Posted in Patents at 12:30 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Obama’s virtual interview from the White House (over Google+/NSA Hangout)
Summary: On opportunities of reaching President Obama or other White House staff one should calibrate the debate over patents to benefit the public, not large corporations (which want small/conventional trolls marginalised and nothing else changed)
The White House said it would look into patent trolls [1, 2, 3, 4], tackling one strand of the issues incurred by software patents. The investigation is commencing now:
Patent trolls have hit Main Street this year and anger about their demands has bubbled up to Washington.
Today, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is expected to announce that it will open an investigation into “patent trolls,” a derogatory term for companies that engage in no business activities aside from suing over patents. The investigation will be announced at a conference by FTC chairwoman Edith Ramirez, according to a report this morning in The New York Times. The investigation into trolls, which the FTC calls “patent assertion entities” or PAEs, will complement other anti-troll government actions this year, like President Obama’s report on patent issues and the five anti-patent-troll bills introduced so far in Congress this year.
This was also covered in British sites:
THE UNITED STATES Federal Trade Commission (FTC) will look into ridiculous but disruptive software patents and the shadowy entities that hold them.
The FTC was asked to look at patent trolls by several members of Congress. A letter signed by 19 Congress members and addressed to FTC chair Edith Ramirez said that patent trolls are useless, get in the way, slow down innovation and extract money from more deserving firms.
“As Members of Congress, we are closely following the troubling practices carried out by patent assertion entities, commonly known as patent trolls throughout the country. We are most concerned about practices that target end users who are the downstream users of technology,” the letter read.
What is needed is a reform nullifying software patents, but for the time being we need to highlight for the White House the biggest scams in existence. This should be handled as a criminal thing, using existing laws like RICO Act, it’s not merely about changing policy to marginalise classic patent trolls. They should consider Microsoft’s “natahanm” (Nathan Myhrvold), Bill Gates’ close friend, whom he financially helped to get the pyramid scheme called Intellectual Ventures started. This pyramid scheme and racketeering operation is now suing Android/Linux, with CNET correctly pointing out that it is not the first time. Josh Lowensohn says: “The controversial Bellevue, Wash.-based company that’s made headlines for accumulating a massive trove of software and design patents, sued Motorola Mobility in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on Wednesday.”
“So it’s what we call exponential, we are at about 40,000 software patents being granted each year which is a lot considering that just about 10 years ago, it was about 10,000 patents and even in 1990, it was just 5,000 software patents a year…”
–Deborah NicholsonSoftware and design patents. That’s right. See the pattern yet? Therein lie many of the real issues. It’s about scope, too.
Meanwhile, since we’re on the subject of scope, the numbers we saw before were echoed in this new OIN interview. Deborah Nicholson says: “So it’s what we call exponential, we are at about 40,000 software patents being granted each year which is a lot considering that just about 10 years ago, it was about 10,000 patents and even in 1990, it was just 5,000 software patents a year, so it’s a very scary kind off-the-chart number.”
The OIN is not doing what’s right; it continuously says it wants to improve patent “quality” or stop “bad” software patents. Some of the OIN’s biggest backers, notably IBM, are proponents of software patents.
The latest atrocious ruling by CAFC did nothing to remove software patents; quite the contrary. And the EFF called for this ruling to be escalated to SCOTUS. The EFF has been very strange when it comes to this subject; it’s as though it’s fractured and divided within. Some members of the EFF advocate the OIN approach, whereas some want to get rid of software patents as a whole. Julie Samuels, whom we wrote about before [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6], has been on the side of fighting “bad” patents, not software patents, and she also targets patent trolls rather than patent scope. Gérald Sédrati-Dinet (April) wrote this message to her the other day:
…why the hell do you and EFF want to improve patent quality? we – software users and devs – just don’t need patents!
Going back to Intellectual Ventures, some suggest targeting the “bad” players (e.g. trolls) or “bad” patents, not the core issue (patents). The thing about Intellectual Ventures is, what it does qualifies as a crime; it’s racketeering. It’s not “bad”, it’s criminal. Notice the comment in this article which says:
So the FTC says it plans on cracking down on patent trolls, and IV responds by attempting to shake down several companies using patents that are blatantly bogus and should never have been granted in the first place, all originally held by other companies…
Either they aren’t following the news, or they are damn sure that the FTC would never actually come after them, because I just cannot imagine how else they could have done something so blatantly designed to draw the attention of the FTC as a perfect first case when going after patent trolling operations.
Like Acacia, there are many proxies that require immense investigation endeavours. The proxies can help impede prosecution of Intellectual Ventures.
As Troll Tracker put it the other day:
Intellectual Ventures? You really should make it a little harder to pick on you.
It has become too easy to know that this ‘firm’ is hardly different from the Mafia, but lousy pseudo-news sites like ZDNet won't tell you that. Sometimes, rogue interests in the media (e.g. Gates Foundation funding) spoil the broth and manufacture consent for despicable operations of profiteering. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
06.22.13
Posted in Law, Patents at 11:28 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Strike three. Time to strike against the ‘legal’ system?
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/1554d/1554da8fd978b7aad35e99443e3e9c6fd095724d" alt="London strike"
London strike
Summary: Silly judgment from the source of many of today’s software patents is harming what looked like progress
In the land of software patents the lawyers seem concerned that patents on software are being invalidated and one firm (patent lawyers in the US) says “The PTAB decision [invalidating software patents] was issued nine months after the PGR petition was filed and was, therefore, relatively expedient, especially compared to the district court litigation that preceded it. Versata had sued SAP in federal district court in 2007, Versata prevailed at trial, and SAP appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in 2011. The Federal Circuit upheld the jury’s infringement verdict—and its more than $300 million damages award—with respect to the same patent just last month. Versata Software, Inc. v. SAP America, Inc., Nos. 2012-1029, -1049, slip op. at 2 (Fed. Cir. May 1, 2013).”
They try to belittle the importance of this decision. They are also missing the point that in much of the world this decision would not required the court to even get involved. Meanwhile, reveals the EFF, CAFC is up to no good again, validating software patents:
The tortured history of Ultramercial v. Hulu continues, with a new ruling from the Federal Circuit upholding one of our favorite, most absurd patents: one that claims a process for doing no more than viewing ads online before accessing copyrighted content. How could that be patentable, you might ask. To which we might answer, good question.
[...]
First, in Mayo v. Prometheus, the Supreme Court invalidated a patent covering a medical diagnostic test. There, the Court held that a method cannot be patented where it adds “nothing specific to the laws of nature other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity, previously engaged in by those in the field.” More recently, in AMP v. Myriad, the Supreme Court stuck with this theme, holding that Myriad could not patent genes that occur in nature and stating that “Myriad did not create anything. To be sure, it found an important and useful gene, but separating that gene from its surrounding genetic material is not an act of invention.”
This CAFC decision is very serious an event and one pundit said about it that:
Opponents of software patents suffered a setback as the Federal Circuit today said a patent for displaying content before a video should not be considered an abstract idea.
Read about CAFC in our previous posts. We really need to set up a Wiki index about CAFC pretty soon. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Microsoft at 11:19 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
National Skype Agency
Summary: Microsoft is very much in bed with the NSA (and by extension DHS and CIA) and there is more evidence to show this now
Skype is a good pal of the NSA and they have been almost twins ever since Microsoft bought it, under mysterious financial circumstances that we covered at the time of the acquisition. We wrote about it a long time ago, naming the NSA agenda too (almost exactly one year ago).
Skype is a spy. Deal with it. I don’t use Skype myself, but the network effect makes it hard for many to quit the addiction. The network effect is what makes it so powerful a spying apparatus.
According to this report from The Guardian:
Skype, the web-based communications company, reportedly set up a secret programme to make it easier for US surveillance agencies to access customers’ information.
The programme, called Project Chess and first revealed by the New York Times on Thursday, was said to have been established before Skype was bought by Microsoft in 2011. Microsoft’s links with US security are under intense scrutiny following the Guardian’s revelation of Prism, a surveillance program run by the National Security Agency (NSA), that claimed “direct” access to its servers and those of rivals including Apple, Facebook and Google.
Project Chess was set up to explore the legal and technical issues involved in making Skype’s communications more readily available to law enforcement and security officials, according to the Times. Only a handful of executives were aware of the plan. The company did not immediately return a call for comment.
Last year Skype denied reports that it had changed its software following the Microsoft acquisition in order to allow law enforcement easier access to communications. “Nothing could be more contrary to the Skype philosophy,” Mark Gillett, vice president of Microsoft’s Skype division, said in a blog post.
According to the Prism documents, Skype had been co-operating with the NSA’s scheme since February 2011, eight months before the software giant took it over. The document gives little detail on the technical nature of that cooperation. Microsoft declined to comment.
Interesting. Now we have more facts verified. We should call out Skype like we call out Windows. It has a back door, at the server side and probably several at the client side too. Bruce Schneier, a security guru, says:
Reread that Skype denial from last July, knowing that at the time the company knew that they were giving the NSA access to customer communications. Notice how it is precisely worded to be technically accurate, yet leave the reader with the wrong conclusion. This is where we are with all the tech companies right now; we can’t trust their denials, just as we can’t trust the NSA — or the FBI — when it denies programs, capabilities, or practices.
He is being too polite. He should just say that Microsoft deceived and lied. A lot of companies choose their words very carefully these days.
Speaking of spying with microphone and camera at the edge points, Xbox spying is getting even worse and there is a Web site dedicated to the subject. It says: “Tell Microsoft: I won’t buy an XBOX ONE because I don’t want the NSA in my living room.” Check out their posts, preceded by:
Always on and listening. Infrared camera. Facial and voice recognition. Heart monitor. In your living room.
Is Microsoft’s XBOX ONE the future of the NSA’s PRISM program?
Microsoft was first to join PRISM (see the slides leaked by Snowden/Greenwald), essentially colluding with the NSA, so we should assume that the NSA can effortlessly access all this data. We know that the special relationship Microsoft has with the NSA enables even espionage in non-US counties and Stuxnet is a good example of the outcome. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Marketing, Microsoft, Vista 8 at 11:05 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Rigging debates
Summary: Comment AstroTurf alleged by an industry veteran who has observed and studied this phenomenon for decades
A long time ago, about half a decade into the past, Mr. Dvorak wrote about so-called “Munchkins” and we cited/quoted him on it. He saw these tactics going back to the days of OS/2 and "Barkto". Now that Reddit-planted Xbox AstroTurfing comes to light we should point out a Dvorak article from the end of 2012, around the time of the release of Vista 8 John Dvorak suspected Microsoft was “planting” comments in support of Vista 8:
While following the recent hirings and firings at Microsoft, the presence of Microsoft Munchkins is more obvious than ever to me. I cannot prove their existence, however, unless someone finally steps forward and admits everything. If you are one, please do so!
Munchkins are commenters who I believe work directly for Microsoft or for its public relations agency. They scour the comment boards and rebuke with high authority all criticisms of specific Microsoft products. The reality of these people was well-documented during the Windows versus OS/2 days and I can only suspect that the practice continues to this day.
Once in a while, one of these characters shows up on my blog with a long and seemingly thoughtful post about some Microsoft product. The piece manages to condemn everyone who is critical of something Microsoft did. When you go back into the admin section of the blog where you can look at all postings by that person, the IP address, and other details, you always find that this person has not been on the blog before, and has never posted any prior comments. I can assure that anyone who is long-winded in the comment section posts a lot of comments.
Microsoft and crime are almost synonymous, so it would not be shocking if many or most pro-Vista 8 comments were indirectly funded by the company of crimes as ‘norm’.
Thanks to the reader who showed us the article above; somehow we missed it (we are no longer watching Microsoft closely). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend