12.29.16
Posted in America, Patents at 6:54 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: The US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) is planning to weigh in on a case which will quite likely drive patent trolls out of the Eastern District of Texas, where all the courts that are notoriously friendly towards them reside
MANY patents granted by the USPTO have become the basis for ruinous lawsuits filed by patent trolls, which may soon be dealt an unprecedented and much-needed blow.
Patent trolls are not just a minor nuisance or some small random parasitic companies without products; some of them are gigantic and many are covers (or fronts) for large corporation seeking to shield themselves from counterclaims. Consider this new story about “Cayman Global”, yet another ‘IP’ proxy, this time for Faraday Future. “The Verge reports that Faraday Future does not own its intellectual property, and that it is instead owned by a separate entity called FF Cayman Global,” Business Insider wrote the other day. Microsoft too has created its own patent assertion entity — the one it uses to taunt Linux and Android all the time.
Florian Müller and LWN have both highlighted this good article published on December 27th by Daniel Nazer of the EFF. To quote: “Patent trolls were down but certainly not out in 2016. After a massive burst of litigation at the end of last year, we saw a noticeable drop in patent troll lawsuits at the start of this one. But trolls began returning to court as the year continued and 2016 will likely end with a relatively small overall decline. Consistent with recent trends, troll cases clustered in the Eastern District of Texas. Approximately one in three patent suits were filed in that remote, troll-friendly district, and these suits were almost all filed by companies with no business other than suing for patent infringement.”
“Microsoft too has created its own patent assertion entity — the one it uses to taunt Linux and Android all the time.”A lot of patent trolls lose their battles as software patents reach the wastebasket or never get used at all (due to low certainty of settlement/prosecution).
In 2017 we expect the case that will likely destroy trolls to be decided on by SCOTUS. This new article by Sasha Moss, Technology Policy Fellow at the R Street Institute, says that the “U.S. Supreme Court announced earlier this month it will hear the appeal of a patent infringement case brought by Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC against zero-calorie sweetener manufacturer TC Heartland LCC.”
Even lawyers’ sites wrote about this, e.g. “Will forum shopping days, like holiday shopping days, soon come to an end?”
“Only the more ‘extremist’ sites of (and for) patent lawyers, as we noted here before, prefer to say that nothing will change.”Professor Michael Risch wrote about this case that Patently-O, where he wrote/published his piece, predicts is going to kill patent trolls’ business model. To quote Risch, “I should note that the outset that I favor TC Heartland’s position from a policy point of view. I’ve long said in a variety of venues (including comment threads on this very blog) that there are significant problems with any system in which so much rides on where the case is filed. And I think that’s true whether you think they are doing a great or terrible job in the Eastern District of Texas.”
Only the more ‘extremist’ sites of (and for) patent lawyers, as we noted here before, prefer to say that nothing will change. We shall see next year, but the one newly-introduced factor will be the Republican government and perhaps several new appointments of Justices. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in America, Courtroom, Patents at 5:42 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
What a total waste of money!
Summary: The scope of patents in the United States is rapidly tightening (meaning, fewer patents are deemed acceptable by the courts) and Fitbit’s patent case is the latest case to bite the dust
EARLIER this year we learned that the USPTO might have to reassess design patents, having already reassessed software patents. SCOTUS was poised to look into an Apple v Samsung case (one of several high-profile cases), which later turned out alright for Samsung.
Days ago we found a new article titled “US Supreme Court Sets The Bar Higher For Obtaining Damages For Design Patent Infringement” in the media of patent lawyers. At the same time patent law firms said that we all need more patents that fall inside/within a broader scope (i.e. more money paid for their ‘services’) , this time too in relation to design patents. Another patent law firm spoke in favour of design patents because it makes money out of patent maximalism. Shouldn’t we just ignore them all, knowing that they object to SCOTUS not because SCOTUS is wrong but because of greed? They want design patents, like those which are often applicable to gadgets, but such patents are being phased out, or defanged in the damages sense. The incentive too pursue such patents has just decreased and confidence in existing ones eroded.
Certainty surrounding software and design patents is declining and in fact just two days ago, regarding the Fitbit case that we covered here before, there was a major new development. The seminal lawsuit got dropped:
Fitbit drops patent infringement case against rival wearable tech company Jawbone
Fitbit Inc. has dropped one of its patent infringement cases against rival wearable tech maker AliphCom Inc.’s Jawbone, pointing to its belief that the company is already failing financially, reported The Wall Street Journal.
The two San Francisco-based companies both manufacture and market wearable fitness trackers and have been tied up in litigation with each other, alleging patent infringement and the stealing of trade secrets. Patents in the litigation dropped by Fitbit were related to heart-rate and physical activity monitor technology.
Fitbit’s case would have blocked Jawbone’s ability to bring their competing product into the U.S., however it seems as if financial issues have already hampered the company’s ability to do business. Jawbone no longer lists its products for sale on its website.
Fitbit’s implicit message here is that it was going to win but was merciful enough because of the defendant’s position, but that’s quite likely just spin. The legal battle soon became a two-edged sword because Jawbone fought back and now it looks increasingly expensive for Fitbit to fight on, especially relying on patents that high courts tend to invalidate at the end.
What we are seeing here is part of the trend of litigation declines (as noted by several sources so far this year). Bad news for patent lawyers, but excellent news to everybody else. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
12.27.16
Posted in America, Courtroom, Deception, Patents at 2:52 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Selective emphasis on very few cases and neglect of various other dimensions help create a parallel reality (or so-called ‘fake news’) where software patents are on the rebound
“In 2014,” Joe Mullin recalls in a new article (published earlier today), “the US Supreme Court dealt a major blow to software patents. In their 9-0 ruling in Alice Corp v. CLS Bank, the justices made it clear that just adding fancy-sounding computer language to otherwise ordinary aspects of business and technology isn’t enough to deserve a patent.”
“Since then,” he continues, “district court judges have invalidated hundreds of patents under Section 101 of the US patent laws, finding they’re nothing more than abstract ideas that didn’t deserve a patent in the first place. The great majority of software patents were unable to pass the basic test outlined by the Supreme Court. At the beginning of 2016, the nation’s top patent court had heard dozens of appeals on computer-related patents that were challenged under the Alice precedent. DDR Holdings v. Hotels.com was the only case in which a Federal Circuit panel ruled in favor of a software patent-holder. The Alice ruling certainly didn’t mean all software patents were dead on arrival—but it was unclear what a software patent would need to survive. Even DDR Holdings left a teeny-tiny target for patent owners to shoot at.”
“The patent law firms want us to believe that software patents are rebounding or something, even though CAFC invalidates them as quickly as ever, SCOTUS repeatedly rejects attempts to override Alice, and the number of lawsuits involving software patents sank considerably this past year, based on numerous comprehensive/exhaustive surveys.”Ignoring some of the biggest cases of 2016, Mullin then argues that “[j]udges on the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found three more cases in which they believe that software patents were wrongly invalidated. What once looked like a small exception to the rule now looks like three big ones.” What about that one single CAFC case involving not one but three invalidations, courtesy of the judge some hold responsible for software patents in the US? Here is a new article about it (bumped earlier today):
Intellectual Ventures recently filed for a rehearing en banc in Intellectual Ventures LLC v. Symantec Corp. and Trend Micro Inc. for a decision made in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that invalidated three of its software patents. The variety of patents at issue, colloquially dubbed the “Do-It-On-A-Computer” patent, have been increasingly invalidated after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International.
The Intellectual Ventures loss (covered here many times at the time) isn’t the only such loss this year (for software patents at CAFC). We actually covered quite a few other such cases, but the patent microcosm prefers to obsess over just 3 or 4 cases, i.e. less than it takes one hand’s fingers to count. In our humble assessment, Mullin, who is an excellent journalist, fell prey/victim to the endless propaganda from the patent microcosm. The patent law firms want us to believe that software patents are rebounding or something, even though CAFC invalidates them as quickly as ever, SCOTUS repeatedly rejects attempts to override Alice, and the number of lawsuits involving software patents sank considerably this past year, based on numerous comprehensive/exhaustive surveys. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
12.26.16
Posted in America, Law, Patents at 4:17 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Justice nominations for the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) will play a big role, and some Justices truly worry about Trump
Reference: Trump escalates attack on ‘Mexican’ judge (this ‘Mexican’ judge was born in Indiana actually)
Summary: In light of Trump’s awkward history with judges (e.g. attacking them) one can hope that upcoming patent cases at the highest court won’t be affected by his pro-big corporations agenda
THE PATENT landscape in the US has changed a lot in recent years, especially after AIA (half a decade ago). Software patents, for instance, are a dying breed. This does not mean that things will continue to improve; they can get a lot worse as soon as a new President is inaugurated, to the chagrin and regret of many Americans. Lobbying of Trump has already begun, for instance by the Internet Association (large corporations, not what it sounds) and by IPO. They want the old order of things and they represent a threat to software developers.
AIPLA, another such entity which acts like a think tank (like oil companies in favour of offshore drilling), is telling the USPTO that they want more secrecy. It makes sense for them. As Patently-O put it the other day, “I would say even after/if the USPTO adopts a rule, be very careful if you have patent agents communicating directly with clients, without supervision of a lawyer, because there’s also the possibility that a court won’t follow the Queen’s University case and hold there is no privilege, anyway. That’s already happened in Texas.”
Well, as new articles continue to stress (the latest being, e.g. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]), Texas may soon end its status as trolls’ capital, but only if SCOTUS rules rationally. This is yet another blow to the ‘old guard’; it represents patent progress and improvements that favour ordinary people, not oligarchs like Trump and a lot of his prospective cabinet members.
We urge people to support groups like the EFF, which growingly mention software patents and openly oppose these. Latest from the EFF’s Daniel Nazer [1, 2] is this article about this month’s “Stupid Patent”, which he explains as follows:
As you head home for the holidays, perhaps passing through a checkpoint or two, take some time to think about U.S. Patent No. 6,888,460, “Advertising trays for security screening.” The owner of this patent, SecurityPoint Holdings, Inc., has sued the United States government for infringement. SecurityPoint recently won a trial on validity [PDF] and the case will now proceed to a damages phase. So, unless the validity decision gets overturned on appeal, we’ll soon be paying tax dollars for the idea of moving trays on carts.
[...]
In a trial before the Court of Federal Claims, the government argued that this claim was obvious because moving trays using carts was well-known in many contexts. The court disagreed. The court suggested that even if using carts to move trays was well-known, the government needed prior art specifically for security checkpoints (arguably the government had such evidence, but the court disagreed on that point too).
In fairness to SecurityPoint, evidence at trial suggested that it had developed a good system for managing trays and carts within the confined space of an airport security checkpoint. But the patent’s claims are far broader than any specific solution. This is something we often see in patent law: someone develops a (fairly narrow) innovation, but then broadly claims it, capturing things that are well-known or banal. This sort of claiming hurts follow-on inventors who develop their own ideas that wouldn’t infringe any narrower claim, and weren’t invented by the patent holder. But because the broader claim is allowed, their own inventions become infringing. Here, claim 1 is not limited to any particular kind of cart, tray, or scanner. The claim really reads on using a couple of carts to move trays and, in our view, should have been found obvious.
Nazer’s colleague at the EFF has meanwhile advised institutions like universities not to give their patents to trolls. They actually mean “patents”, not “inventions” (as the headline puts it). These are not the same thing. “Research funded by the United States government should benefit everyone,” the EFF explains. “That’s why EFF so strongly supports the idea of writing an open access requirement for federally funded research into the law as soon as possible. It’s also one reason why we recently launched Reclaim Invention, a campaign asking U.S. universities to rethink their patenting policies. It’s crucial that federally funded research be made available to the public so that anyone can read and use it, not just people with institutional connections. But even if the public can read government-funded research, patents on inventions that arise from it can still fall into the wrong hands and undermine the public interest.”
Some universities, desperate for cash (especially in periods of privatisation — the Trump way!), are hoping to make a ‘quick buck’ out of patents that the public actually paid for. This is going to become a bigger issue if schools and universities operate more and more like businesses in the coming years, enjoying no status like they did decades or centuries ago. It means that some universities, with staff that receives public grants, will become litigation mills, directly or indirectly (via trolls).
Speaking of desperate appeals for cash, this new article about Chapter 11 Bankruptcy (a process Trump has gone through plenty of times to secure his billions) says that last “week’s corporate news roundup includes the holding by a U.S. federal appeals court that secured indenture noteholders were entitled to a make-whole premium notwithstanding the issuer’s chapter 11 bankruptcy case, the addition by companies in their securities filings with the SEC of risk factors relating to the outcome of the U.S. Presidential election, and the termination by the PTAB of IPR proceedings as to patent claims between Microsoft Corporation and Enfish LLC, resulting in a non-appealable win for Enfish.”
This goes under “TERMINATION OF ENFISH-MICROSOFT INTER PARTES REVIEW PROCEEDINGS IMPLIED AS UNAPPEALABLE AFTER FEDERAL CIRCUIT DECISION AGAINST MICROSOFT” (a case we covered here before).
In our last article we reminded readers that after Enfish the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) ruled repeatedly against software patents, including in very high-profile cases. Unless the Supreme Court with some Trump-appointed Justices chooses to reverse Alice (won’t happen any time soon based on the dockets), it is safe to say that political impact on patent law is still just a distant threat. █
“I can’t imagine what this place would be — I can’t imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president. For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be — I don’t even want to contemplate that.” –Justice Ginsburg
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in America, Deception, Patents at 3:35 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Fenwick & West’s Bilski Blog is not a service; it’s marketing
Summary: Looking at some of the latest promotions of software patents in the US and where this is all coming from (and why)
THE stature of software patents proponents isn’t quite what it used to be (they speak from a position of weakness now) and potency of software patents is at an all-time low. As one legal site put it the other day, a lot of these people now hope that Trump will magically change something (to their advantage). The article states that “Brendan S. Lillis, an associate at Phillips Lytle LLP, concentrates his practice in all areas of intellectual property law, with particular emphasis on patent preparation and prosecution and opinion work in the software, mobile applications and electronic arts.”
“We are generally quite open and frank about the parasitic nature of most patent law firms out there.”The problem is, Lillis works for an industry that profits from litigation and applications that precede litigation. They view things from an entirely different perspective, in the same way that an arms industry views peace negatively (or apprehensively, if they’re publicly polite about it). A legal firm, Banner & Witcoff Ltd, has just given small businesses some really bad advice (to pay legal firms), but what is the point if a small business can barely even afford going to court?
We are generally quite open and frank about the parasitic nature of most patent law firms out there. They pretend to care about “small businesses”, the “small inventor” etc. but all they care about is themselves and huge corporations that bring them the most income (for protectionism). Don’t fall for their marketing pitch!
“Federal Circuit judges spar over software patents,” said the headline from lawyers media the other day. “Will they ever agree?” (behind paywall)
“Notice how, at the same time, pro-software patents sites such as IAM want us to believe that CAFC suddenly loves software patents and things are somehow changing.”Well, in the majority of cases the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) rules against software patents, which is all one needs to know. Fenwick & West’s Sachs kept track of pretty much all these cases and generated charts based on these. These charts were very helpful. But what Sachs means by “gift” is software patents. These people are making no (successful) endeavor to hide their agenda/subjective interpretation. Instead of showing some objectivity they are just promoting their own business (profit). They are producing and showing lots of charts and along/between the lines they also interject opinions about whether the outcome is desirable or not — quite unprofessional if this was scholarly work. What they are trying to accomplish at the blog (if it can be called that, as it’s growingly looking like marketing) is squashing of Bilski and Alice. Wolves in sheep’s clothing is what they are and they are exploiting the name Bilski (of the famous patent case) to do this. To quote from their latest post, “Alice Brings a Mix of Gifts For 2016 Holidays”:
As I previously reported, the monthly data showed a drop in the number of invalidity decisions as well as an overall downward trend in the invalidity rate for district court decisions. In December thus far there’s been an uptick in such invalidity decisions (seven thus far) and a few more may issue in the before the year is out. The dotted line above shows the invalidity over three month periods, to smooth out the monthly fluctuations; overall the trend has been downward.
Nonetheless, in October, I cautioned that “I would prefer to see these numbers hold for several months,” because the Federal Circuit “continues to affirm more invalidity decisions than it reverses.” This fact still holds true: there have been nine decisions by the Federal Circuit since October, and they have affirmed ineligible subject matter in seven of them (77%).
Notice how, at the same time, pro-software patents sites such as IAM want us to believe that CAFC suddenly loves software patents and things are somehow changing. They aren’t. That’s usually just agenda disguised as news — something which IAM does a lot of. Therein lies the business model of IAM. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in America, Free/Libre Software, Patents at 2:59 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Not only Microsoft is attacking Free/Open Source software using its software patents
“I find a considerable anxiety throughout the community of practicing computer scientists that decisions by the patent courts and the Patent and Trademark Office are making life much more difficult for programmers. ”
–Donald Knuth
Summary: Free/Open Source software (FOSS), which encourages sharing, is increasingly becoming infested or subjected to software patents barbwire, courtesy of those who want to monopolise rather than share
THE OTHER day we wrote about Blockchain and related technologies coming under attack because of giants that hoard software patents and threaten small players/contenders. A news site dedicated to Bitcoin explains this as follows:
Increasing Blockchain Patents May Soon Hamper Innovation
[...]
Companies count their patents among prized possessions. Having a patent for something important can be worth a fortune, guaranteeing the company a constant stream of revenue until it expires. At the same time, it may also hamper innovation by preventing other from using the technology for free.
Bitcoin and its underlying blockchain are open source technologies and it has gained prominence in the banking and fintech industry lately. The potential of blockchain to change the future of banking has forced many institutions to invest heavily in the development and implementation of cryptocurrency technology based applications.
However, the increased involvement of mainstream institutions has created another problem in the cryptocurrency industry. The banks and financial institutions are increasingly filing patents for various blockchain based solutions that are commonly used by many open source crypto-communities. If these institutions were to gain the patents, then they will soon be dictating terms to Bitcoin and other crypto-platforms, hampering innovation and ease of access to millions of people.
We are beginning to hear more and more stories like this and it matters even more to us because of the direct connection to FOSS and to the Linux Foundation. The other day WIPR showed that Hadoop too, in spite of being FOSS, became subjected to patent wars:
Founded in 2012, Pepperdata provides customers with products that improve the performance of Hadoop-based computing clusters. A computer cluster consists of a set of connected computers that work together.
According to the suit, Yahoo uses Hadoop clusters within the US. It made a software patch identified as YARN-5202, titled “dynamic overcommit of node resources”, which it has used on the clusters.
So anyone who uses this Free/Open Source software can now become the defendant in a patent lawsuit? How does that work? And why don’t more FOSS developers becoming actively involved in ending software patents? This should be our top priority. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in America, LG, Microsoft, Patents, Samsung at 2:35 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Scientists as judges, not just as pressured (from above) examiners
David Ruschke’s ‘official’ photo
Summary: The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), led by David Ruschke, continues to function as another ‘layer’ that ensures patent quality by weeding out bad patents and here are some of the latest cases
THE patents and litigation climate is rapidly changing in the US. It’s not just about software patents, but it has a lot to do with them as a lot of litigation emanates from such patents, notably troll litigation.
Just before the days of the holiday (whichever one) we learned about the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), which is responsible for invalidating many software patents, being in the midst of this battle:
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board announced on Dec. 2 that it would uphold a patent filed by Securus Technologies, and that the challenge filed by rival company Global Tel*Link (GTL) was invalid. GTL maintains, however, that Securus only won a partial victory.
The patent (U. S. Patent No. 7,494,061 B2) that Securus maintains held up to the challenge from GTL, relates to biometric identity verification monitoring devices used in correctional facilities. According to a summary of the patent, “The term “biometrics” refers to technologies that measure and analyze human characteristics for authentication.”
This patent is a software patent by the sound of it. These are actually the sorts of patents which improperly use terms like “biometrics” to sound as though they’re anything but image analysis, which is my field of research (post-doctoral). It has nothing to do with biology and it’s all typically reducible to mathematics (matrices). Does the appeal board (PTAB) realise this? If not, maybe it’s time to reassess.
Another report, last Updated 6 days ago, is an article about appeals in Korea, published by Jay (Young-June) Yang, Duck Soon CHANG and Seung-Chan EOM from Kim & Chang (patent microcosm). Remember that Korea still blocks software patents (as it should) and we commend this decision, which guards software giants (also hardware giants, not to mention military equipment players) like Samsung and LG — both of which became Microsoft prey for using Linux nearly 9 years ago. We last reported on this 3 months ago (Microsoft wants more 'Linux patent tax' in Korea).
Going back to PTAB, there is a CAFC/PTAB case (CAFC having the authority to object) that MIP explained as follows: “The original Federal Circuit panel decision in the case – written by Judge Reyna and joined by Chief Judge Prost and Judge Stark – was issued on May 25. The court affirmed the Board’s denial of Aqua’s motion to substitute claims 22–24 of a patent concerning automated swimming pool cleaners.”
There is a 9-page PDF in there. As mentioned here some days ago, they are complaining because their patent was granted in error and now they want to change it. Imagine if granted patents were something dynamic you could just amend, edit, expand etc. as you go alone. What a ludicrous thing. Invalidate the patent and if they insist it’s not fair, then they should apply for the patent again (with amended claims).
MIP also explains how to use PTAB to squash bad patents (like software patents) even when it’s not so trivial. “Jim Brogan, Brian Eutermoser and Janna Fischer discuss the ways that the unsuccessful IPR petitioner at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board still can challenge validity in subsequent district court litigation,” MIP wrote.
MIP, to its credit, keeps abreast of PTAB cases (mostly because of Mr. Michael Loney), although it sometimes misinterprets the numbers it puts forth.
In better news about PTAB, here is PTAB having a go at software patents and getting a chance to kill them again. As PatentDocs put it:
Petitioner, iVenture Card Traveler Ltd, filed a Petition seeking to institute a covered business method patent review of all claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,765,128, owned by Smart Destinations, Inc. The Board, applying the standard that requires demonstration that more likely than not Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim, the Board granted Petitioner’s request to institute the CBM review.
We hope that PTAB will continue to do its job improving patent certainty by knocking out a lot of rubbish patents, leaving in tact only those that merit court cases (if any). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
12.22.16
Posted in America, Free/Libre Software, Patents at 9:44 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Innovations associated with Bitcoin/Blockchain — advancements which are largely Free/Open Source software-centric — are under threat from financial giants that effectively besiege/threaten startups using a barrage of software patents
THE USPTO insists that it makes the US more competitive, but in many cases it actually helps large companies undermine small ones, not foreign ones.
Case of point: see the new article “When a patent-happy industry meets open-source technology” [1, 2]. To quote from the article:
When the financial services industry started paying attention to blockchain technology, many companies, seemingly as a reflex, sought patent protection for their ideas.
It was ironic, since the original bitcoin blockchain was a breakthrough of open-source development, in which software code is made freely available for anyone to use or modify. As the industry has gained a clearer understanding of how distributed-ledger technology could change its business, it’s begun to see the merits of such openness in supporting collaborative innovation, and the limitations of the traditional, you-can’t-touch-this approach.
Some are even using a hybrid strategy, pursuing patents to secure a competitive advantage – or at least protect themselves from legal challenges – while publishing code and inviting others to improve it by submitting fixes or patching bugs. The situation underscores the cultural differences between the banking and technology fields as the former looks to the latter for help meeting the demands of an increasingly digital world.
IBM’s Manny Schecter was interested in this and Benjamin Henrion told him that these conglomerates pursuing patents on Blockchain technologies is “like oil companies patenting everything solar.”
This isn’t entirely new a revelation. It’s an old trick in many industries (absorbing or denying competition that suggests alternative paradigms). Big Banks are essentially attacking Bitcoin, Blockchain etc. using software patents and today we found two more articles about it, “Blockchain patent filings by Goldman, others tip future cost risk” and “Corporate Patents on Blockchain Could Create Legal Problems for Startups”. Well, that’s the intention.
“Thankfully, a lot of software patents pertaining to payments and finance are being invalidated these days (thrown our by court), more so than in any other field.”“Over the past few months,” one of these articles says, “some of the world’s largest financial companies including Goldman Sachs, Bank of America and Mastercard – have been patenting promising Blockchain methodologies. Despite a common perception that Blockchain is Open Source and developers can freely use Sotoshi Nakamoto’s ideas from bitcoin to build new systems, it still could mean costly legal problems for fledgling startups, lawyers and others are saying.”
We wrote about this not too long ago in relation to MasterCard. A lot of the above culminated in the publication of “Big Banks Are Stocking Up on Blockchain Patents” (early yesterday in Wall Street media). To quote:
In the headlong rush to revolutionize modern finance, blockchain enthusiasts are overlooking one potentially costly problem: their applications, built on open-source code, may actually belong to someone else.
Recently, some of the biggest names in business, from Goldman Sachs to Bank of America and Mastercard, have quietly patented some of the most promising blockchain technologies for themselves. Through mid-November, the number of patents that companies have obtained or said they’ve applied for has roughly doubled since the start of the year, according to law firm Reed Smith.
Our readers are smart enough to know what’s wrong with this picture. Gullible people may try to frame this as a sign of “adoption” and “success”, but the large financial firms just want to guard their monopoly/oligopoly, they don’t want disruption.
Thankfully, a lot of software patents pertaining to payments and finance are being invalidated these days (thrown out by courts), more so than in any other field (about 90% of the time). That’s similar to business methods, too.
Are patent examiners in the US paying any attention at all to what courts have been arguing over and over again? █
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