessen et al). Wall Street, i.e. the big businesses well past their IPOs (and with massive legal departments of their own) promotes or at least defends patent trolls in its press. Is anybody surprised by this?
“Software patents should never have existed in the first place, as evidence always served to show that they would be counter-productive.”The Computer and Communications Industry Association, which is funded by big businesses, now focuses on universities — not aggressors like Microsoft or Apple — as the problem.
“‘Innovation’”, wrote in response this one person, “is a piece of paper you can sue others with?”
“Warped mentality,” added this anonymous person.
The context for this misdirection must be reports about CMU, which not only attacked anonymity (undermining Tor for the US government) but also attacks practicing companies using patents. As WIPR put it: “Carnegie sued Marvell at the US District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania in 2009, claiming the company had sold billions of chips using the technology.”
This is likely to become a sort of ‘tax’ on products that almost everyone buys. See parts of a longer discussion with Patent Buddy about the funding of US universities and how it now relates to such legal battles over patents. “Carnegie Mellon,” as it was put at one stage, “has transformed US universities in[to] patent trolls” (link to CMU).
“These days in the US,” Patent Buddy told me, “patent attorneys make about as much as engineers.”
What about the externalities? They’re everyone except patent lawyers.
“It makes SMEs a very attractive bunch of targets for trolls, especially in Europe.”The response to him was that “in a better world they should do another more useful job.” And on it goes (details in Twitter)…
Looking at some press coverage we find that, based on the formal statement, “Marvell Technology Group Ltd. (NASDAQ: MRVL), a global leader in integrated silicon solutions, and Carnegie Mellon University, a private research university, today announced that, pursuant to a court-ordered mediation, the Company and University have settled their patent infringement lawsuit. The parties have resolved the case on mutually acceptable terms, including an aggregate payment by Marvell to CMU of $750 million, with no ongoing royalty payments.”
Here is what patent maximalists wrote: “Court-ordered mediation ends in $750m agreement to settle the seven-year-long patent infringement lawsuit between Marvell Technology Group and Carnegie Mellon University” (see CMU background).
“CMU does not actually produce anything.”This is not a software patent, but the issue here is different. CMU does not actually produce anything. The source of CMU’s funding, as noted above, is also relevant to this. From an economic perspective, the public only loses.
Incidentally, as pointed out by the FFII’s President the other day, “Olimex [is] forced to file software patents are required in order to get EU funding,” which is an “insane waste of public money” (it can also be used to tax the public later).
Here is the relevant bit of a blog post published two days ago:
This gives amazing opportunities to Bulgarian companies to become globally competitive.
Unfortunately the most interesting area the innovation is burden with most paperwork and some things which are totally unacceptable with our Open Source way of thinking. For instance one of the requirement is to fill file patents for the innovation, which to protect the EU investment in your company. Looks logically, but this effectively cut off all companies which work with Open Source Technologies.
What is the EU coming to? Is it trying to impede a FOSS spirit and a sharing culture by urging people to get software patented, despite the rules (as per the EPC) not allowing it? Something sure is rotten at the EPO, which urgently needs to be fixed. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in America, Asia, Europe, Patents at 10:18 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
No safe haven for European SMEs, which may be innocent but not affluent enough to prove it in a so-called ‘unitary’ court
Whose regime is the EU striving to imitate?
Summary: Injunctions and raids in the United States (increasingly affecting small Chinese companies as well) serve as a reminder of the increasingly-aggressive borderless patent regimes (like the Unitary Patent Court)
ONE of our arguments against the Unitary Patent Court (UPC) is that it would not only increase damages, affecting a lot more European companies (as the accused/defendant/extorted for settlement), but that it would also cause bans on products from Europe, especially products that come from small companies that don’t have a legal department. China’s SIPO, as we showed here many times over the past year, increasingly adopts a USPTO-like model (where patent quantity, not quality, is emphasised, leaving all the actual examination work for courts to deal with at the price/cost/expense of thousands of dollars per day) and there are product bans too, based on EPO-funded media. It brags about “quick injunctions” as if banning a product before properly engaging in juridical review/overview is somehow great (it’s great for patent lawyers).
Last month we showed how a Chinese company had its products confiscated by a bunch of goons when they went to an expo in the US (CES) [1, 2, 3]. US Marshals raided a booth at a notoriously high-security (military-grade) event. Now, as it turns out, the process was somewhat of a sham. TechDirt explained it with the headline: “Remember How US Marshals Seized All Those ‘Hoverboards’ At CES In A Patent Dispute? The Company Has Now Dropped The Case” (probably because it lacked merit).
“Last month we showed how a Chinese company had its products confiscated by a bunch of goons when they went to an expo in the US (CES).”“Back in January,” explained TechDirt, “we wrote with some concern over the news that US Marshals had seized a bunch of one wheel scooters that everyone wants to call hoverboards, even though they don’t hover. The case involved a US company, Future Motion, that had gotten a lot of attention (and a utility patent and a design patent) on such single-wheel balancing scooters. Future Motion then sued a Chinese firm, Changzhou First International Trade Co., that was making a product that certainly looked similar. Changzhou was demonstrating its product at CES in Las Vegas, only to have the US Marshals raid its booth and seize all its products based on a 7 minute hearing in front a judge where Changzhou didn’t even get to present its side.”
Well, we too covered this at the time. The EPO-funded media (IAM) actually celebrated it, much as we have come to expect (we took note of this at the time). IAM will soon organise its EPO-funded pro-UPC event in the US. It’s an EPO project which broadens injunctions and makes these more severe. There are other associated issues, such as patent trolls, but this will be the subject of our next post. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
02.17.16
Posted in America, Patents at 8:37 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
See original article
Summary: A review of press coverage regarding the Lexmark patent case, where gross overpricing of ink was defended by the Federal Circuit
THE news has been dominated, to some degree, by reports about the Federal Circuit doing a disservice to society (yet again).
As the EFF put it this week: “The Federal Circuit’s rule privileges patent owners over consumers, and helps ensure even less competition in the resale market. We hope the Supreme Court takes a hard look at this case, and restores consumers’ rights in products they purchase.”
“The Federal Circuit’s rule privileges patent owners over consumers, and helps ensure even less competition in the resale market.”
–EFFWithout a doubt, many lawyers’ firms and lawyers’ sites are writing about it right now, e.g. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14].
Worth noting is the fact that legal sites wrote like 10 times more articles than general news sites (or technology sites) about this case, e.g. [1, 2]. A lot of people don’t ‘get’ patents; neither do journalists. They’d use silly phrases like “invent patents” or “make patents”. The propaganda worked on them.
“Here, the court held that this type of restriction is enforceable for Lexmark, but only because Lexmark’s product is covered by patent rights.”
–Dennis CrouchHere is the best report we’ve found on this subject (so far). TechDirt, which has covered this subject for over a decade (going back to 2004 if not earlier), wrote: “if you fail to block competition with one kind, apparently you can try, try again with another kind — and eventually you’ll end up in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, who will mess everything up and kill off the competition. Printer company Lexmark has been at war with alternative suppliers of ink for well over a decade. As you may be aware, printer ink is sold at a ridiculously high markup, such that one estimate (from over a decade ago) noted that in order to fill an Olympic-sized swimming pool with printer ink, it would cost you $5.9 billion (yes, with a “b”) at the checkout counter of your local office-supply retailer. The printer makers have notably taken a “give away cheap crappy printers at a low cost, and make it up in seriously overpricing the ink” strategy to their businesses. This kind of thing works great until someone tries to step in and sell competing ink.”
Suffice to say, this case is about keeping the prices artificially high (higher by several orders of magnitude than the production cost). A response posted by Dennis Crouch said: “I was surprised at the en banc Federal Circuit’s decision in Lexmark to re-affirm Mallinckrodt — giving a seller power to block future resale and reuse of a patented product. My surprise is grounded in the longstanding tradition in American property law of promoting the free-flow of commerce by refusing to enforce servitudes that limit the alienation or use of goods. To be clear, courts have often enforced contracts between willing parties to this end, but those same courts have refused to allow restrictive covenants to cling to the good and bind any subsequent purchaser. Here, the court held that this type of restriction is enforceable for Lexmark, but only because Lexmark’s product is covered by patent rights.”
“Remember that CAFC is responsible for many other equally tactless decisions.”It was not the first time that Crouch’s blog covered this case in recent days (we mentioned this a few times in last week’s posts). Basically, Lexmark twists and bends the law for price-fixing/price hikes. Other companies, such as HP, would no doubt benefit from this, at the expense of the public. To quote Crouch’s blog: “The presumptions are of some importance for those operating on the ground. Here, the US court will presume that foreign sales of a product do not exhaust the US patent right. Thus, an importer must obtain a release/license of those rights to avoid liability (assuming a valid and otherwise infringed patent). Of course, that license right may be implied based upon providing notice of the importation intent. In addition, depending upon the location of sale, UCC 2-312 (or its foreign equivalent) may create a presumption of license depending upon the situation.”
When laws are being passed to protect the business models or large corporations at the expense of the public, are the laws at all legitimate? Should we not feel free to challenge them or better yet, engage in civil disobedience? Remember that CAFC is responsible for many other equally tactless decisions. It was also CAFC that got software patents started, not just in the US but in the whole world. In the past we showed evidence of institutional corruption inside CAFC. █
“A cynic is a man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.”
–Oscar Wilde
Permalink
Send this to a friend
02.16.16
Posted in America, Europe, Patents at 6:34 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Original/English
Publicado in America, Europe, Patents at 7:20 am por Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Patentes on matemáticas, tales como vision en ordenádores (mi materia investigativa), están crecientemente haciéndose imposibles bajo el régimen de Battistelli.
Cuando el objetivo de uno es sólo maximizar el número de patentes el modelo a seguir debería ser la SIPO (China) o la USPTO, donde el logro vara es otorgar una patente on cualquier montón de papel que llegue, asegurándose un MONOPOLIO en virtualmente todo bajo el sol. (mientras diga ¨técnico¨, ¨inventivo¨, en un ¨ordenador¨, e incluso ¨en/sobre el Internet¨)
Sumario: Patentes de software y otras patentes de poco on ningún mérito que puedan ser físicamente demostrados son ahora otorgados por la Oficina Europea de Patentes, a pesar del colapso de las patentes de software en los Estados Unidos
AQUÍ EN Techrights nos enfocamos mayormente en las patentes de sofware (foco primario de este sitio), pero hay otros problemas asociados con la OEP, incluyendo el uso de patentes CONTRA los llamados medicamentos ´genéricos´ y tratamientos de cancer (hay varios problemas asociados con eso). IP Kat cubre una historia que fué mencionada aquí el otro dia, diciendo que la ¨patente Europea No 1 313 508 proteje el uso de pemtrexed disodium en combinación con vitamina B12 o un derivado farmaceútico de ella y opcionalmente una proteína fólica amalgamándola. La patente expira el 15 de Junio del 2015.¨
“Poniéndo aparte los abusos contra los derechos humanos, hay problemas técnicos también.”Sea que uno hable acerca de la Oficina Europea de Patentes or epogen/Epoeting alfa, la OEP es sinónimo con ENGAÑO, rompimiénto de las reglas. Poniéndo aparte los abusos contra los derechos humanos, hay problemas técnicos también. Por instancia alguien publicó una divertida oda titulada ¨Declaración acerca de la Verdad e Imbecílidad SelfImpuesta…¨
Esto es acerca del campo de distorsión de la realidad, que reciéntemente cubrimos aquí, ambas antes y después del evento en Rijswijk. Otra persona correctamente insinuó que ¨el nivel de la USPTO ha sido ahora [corrégido] y alcanzado por la OEP¨ con patentes on un ronroneo de un gato digital – una patente de software suficientemente IDIÓTICA/TRIVIAL que la USPTO probablemente aprobaría dados sus bajos estándares, enviándo el mensaje que casi todas la aplicacines serán exitósas, llevando a un diluvio [http://techrights.org/2016/01/14/patent-quality-decline/] de aplicaciones, también a los legajos de las cortes. ¨Seguramente miran el problema-solución como si existiese cuando se evalua el paso inventivo,¨ escribió la persona. ¨Sin embargo yo todavía no puedo ver que inventivo pueda haber en clamar que el ronroneo de un gato virtual cuando un cursor se mueve para atrás y adelante en el gato virtual. El reclamo ciertamente no lee en un gato actual. Si este fuera el caso, la novedad no sería dada. [...] tristemente significa que el NIVEL DE LA USPTO HA SIDO ALCANZADO POR LA OEP…¨ ¿Dónde ha desaparecido el sentido común?¨ Esta es la patente en cuestión, de Immersion Corporation, quien tiene un extensívo racimo de otras patentes de software cros-referéntes en la OEP, en su mayoría relacionada con la interface del usuario y vibración para retroalimentación. Simplemente por que el software dispare una ¨vibración¨ no significa que el software es algo físico. Es todavía una patente de software. Basado en el sitio web de esta compañía, es acerca de software y esa acerca de LICENCIAR, no necesariamente de hacer cosas. Hay una sección de ¨licenciatura de PI Licensing¨ bajo ¨Productos¨. Para citar su descripción plenaria desde su página frontal: ¨Licencias de Immersion tocan tecnológia de retroalimentación.¨
“Nos preocupa que Europa esta siguiendo los pasos de los Estados Unidos en lo referente a patentes cuando en realidad debería ser lo contrario, los Estados Unidos emulando a Europa, por que su sistema de patentes historicamente ha recibido mayor respeto y confianza.”Esta clase de maximalismo de patentes, significa la expansión de estas o el objetivo de maximalizar su número para bajar su cálidad (de examinación de patentes aprobadas), es algo de lo que hemos viniendo advirtiendo muchas veces antes. Por ello escribimos acerca de la OEP por casi una década, primariamente en relación a patentes de software. Fue Brimelow quién permitió ¨tal¨ agujero trasero se escape, pero fue Pinocho Battistelli quién lo llevó más allá con acelerada examinación (signficando lenientes o flojas) para Microsoft, cuya mayoría de patentes explota el agujero traserdo de Brimelow haciéndo ver algo que no es.
Nos preocupa que Europa esta siguiendo los pasos de los Estados Unidos en lo referente a patentes cuando en realidad debería ser lo contrario, los Estados Unidos emulando a Europa, por que su sistema de patentes historicamente ha recibido mayor respeto y confianza. Los ayayeros de patentes de sofware – gente que nunca escribieron programas de computación por sí mismos o entienden como una computadora trabaja – tratan de presionar a los hacedores de leyes, jueces, examinadores, etc. para abolir el Caso Alice como factor, a pesar que la Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos USPTO abrumadoramente (y en unanímidad) promulgó en contra de patentes de software abstractas. Aquí esta el último ejemplo de ello publicado sólo ayer. Por su propia admisión, el autor ¨es un abogado de patentes licensiado para practicar en California y Arizona.¨ Mirando sólo al lado del agresor de patentes y sus abogados (no sus victimas, que son grandes en número), escribe que ¨cuerpos examinadores¨ sobre usan la sección 101 de rechazos puede ser ganado via una más discíplinada y estructurada set de instrucciones.¨
“¿Cómo reducción en rechazos es una cosa buena? ¿Cuál es el punto de una examinación de patentes si no hay dificultad y frecuentes rechazos?”¿Porqué es un sobreuso? ¿Porqué a el no le gusta cuando el Caso Alice es referido? Es una decisión fuerte de alto nivel de la Corte Suprema. ¿Porqué sobrepasarla?
¨A los examinadores les gustaría,¨ el dijo, insinuando de alguna manera que otorgando más patentes de software es algo que a los examinadores preferirían (en el pasado por lo menos ellos recibían un incentivo financiero para actualmente otorgar si estaban en duda en vez de rechazar). El también dijo que ¨aplicantes encontrarían los resultados de una examinación más predecible y sabrían como responder a rechazos mejor; y la reducción de rechazos representaría una ´buena´ política de patentes y beneficiaría a la economía estadounidense.¨ ¿En serio?
Esto es una TONTERÍA COMPLETA. ¿Cómo reducción en rechazos es una cosa buena? ¿Cuál es el punto de una examinación de patentes si no hay dificultad y frecuentes rechazos? Es como si todos esos escándalos en el Reino Unido donde las autoridades examinadoras en el mundo escolar son encontrados haciendo los exámenes más fáciles que la gente joven obtenga altos grados y deduzcan por ello que los niños de alguna manera (mágica) están convirtiéndo en más inteligentes.
“No tomen consejo de abogados de patentes en materias como esta.”Los abogados de patentes entendiblemente están preocupados porque muchos de sus viejos clientes reluctantemente se sienten inclinados a patentar más software. Eso es una cosa buena para la sociedad en su conjunto. No tomen consejo de abogados de patentes en materias como esta.
¨El estado del cabildeo en contra de las patentes de software es tan malo que tengo que decir #ilovefs,¨ Benjamin Henrion escribió el Domingo por la noche. Está en lo correcto ya que el campo que luchaba contra las patentes de software solía ser mucho más activo hace una década o hace algunos años. El debate público ha sido en su mayoría distorsiónado (con ayuda de los medios corporátivos, que es propiedad de las grandes corporaciones que aman las patentes de software pero que odia a los trolls que las enjuician), al punto que el público ahora piensa en términos de ¨trolles de patentes¨, no esfera de patentes o dominio de patentes. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
02.15.16
Posted in America, Europe, Patents at 7:20 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Patents on maths, such as computer vision (my research discipline), are increasingly becoming possible under the Battistelli regime
When one’s goal is just maximising the number of patents the role model would be SIPO (China) or USPTO, where the yardstick/accomplishment is granting a patent on any bundle of paper that comes in, securing a monopoly on virtually everything under the Sun (as long as it says “technical”, “inventive”, “on a computer”, and/or “over the Internet”)
Summary: Software patents and other patents of little or no technical merit that can be physically demonstrated are now being granted by the European Patent Office, despite the demise of software patents in the United States
HERE IN Techrights we mostly focus on software patents (primary focus of the site), but there are many other problems associated with the EPO, including the use of patents against so-called ‘generic’ medicine and cancer treatments (there are various issues associated with that). IP Kat covers a story that was mentioned here the other day, stating that “European Patent No 1 313 508 protects the use of pemetrexed disodium in combination with vitamin B12 or a pharmaceutical derivative thereof and optionally a folic protein binding agent. The patent expires on 15 June 2021.”
“Putting aside the abuses against human rights, there are technical issues as well.”Whether one talks about the European Patent Office or epogen/Epoetin alfa, EPO is now synonymous with cheating, breaking of rules. Putting aside the abuses against human rights, there are technical issues as well. For instance, somebody posted an amusing ode titled “BB’s Declaration on Truth and Self-Imposed Stupidity…”
This is about the reality distortion field, which we recently covered here, both before and after the event in Rijswijk. Another person correctly insinuated that “the level of the USPTO has now been [corrected] reached by the EPO” with patents on a digital purring cat — a software patent idiotic/trivial enough that the USPTO would most likely approve given its low standards and greed which motivates such low standards, sending out the message that nearly all applications will be successful, leading to a filings deluge, also at courts’ dockets. “Sure that the problem-solution-approach exists when assessing inventive step,” wrote the person. “I however still fail to see what can be inventive in claiming the purring of a virtual cat when a cursor is moved back and forth on the virtual cat. The claim does certainly not read on an actual cat. If this would be the case, novelty would not even be given. [...] it means sadly that the level of the USPTO has now be reached by the EPO….. Where has common sense disappeared to?” This is the patent in question, from Immersion Corporation, which has an extensive cluster of other cross-referencing software patents at the EPO, mostly relating to user interfaces and vibration for feedback. Just because the software triggers a “vibrate” action doesn’t mean the software is somehow physical. It’s still a software patent. Based on the company’s own site, it’s about software and it’s about licensing, not necessarily making things. There’s an “IP Licensing” section under “Products”. To quote their plenary description from the front page: “Immersion licenses touch feedback technology.”
“We worry that Europe is following the footsteps of the US when it comes to patents when it fact it should have been the US emulating Europe, for its patent system has historically received more respect and trust.”This kind of patent maximalism, meaning the expansion of patents or the objective of maximising the number of patents by lowering quality (of examination or patents approved), is something that we’ve warned about many times here before. It’s why we wrote about the EPO almost a decade ago, primarily in relation to software patents. It was Brimelow who permitted the “as such” loophole to sneak in, but it was Battistelli who took this further with accelerated examination (meaning lax or lenient) for Microsoft, which mostly patents software and exploits Brimelow’s loophole to make it seem like something which it’s not.
We worry that Europe is following the footsteps of the US when it comes to patents when it fact it should have been the US emulating Europe, for its patent system has historically received more respect and trust. The boosters of software patents — people who themselves never wrote computer programs or understand how a computer works — try to pressure policymakers, judges, examiners etc. to abolish the Alice case as a factor, despite the SCOTUS overwhelmingly (unanimously) ruling against abstract software patents. Here is the latest example of that, published just yesterday. By his own admission, the author “is a patent attorney licensed to practice law in California and Arizona.” Looking only at the side of patent aggressors and their lawyers (not their victims, who are far greater in number), he writes that “examining corps’ over-use of Section 101 rejections can be reined in via a more disciplined and structured set of instructions.”
“How is reduction in rejections a good thing? What is the point of patent examination is there’s no difficulty and frequent rejections?”Why is it overuse? Because he doesn’t like it when Alice is brought up? It’s a Supreme Court’s strong, high-level decision. Why bypass it?
“Examiners would like it,” he said, insinuating that somehow granting a lot more patents on software is something that examiners would prefer (in the past at least they received financial incentive to actually grant if in doubt rather than decline). He also said that “applicants would find examination outcome more predictable and know how to respond to rejections better; and reduced rejections represents good patent policy and will benefit the U.S. economy.”
This is complete nonsense. How is reduction in rejections a good thing? What is the point of patent examination is there’s no difficulty and frequent rejections? It’s like those scandals in the UK where examination authorities in the scholarly world are found have have made exams easier so that young people get higher grades and they can deduce from it that children are somehow (magically) getting a lot smarter.
“Don’t take advice from patent lawyers on issues such as these.”Patent lawyers are understandably concerned because many of their old clients probably feel reluctant to patent software any longer. That’s a good thing for society as a whole. Don’t take advice from patent lawyers on issues such as these. They’re biased, and not for idealogical reasons but for their own pockets.
“The status of the lobby against software patents is so bad that I have to say #ilovefs,” Benjamin Henrion wrote on Sunday night. He is right as the camp that fought against software patents used to be a lot more active a decade ago or even a few years ago. The public debate has been mostly warped (with help from the corporate media, which is owned by large corporations that love software patents but hate trolls that sue them), to the point where a lot of the public now thinks in terms like “patent trolls”, not patent scope or a patent’s domain. █
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