03.01.16
Posted in Europe, Patents at 8:45 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
So, who’s defaming who?
Summary: The EPO’s President (for now), Mr. Battistelli, decides characterise those who try to dethrone him for his abuses as ‘Nazis’ (he even uses this word in front of politicians), probably as a miserable last resort because he is expected to resign very soon
T
HE articles about the EPO don’t do justice to the really unique irrationality of the President, whose own words can do him more damage than other people’s words (recall this audio recording from 2014). Tomorrow we will publish some more articles about the EPO and we are still exploring just what's going on in German media that helped the President portray whistleblowers as 'Nazis'.
One reader sent us a message earlier today, noting that “Battistelli, not grilled, [was] on Tuesday at the National Assembly in France. And, most important” is a particular part of it. Later today (tonight) somebody mentioned it in IP Kat as follows:
The EPO seems to be a Nazi nest according to its president, the Frenchman Battistelli. There was a Judge from the Board of Appeals cited as hiding Nazi items and propaganda in his office, now we have two further individuals identified for using Nazi symbols and use of Nazi rallying cry before members of the French Parliament:
http://videos.assemblee-nationale.fr/download.php?downloadFilename=http://httpod.scdn.arkena.com/10971/mp4/ida/domain1/2016/03/source_3688803_788052_5851471.mp4
See passage starting at 1:07:50 (in French).
Two options exist:
- either the accusations are true and the EPO has became a Nazi nest. Then it should be dissolved immediately starting by its management for failing to prevent this from happening; or
- the accusations are false and the president spreading them should be immediately kicked out as well as all the management layers failing to speak up against the manipulation of the public opinion.
Who said the situation was complex? Godwin points are always making things easier to grasp!
Could anyone cast some light here?
We have decided to crop the relevant part (audio) so that people don’t need to download half a gigabyte of video and then rely on heavily patented multimedia formats/codecs. An exact translation of the above would be useful, if anyone can oblige to provide it… █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 4:08 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: In an effort to defend Battistelli and his ‘circle’, who have lost the support of the Administrative Council (AC), a new slew of recycled material (the above is from January but published only yesterday)
THE EPO is in ‘damage control’ mode right now. The mode isn’t entirely new, but now it culminates in lying to journalists. It looks like the Battistelli-led effort to circulate a letter in his own support backfired pretty badly. Based on this new comment: “A new persistent rumour in the EPO is that, since the directors decided in DG1direct not to sign the paper supporting Mr Battistelli (this is much more than a rumour), the principal directors agreed that the paper should be signed by them and sent on behalf of the principal directors only. A support letter from higher management will of course not carry as much weight as a letter from the directors.”
We don’t know yet if that’s a fact, but we shall soon find out. Meanwhile, to quote this new article composed by highly-regarded patent lawyers in central Europe:
Kongsted [sic] reportedly explains in his letter to the AC members it was unavoidable to send a formal request to Battistelli, as it had turned out to be impossible to engage in a meaningful dialogue with the EPO president. The Techrights blog published what it says is a copy of Kongsted’s letter.
According to the IP Kat blog, the letter ‘was shown to Mr Battistelli at a meeting [with Board 28, the presidium of the AC, ed.] on February 17th, but Mr Battistelli rejected the document and questioned the legal basis for certain of the AC’s requests (…) before walking out of the meeting’.
Benoît Battistelli has not reacted publicly on what’s going on at the moment. A letter from the EPO management – it isn’t clear who have signed it – has appeared however, urging the AC members not to support the Resolution (Techrights, again, has published what is said to be a copy of the letter).
The Resolution of Kongsted will be discussed and voted on during the Administrative Council’s meeting 16 and 17 March 2016 in Munich. According to Art 10 (1) of the European Patent Convention ‘The European Patent Office shall be managed by the President, who shall be responsible for its activities to the Administrative Council’.
It remains to be seen whether the management letter will help Battistelli. An AC meeting last December showed he does no longer have the traditional support from the Council. His controversial proposals for the reform of the Boards of Appeal were rejected, according to a report of the German legal website JUVE, and a new procedure to handle the reform was initiated. Earlier, the Presidium of the BoA, the Association of Members of the BoA (AMBA) and the president of epi had written to the AC, complaining Battistelli ignored the views of the Boards and their criticism on his reform proposals, although he maintained he had broad support for them.
[...]
However, sources of the Dutch daily De Telegraaf said it’s likely that Battistelli will step down soon and that he has already demanded ten year salaries in return, which adds up to 18 million euro.
“The EPO hasn’t reacted to questions by Kluwer IP Law on the reported tensions,” noted the author. Sometimes the EPO claims that Battistelli’s job is secure, but sometimes it says nothing at all. Well, silence can say a lot sometimes and Kluwer Patent Blog shows a certain change (potentially) in the media strategy of the PR team.
“The ‘problem’ with EPO staff right now is that it ‘dares’ to ask too many questions and it scares the ‘superiors’.”Kongstad (the AC Chairman) is the only one in upper management who knew the salary of Battistelli or at least signed it off, based on our sources. 1.8 million/annum in salary for Battistelli? Brimelow would be jealous; unlike Battistelli, she did disclosure her salary and it was nowhere close to that. 6 times the salary of the President of Europe with a term almost one decade old? We are still trying to verify/ascertain this. Either way, Battistelli is finished. He won’t finish his term and the scandal over his secret salary hasn’t even started yet. Based on some sources (the subject of investigation/verification at Techrights for a number of weeks), Battistelli’s salary is nearly double that of the EU president, but some say 6 times (or at least 4 times) more. Kongstad knows the exact number. As AC Chairman, at least for now, he should be protected, as he’s the only person who can fire Battistelli even if he helped him in the past. Kongstad (AC Chairman) knew all along how much Battistelli had his circle pay him. We still wait to see the final outcome of the Bygmalion Affair. There too a lot of money circulated, even fraudulently (in the case of Sarkozy). It’s a lot harder to brainwash (and make docile) patent examiners than it is to brainwash 18-year-old troops who obey an elders’ orders unquestionably. The ‘problem’ with EPO staff right now is that it ‘dares’ to ask too many questions and it scares the ‘superiors’.
Some people now joke about the “villa” or the “golden parachute” that’s expected for Monsieur Battistelli (as an undeserved departure gift). How can he even expect to receive severance pay after all that he has done? One of the famous victims of Željko Topić (the EPO Vice-President and union buster) is in the hospital right now. He suffered a lot from Topić, who had already left a deadly warpath in Croatia; there are even suicides there, just like at the EPO. Remember that the problem at the EPO isn’t just Battistelli but also many of the people whom he brought in to become his de facto protégés and protégées. When EPO-funded sites cover the latest EPO situation it expectedly echoes the defensive narrative, wherein Battistelli is the victim, not the abuser who left a bunch of victims. To quote IAM (as of today):
Against this backdrop, events at the European Patent Office have taken a dramatic turn, with the leak of a letter from Jesper Kongstad, the director general of the Danish patent office and chairman of the EPO’s Administrative Council. Sent to all members of the council, the letter outlines a series of disagreements with the office’s president Benoît Battistelli and proposes that a recent Battistelli decision to fire several members of the trade union SUEPO over alleged misconduct be subject to external review.
The Kongstad letter is the first tangible sign that Battistelli may no longer enjoy the full support of the Administrative Council. It is all the more noteworthy because Kongstad and Battistelli are long-term collaborators who campaigned on a joint ticket during the drawn-out process that saw Battistelli first elected president back in early 2010. If Kongstad no longer has full confidence in Battistelli’s decision-making, that would leave the president significantly exposed.
Indeed, the Dutch tabloid De Telegraaf has reported (link in Dutch) that Battistelli is now planning to step down and has demanded €18 million – equivalent, the newspaper says, to 10 years’ salary – as severance pay. There is no real indication currently that this is actually the case, though, while the amount quoted is a clearly ridiculous figure (though one that will circulate and gain in currency as there is no transparency around the president’s actual package).
Speaking to me yesterday evening an EPO spokesperson expressed surprise at the leak, but did confirm that the letter was genuine. However, I was also told that it is outdated: later, more conciliatory notes are now circulating that emphasise that many of the points raised in Kongstad’s original correspondence relating to, for example, the future of the Enlarged Board of Appeal and social dialogue with office employees are in the process of being satisfactorily addressed. But if that is the case, none of them have been seen in public; while what is undoubtedly the main bone of contention – the future of the SUEPO officials who have been fired or downgraded – does seem to remain a point of difference.
Another site which helps Battistelli’s site now says “the organisation has been for three years the victim of a defamation campaign”; no, Mr. Battistelli disgraced it. There was no “defamation” when people simply spoke about what Topić had done in Croatia. As one Twitter user put it the other day, “EPO-like institutions have always homegrown zealous servants aplenty. They’d offer their zeal to anyone being bossy enough, I guess.” The headline of the interview is wrong by the way. "Investigations" should be rewritten "Union-Busting".
“There was no “defamation” when people simply spoke about what Topić had done in Croatia.”Another person said: “According to the KING everybody is committing a serious misconduct except himself, right?”
This was said in reference to the latest interview with Battistelli, which was actually conducted in January, based on what IP Watch told me. We are already in March, so what took so long to publish? When the EPO led by Battistelli says it’s trying to introduce reforms it means “reforms” in the same sense that Lenin meant reforms. As a longtime critic of the EPO (and victim of the EPO's SLAPP) put it, it’s “surprising that with Battistelli there could be other subjects than his coming resignation” (which is widely expected unless one asks the EPO directly).
It is not even mentioned at all in the interview because, as IP Watch explained to me last night, the interview is from January. Well, Battistelli is almost certainly about to resign. Everyone knows it, but there are no articles about this in patent lawyers’ sites. The EPO either refuses to comment on it or simply denies it. They have a history of lying to the press and to staff.
“Well, Battistelli is almost certainly about to resign. Everyone knows it, but there are no articles about this in patent lawyers’ sites.”In the interview, which we prefer not to quote too sparingly (it’s a lot of Battistelli lies with loaded promotional questions such as “Memorandum of Understanding that you are trying to get with trade unions?”), the interviewer is playing along with the EPO’s PR strategy. There are even UPC softball questions, complete with euphemisms such as “global patent harmonisation stand” (patent harmonisation is an old term, used in the media well before they came up with “Unitary Patent”).
To name some other bits from the article, Battistelli basically says he is “very proud and most of the staff is supportive” of him and his policies. That’s a lie. Or maybe he’s just delusional. He also says “I accepted a demand of the Administrative Council to serve”; well, they’re about to fire him, so the use of words like “accepted a demand… to serve” is rather laughable. Recall how he treats delegates. Battistelli does not want to step down, resign, or quit. But he’d have to (and would) if otherwise he’d get the sack. Resignation would be a face-saving move. That’s where he is right now. But first he wishes to ensure that he receives a lot of money.
“MIP (Managing Intellectual Property) has been trying to do an interview with Kongstad, but they tell me that he is not even responding to their request.”In summary, it seems as though Battistelli will step down soon. People who read the IP Watch article (interview/propaganda with softball questions to Battistelli) must remember that it is well out of date (this took place back in January). Based on what I heard from reliable sources, the EPO’s PR team/department is sanitising questions as a condition to conducting interviews with Battistelli. Self- censorship is thus assured. Self-censorship is how the EPO has been getting a lot of puff pieces out there, not even with FTI Consulting directly involved (FTI Consulting paid IAM, which wrote the soft piece above, and earlier today IAM staff, Joff Wild, told me that they don’t know how much FTI Consulting had paid).
We already wrote a great deal about the IP Watch article online. Will this essentially be Battistelli’s “I’m not a crook” goodbye speech? Will there ever be more interviews? MIP (Managing Intellectual Property) has been trying to do an interview with Kongstad, but they tell me that he is not even responding to their request. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 2:53 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Until very recently at least…
Summary: Reluctance to cover the severe issues inside the European Patent Office (EPO) and some belated coverage about EPO problems
THE DUTCH media has done a decent job covering the EPO’s abuses, but the same cannot be said about the German media, for reasons we can only speculate or make guesses about.
A translation of this article in German is needed and now that some of the media in Germany finally starts covering EPO scandals we suspect we’ll soon have this video of a German TV programme. It’s probably just a matter of time.
“As long as Germany is at the very centre of a Europe-wide (and beyond) patent system, why would Germany want to jeopardise/risk/chastise it?”For Germany it makes sense to go soft on the EPO and also leave leeway for patent lawyers to interfere in German politics and justice. As long as Germany is at the very centre of a Europe-wide (and beyond) patent system, why would Germany want to jeopardise/risk/chastise it?
Recently, Süddeutsche Zeitung did some questionable journalism about the EPO and we decided to ask them what had happened and why they are saying nothing about the latest situation at the EPO. It just looked very suspicious. Last week I sent them this E-mail:
Urgent: lack of coverage regarding EPO matters
I would like to enquire, with humble and good intentions, why you have been silent about the demonstrations at the EPO in Munich, The Hague, and the general situation at the EPO. The media, including the media in Munich, has an obligation to inform the public about such issues.
Has the EPO been in contact or used pressure to affect your angle on this? If so, you are not alone. Please explain why there has been such a silence for a very long time; it’s not reasonable to just pretend nothing is happening at the EPO.
Kind regards,
I have not received a response from Süddeutsche Zeitung. It has been quite a while now.
“I guess Sueddeutsche has just lost interest in what is hard to figure out from the outside and only matters to approximately 10K people in Munich,” one person told us. “I suspect that German media now treats the Germany-centric EU-wide patent regime the same way it treats immigration issues that serve to discredit Merkel’s policies,” I wrote in response, but we shall know soon if Süddeutsche Zeitung has any intention of covering these matters some time soon. We might even send some more E-mails, maybe more suitably target. Sources indicate to us that something nefarious may have happened at Süddeutsche Zeitung, but we don’t know precisely what and when. It’s still just a rumour. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 2:22 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: A couple of new videos from the Netherlands, where the EPO faces a lot of negative and hostile press coverage right now, having refused to obey court orders from The Hague and caused employees who are also staff representatives to collapse, fall ill
“There was an extensive Dutch media coverage,” wrote SUEPO today, “relating to the demonstration held on 28 January in the Hague. The reportage on TV West Ochtendnieuws (28 January 2016 07:00; From 5’34’’ “TV West Ochtendnieuws”) is now provided with subtitles in English, French and German” (as below).
Here is the direct link. Ripping it for local hosting would not preserve the subtitles though, due to the way YouTube works. Either way, it doesn’t seem as though the EPO pursues censorship of SUEPO posts anymore (it did before), so the likelihood of takedown is not so high.
Here is another new video, disseminated online the other day amongst EPO critics. There are no subtitles in it, but some of our readers will understand that she speaks about torture. Recall the Dutch article “What If the European Patent Office Were to Torture?”
“Under usual reserve,” one reader told us, “she talks about the weird situation in the EPO. To outline, she says that Battistelli is acting (like?) criminal by torturing his staff. The staff should file a complaint at the court of justice referring to human rights and based on the convention (UN) protection against torture.”
“Die UNO-Konvention gegen die Folter verpflichtet die Vertragsstaaten, alle geeigneten Massnahmen zur Verhinderung bzw. Ahndung von Folter zu ergreifen sowie Personen, denen die Freiheit entzogen ist, vor Angriffen auf ihre körperliche und seelische Integrität zu schützen.
“At the end she says that she wrote a letter to the President of the EPO and some Dutch Politicians to stop the torture immediately. I do not know who she is as I never heard her name before. Maybe she is a kind of activist? Have a look at her website.”
“East Meets West,” an EPO event, was mentioned earlier today by the EPO at Twitter. It sure sounds like some kind of knowledge transfer from the torturing (mental torture) Battistelli to China, which is no stranger to abolition of human rights as defined by Europe and north America. The stories I heard from EPO staff (most of them never publicly shared) are by far worse than some of the stories I heard about my wife’s time in Taiwan/PRC. Some of it can qualify as excessive, ruthless, merciless mental abuse if not torture (which helps extract false confessions under extreme pressure and threats). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in America, Deception, Patents at 1:40 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Sheep can be bamboozled by the patent wolves in sheep clothing
Summary: A roundup of recent articles about software patents and how media which targets patent lawyers (and is often managed and authored by them) covered the subject
THE US patent system has attracted worldwide ridicule for patent trolls and for low-quality patents. It got a lot worse in recent years as the number of granted patents doubled (without innovation actually doubling). A new article by Daniel Nazer from the EFF, who dunked his article in at least a couple of places [1, 2], is putting to shame a software patent. “This month,” he wrote, “we feature yet another patent that takes an ordinary business practice and does it on a computer. Our winner is US Patent No. 8,738,435, titled “Method and apparatus for presenting personalized content relating to offered products and services.” As you might guess from its title, the patent claims the idea of sending a personalized marketing message using a computer.”
“Who benefits here other than the patent ‘industry’?”These patents tend to be as trivial as they sound. No wonder a lot of patent trolls strike everywhere and people are shocked by the poor patent quality at the USPTO, where almost every patent application is now successful. To invalidate patents in a court it costs a lot of money, so settlement is often a lot cheaper, even when the patent at hand is provably bogus. Consider Apple’s “Slide-to-Unlock” patent, which we wrote about before (even years ago). Apple’s latest patent loss was covered by Professor Dennis Crouch a few days later and IAM meanwhile showed that it’s rather upset because phones are to be sold at a price less than patent tax (‘royalties’). This massive patent tax, which can artificially bring the price of phones up to $1000 apiece, helps patent laywers and maximalists. Why did it take so many years for the courts to finally be convinced that the stupid “Slide-to-Unlock” lunacy is not patent-eligible? Will Apple appeal (or petition to appeal), ensuring this drags on in the courts for several more years to come? Who benefits here other than the patent ‘industry’? Who foots the bill if not Samsung, which can pass down the cost of litigation to customers?
“They make it sound like terrible news. Well, it is perhaps for patent lawyers and other patent maximalists.”The patent maximalists have just noted “a record year [2015] for” realisation that many patents granted by the USPTO should never have been granted in the first place. It’s about PTAB, which we wrote about the other day. “This is the year the US patent pendulum swings back,” said another new headline from patent maximalists, noting: “It’s been tough going for patent owners in the US over recent years, with legislation, the courts and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board at the USPTO increasing uncertainty over validity and enforcement; this has reduced the incentives alleged infringers have to make deals, while also pushing down patent values. Now, though, things may be about to change…”
They make it sound like terrible news. Well, it is perhaps for patent lawyers and other patent maximalists. “Examiner’s comment regarding use of DDR Holdings in 101/Alice rejection,” was noted by Patent Buddy the other day, “everyone argues that case and we don’t know what it means.”
“Objective analysis or salesmanship?”Another site of patent maximalists (although a more restrained one when it comes to that) took note of PTAB and asked: “Does the Patent Act permit the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to make inter partes review institution decisions?”
In simple terms, all the above are very much concerned about the ability to kill patents even without them being brought before a court (patent litigation). What we strive to show here is the sheer bias, where those who profit from patents but don’t actually make anything bemoan the new reality (post-2012 and post-2014, one being a reform and the latter being Alice at SCOTUS).
Trying to get software patents in Singapore? Well, as viewed from patent maximalists’ eyes (MIP), that’s all fine and dandy. Trying to get software patents in Korea? HANOL Intellectual Property & Law is trying to help with its ‘opinions’ and ‘articles’. The situation is explained by patent lawyers in Korea. Objective analysis or salesmanship?
“We blame this on self-serving patent lawyers steering it all, from media to policy.”Looking at IAM, another one of those patent maximalists’ sites, even the Chinese patent bubble is noted there [1, 2]. Surely they hope that not only Europe but east Asia too will follow the terrible model of the US patent system. Here they are fawning and drooling over patent trolls in Europe — trolls from whom they can make money. Patent thickets and patent taxes are being broadened even further with all sorts of aggregates like WiLAN, so patent lawyers show some glee (with revenue steams like these, what lawyers would not be jubilant?) and say: “This deal comes amid what has been a transformative period for WiLAN. Last June it acquired a portfolio of around 7,000 assets formerly owned by Qimonda. It followed that by announcing that it had agreed a privateering deal with Freescale Semiconductor in which Freescale agreed to transfer more than 3,300 patents to the NPE” (it means patent troll).
There is so much misinformation out there about patents. We blame this on self-serving patent lawyers steering it all, from media to policy. Technical people must at least try to get involved and get the record straight, otherwise they’ll get harmed.
Pieter Hintjens, the former President of the FFII, said some days ago: “A lesson I learned many years ago, fighting software patents: if your communities don’t do politics, politics will do you.” He then added: “To do politics: identify your enemy, understand them, then raise their costs to an unbearable level.” █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
02.29.16
Posted in America, Patents at 9:37 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
When the Establishment serves Power rather than Justice
Photo credit: Evan Guest, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license.
Summary: As the number of patents granted by the USPTO doubles (in just a few years), lawsuits leap through the roof, small businesses are severely harmed, and the political debate, the corporate media, the patent office and so on are all controlled by predators whose interests align with patent lawyers, patent lobbyists and their large clients (multinationals)
THE USPTO is the world’s most dominant patent system. It issues patents on software even though it’s becoming much harder a thing to enforce in a court of law, especially after Alice. Patent lawyers are still trying to undo or reverse Alice because it hit them where it hurts: patent scope.
Longing for Scalia/GOP Influence
Pro-patents (or patent maximalism) Web sites bemoan what they call “Change Inventorship on Issued U.S. Patent” and even long for corporations-leaning Justices like Scalia (see this new article by Louis Carbonneau), who died earlier this month, leaving SCOTUS more liberal (or leftist) than before.
“Patent lawyers are still trying to undo or reverse Alice because it hit them where it hurts: patent scope.”As of last week, we have begun seeing the debate about patents resurfacing in US politics, even if it’s the same old misguided debate about “patent trolls” rather than about patent scope. Here is the latest lobbying by patent maxlmalists (for USPTO lenience and greed). It says: “The U.S. government has a bad history of taking money from the USPTO. Since 1991, $1 billion has been skimmed from the office’s budget during the appropriations process and diverted to unrelated agencies. This isn’t taxpayer money, but fees paid to the USPTO by patent and trademark applicants (i.e., inventors and brand owners).”
Yeah, whatever…
“It has made a killing by doubling the number of granted patents (innovation did not double at all).”So now USPTO is the poor victim? It has made a killing by doubling the number of granted patents (innovation did not double at all).
“All these conclusions came together,” wrote a respected patents blog the other day, “to confirm a finding that Colvin had intent-to-defraud the USPTO.”
Foxes and Hen Houses
Well, generally speaking, the problem with the USPTO is that it’s run by a lot of lawyers and thus it serves lawyers. The examiners there, who are mostly qualified scientists with practical experience, don’t have much of a say. It more or less mirrors what happens in the EPO in the policy/scope sense. “Join free IP Seminar “Overcoming Alice in Electronic Signal Processing”, March 10, Munich,” wrote European patent lawyers the other day.
“Patent lawyers have a twisted view on things, where laws and rules are seen as obstacles to leap over rather than something that should be respected and obeyed.”Well, “Overcoming Alice” is like “Overcoming the law,” or simply getting around the rules. Patent lawyers have a twisted view on things, where laws and rules are seen as obstacles to leap over rather than something that should be respected and obeyed.
Watch this this article by Nicholas Landau (Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP). After the Alice decision at SCOTUS level (2014) the patent lawyers still struggle as they try to convince the public that software patents are legitimate and potent. They are not. That’s ill advice. “Due to the rapidly shifting requirement for subject matter eligibility,” says the author, “some patent examiners seem to believe that, when it comes to software inventions, they are entitled to assume the invention is not patent eligible subject matter under § 101, and it is the applicant’s duty to prove otherwise.”
Well, “some patent examiners seem to believe…”
“Not too long ago Apple managed to bamboozle EPO examiners into granting it software patents, only to have them invalidated in a court (several times in fact).”So much for respect to examiners. They’re viewed as naive and misguided by patent lawyers.
Apple’s Bogus Software Patents
Not too long ago Apple managed to bamboozle EPO examiners into granting it software patents, only to have them invalidated in a court (several times in fact). These were invalidated only after the defendants had spent millions (in legal fees) and years in the courts defending Android/Linux. See this new article (among many on the subject) titled “Appeals Court Dumps Apple’s Slide To Unlock Patent, Tosses Massive Jury Award Against Samsung In The Trash”. To quote this non-mainstream/non-conformist piece from TechDirt: “Apple may have been able to convince a jury that Samsung violated a bunch of its patents, on concepts like “slide to unlock,” but apparently the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) disagrees. Despite the court’s reputation for regularly expanding the power of patents (and getting smacked around by the Supreme Court for doing so), CAFC has sided with Samsung and tossed out a jury’s $120 million award and with it some Apple patents — including “slide to unlock.”
“This is the outcome of the infamous “thermonuclear war,” to quote the megalomaniac Steve Jobs, who simple could not stand competition.”This is a software patents — a callback functionality on a mock-up/design/UI.
This is the outcome of the infamous “thermonuclear war,” to quote the megalomaniac Steve Jobs, who simple could not stand competition. Watch what people think of this misguided war. Even former Apple proponents are upset at Apple right now. Who is this good for anyway? Patent lawyers of course. As many people consider Apple to be anything but a patent troll (even if it does no manufacturing, mostly branding and design), it ought to be clear that the problem does not boil down only to patent trolls. We wrote about this very recently
More Patent Litigation for Happier (Richer) Patent Lawyers
See this new article from IP Watch. It says: “The United States worked hard over the last five years to reduce patent infringement suits. Congress enacted patent reform, the courts handed down important anti-patentee rulings, and the US Patent and Trademark Office began a campaign of energetically rejecting patents and patent claims. Despite all this, from 2014 to 2015, new patent infringement suits increased 18 percent and the number of defendants sued for patent infringement increased 21 percent. What went wrong?”
“It is an epidemic of feuds which software patents are a large cause of and patent lawyers are beneficiaries of.”MIP also looked into litigation figures from 2015 and any way one looks at it, there’s more litigation, which is hardly a positive development. It is an epidemic of feuds which software patents are a large cause of and patent lawyers are beneficiaries of.
Excessive Focus on Patent Trolls, Not Patent Scope
When it comes to US public policy, only “trolls” are currently mentioned as the problem. Matt Levy (CCIA) focuses on patent trolls, as usual, not on software patents, noting that “Tyler, TX Brags About Its “Friendliness” to Patent Trolls”. Here is what patents do to small companies, as put in the words of United for Patent Reform the other day: “In 2014, 62% of companies sued by patent trolls had revenues <$100M. Ask Congress to protect #smallbiz & #fixpatents http://bit.ly/1FgqNiT ”
“Even when cases are dismissed the legal costs can rarely be recovered by the damaged defendant (except in rare cases, like NewEgg’s recent win).”Remember that this is a matter of life or death to them. To successfully shoot down a patent it can cost millions of dollars. Even when cases are dismissed the legal costs can rarely be recovered by the damaged defendant (except in rare cases, like NewEgg’s recent win). To quote another new tweet: “Patent trolls sued 4000+ companies in 2015, incl. homebuilders & other #smallbiz. Congress needs to #fixpatents”
But not only trolls are the problem. Nevertheless, all the debate is about them. See for instance this new article titled “Bill Designed to Subdue “Patent Trolls” Loses Momentum”. To quote:
Nearly a year after it was reintroduced and met with widespread support from House Republicans, the Innovation Act, designed to subdue “patent trolls,” has lost momentum after various businesses, universities, and conservative groups deemed it harmful to innovators.
Before the bill died in the Senate, the Innovation Act passed the House in 2013 after a substantial bipartisan vote of 325–91. A new bill reintroducing the Innovation Act, H.R. 9, which was formulated last July, has since passed the Judiciary Committee with a 24–8 vote.
Why not tackle the sorts of patents which patent trolls are using? They are not going after some utility companies over use of particular screw and pipe designs. They almost always use software patents. Therein lies the problem. Here is a new press release that says “Knowledge Group’s webcast entitled: “Emerging Issues: Patent Trolls and Deceptive Tactics – Impacts and Implications Explored!””
“What about large companies that act like patent trolls and extort/blackmail small companies similarly?”What about patent scope? Not noteworthy? What about large companies that act like patent trolls and extort/blackmail small companies similarly? The patent propaganda alliance (“Innovation Alliance”) has released this misleading statement on the matter, without even stating who’s funding it anyway. It’s patent maximalists. The patent propaganda alliance pretends to represent SMEs with tweets such as CPIP’s. It says: “Great to see recognition of importance of patents to startups at today’s hearing!” Well, neither entity cares about startups. These are just patent maximalists and they pretend to speak for small businesses, just like Microsoft’s ACT does.
“Get the facts straight,” Gary Shapiro (president and CEO of Consumer Technology Association) wrote the other day. “Patent trolls drain $1.5B a week from the economy…”
Here is his article, “Patent trolls drain US economy,” which says: “To preserve our nation’s entrepreneurial spirit and grow our innovation economy, patent trolls must be driven back under the bridge where they belong. Letting them run amok is, well, patent nonsense.”
“Well, they should work hard to abolish software patents in the US, as that too would contribute a lot to trolls’ demise.”The Consumer Technology Association (CTA) even issued a press release to express opposition to patent trolls, but what about patent scope? Not a word.
Another new article, “What retailers can do about patent trolls,” was published the other day by Beth Provenzano. “We’ve been talking about patent reform for a while,” she wrote, “and for good reason. The number of patent disputes reached a record high last year, and retailers are often the targets of “patent trolls” — companies that own patents for technologies they didn’t invent and don’t use.”
“All that these things are doing is patent tax collection, like a vigilante knocking on every door to collect money for the vigilante that’s supposedly intended to protect from the patent Mafia.”Well, they should work hard to abolish software patents in the US, as that too would contribute a lot to trolls’ demise.
Protection Money and the Vigilante Non-Solution
The solutions proposed by patent maximalists are not solutions but merely additions to the problem. ‘Protection money’ and vigilantes in the patent world don’t make anyone any safer (overall), but this is what IAM is proposing in this article. To quote: “As a network designed to provide coverage from patent suits, Freedom has some obvious parallels with the License on Transfer Network (LOTNet). LOTNet was launched in 2014 by a group of operating companies led by Google. Those that join agree that if they transfer any patents to an NPE then the other members of the network automatically receive a licence to those patents. This is in large part because the vast majority of NPE lawsuits involve patents developed and filed by operating companies.”
There is actually one such patent vigilante that calls itself “Freedom”? All that these things are doing is patent tax collection, like a vigilante knocking on every door to collect money for the vigilante that’s supposedly intended to protect from the patent Mafia. Therein lies exacerbation of the issues/problem, but then again, when you’re a patent lawyer, it’s “mo’ problems, mo’ money.” █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in America, Europe, Patents at 8:00 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: A quick look at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and why patent lawyers, patent trolls (who typically use software patents) and other patent aggressors are afraid of it, more so after Alice (a landmark 2014 case against abstract software patents)
THOSE who are not patent lawyers might not know that PTAB, according to Wikipedia, “was formed on September 16, 2012 as one part of the America Invents Act.”
“Patent lawyers, suffice to say, are growing nervous and comparing PTAB to all sorts of terrible things.”That was less than a couple of years before Alice, which effectively killed many software patents in the US (and shed doubt on the rest). The EPO too has boards of appeal, even though Battistelli seems to be trying to crush them (the unfilled open positions strategy, as the BBC reported on earlier today — the latest round of Tories versus NHS), possibly because of the UPC (some speculations insinuate this). At the same time he opens the door to software patents, which the boards have historically been relatively sceptical/critical of.
According to this new article from the EFF: “Today EFF filed our response brief in the appeal of our successful challenge to Personal Audio’s podcasting patent. Back in April 2015, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) ruled in our favor and invalidated all of the patent claims we challenged. Personal Audio appealed this decision to the Federal Circuit.”
We covered this at the time (April 2015, just under a year after Alice) and we were pleased with the outcome. Patent lawyers, suffice to say, are growing nervous and comparing PTAB to all sorts of terrible things.
“Watch what a tragedy this has become for business method and software patents.”Consider this MIP article titled “PTAB taking a harder line on CBM institution”. It says: “More covered business method petitions are now being denied institution by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board than granted, with the Board seemingly narrowing what qualifies as a CBM patent” (that’s good, but not for patent lawyers).
Also new from MIP is this article titled “Institutional change: PTAB issues to watch in 2016″. To quote: “PTAB petition filing has increased every year since the post-grant proceedings became available in September 2012. According to figures from Docket Navigator, a record 1,797 petitions were filed last year, up 7% on the 1,677 filed in 2014. Inter partes review (IPR) petitions accounted for 92% of the filing last year.”
Watch what a tragedy this has become for business method and software patents. It’s about time. Let the patent lawyers squirm, twist the facts, and whine… █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Asia, Deception, Law, Patents at 7:08 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
While patent lawyers try to create “confusion” about the law in India
Confusion? Not at all. No software patents.
Summary: One final post about India’s ban on software patents and patent lawyers’ denial or obfuscation of this simple fact (along the same lines of US patent lawyers post-Alice)
THE decade-long (at least) fight over software patents in India recently came to an end again. The foreign lobbyists lost again. It’s mostly a multinational thing (Microsoft, IBM…) and the resistance comes from the Indian population, as was the case with "free basics" (neocolonialism). Look how upset IBM is, time after time.
As The Wire put it the other day: “Multinational software companies are naturally displeased with the Indian patent office’s new guidelines disallowing patents for computer programs.”
“There’s no confusion about it. It’s the law.”IBM’s latest response is quite telling. We wrote a great deal about IBM’s role in the patenting of software in the US and efforts to make it so in Europe and New Zealand too. The above article is one of about two dozen English articles we’ve found about the latest news (here are a couple more which we didn’t cite before [1, 2]). There are of course also some articles from patent lawyers and their biased media. MIP, for example, said in its headline that “Confusion reigns over patenting of computer programs”. Actually, “patenting of computer programs” is not allowed in India. There’s no confusion about it. It’s the law.
Watch how patent lawyers in India (probably working for foreign companies such as IBM or Microsoft) worry and express concerns out in public, even though it’s clear that the Indian population does not agree with them.
“People in India sure need to know who’s who and thereafter discern between innovators and parasites.”We recently saw Singh & Associates writing: “What is the date of grant of patent or in other words on which date the patent is deemed to be granted. This seems to be a simple question with the simple answer, but that is not the case. In this regard, Hon’ble Delhi High Court heard a bunch of petitions where all of the petitions had this common question of ascertaining date of grant of patent. In general sense patent is said to be granted when it is approved by the Controller of Patents and no further objections are in its way. The said petitions raised the question of date of Patent in context to validity of a pre-grant opposition as introduced by the Patent Amendment Act, 2005.”
Well, patent lawyers in India are always looking for business. The more patents get filed, the more money they make. The more patent litigation, the better (for them).
People in India sure need to know who’s who and thereafter discern between innovators and parasites. █
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