03.30.16
Posted in Apple, GNU/Linux, Google, IBM, OIN, Oracle, Patents at 4:01 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
A workaround that only patent aggressors and software patents proponents like IBM can coexist with
Photo source (modified slightly): The 10 Most Powerful Women in Technology Today
Summary: Oracle (from OIN) suing Google (from OIN) over Android (Linux-based) and seeking nearly $10,000,000,000 in ‘damages’ serves to show that OIN is not a workaround/solution to the key problem, which is software patents
Apple’s patent war on Android is still in headlines this week [1, 2, 3] and there are a lot of articles about Oracle‘s case against Android in our daily links. No doubt, given that Oracle had joined OIN, its attack on Android proved that OIN is far from a solution. Oracle wants to recover the cost of buying Sun by just using patents that Sun workers worked towards, along with copyrights. “The case will have major ramifications for software patents and licensing the world over,” this one report said.
Here is a new article about the Linux Foundation and OIN. To quote the relevant part/s:
Meeting legal requirements is one of the key elements that large software companies factor in to their release cycles. They have teams that check for software patents that may impact their code, make sure that every copyright is acknowledged and look at the detailed usage clauses in any third-party software that they use.
One of the reasons for doing this is to avoid expensive litigation from companies often referred to as patent trolls. These are companies that have purchased large software patent libraries. Their business model is to then use those libraries to bring lawsuits against developers and over the last decade we’ve seen a number of high profile lawsuits against companies such as IBM, Microsoft, Google and others. Some of these have been dismissed by the courts but others have been upheld costing hundreds of millions of dollars in both fines and costs.
While open source developers might think that they are immune from this type of issue they are not. It may be that a piece of software that has been released as open source is later alleged to have infringed a software patent. This would mean that anyone using that software could be found guilty of an infringement.
To help reduce the impact of patent claims Google, IBM, Red Hat, SUSE, NEC, Philips and Sony created the Open Innovation Network. The goal was to create a pool of defensive patents that could be used to protect Linux and developers using Linux. This has been successful with over 1946 companies signing up to the OIN to use their patents to defend themselves from attack.
When you work on software patents for a company — no matter how benign a company — you never know who will get/use them. See the response I got from Red Hat staff (Alexandre Oliva) after writing this, having called for Red Hat to stop pursuing software patents and defang all existing ones. As Oliva put it, “when I realized this, some 6 years ago, I started campaigning for Red Hat to turn its Patent Promise into an actual license, but no luck so far. until this major problem is fixed, no more patent applications from me…”
A longtime critic of OIN, Florian Müller, was among the first to point out that OIN was not effective because one OIN member (Oracle) sued another (Google). He now has this new post which says: “There’s an interesting parallel between Apple v. Samsung (meaning their first case, with respect to which the Supreme Court has granted certiorari) and the Oracle v. Google Android-Java copyright litigation: in both cases, most of the damages at issue are based on the theory of a disgorgement of infringer’s profits, and at first sight, the amounts claimed by the right holders appear very high. There are even more similarities. For example, in both cases, the defendants are key Android players. But there are also some important factual differences, not limited to the fact that design patents and copyright are different types of intellectual property.”
These high-profile cases come to show the dangers of software patents (Novell’s ended up in Microsoft’s, Oracle’s and Apple’s hands and Red Hat’s could end up anywhere, depending on who buys it and when) and the uselessness of OIN. The real reform people should campaign for is abolishment of software patents themselves. The next post will deal with other deficient reform ideas/strategies. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
03.28.16
Posted in America, Apple, Patents, Samsung at 4:30 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
English/Original
Publicado en America, Apple, Patentes, Samsung at 11:50 am por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz
La sin precedentes barra de baja examinación en la oficina de patentes de Estados Unidos hizo una gran cantidad de patentes de software sospechosas o totalmente falsas
Sumario: Sellando unas felices examinaciones en cuanto se trata de patentes de software, esta teniendo su tardío efecto en los aplicantes quienes ven sus patentes o inválidadas or masívamente devaluados después de que la Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos (SCOTUSP) las evalúa
“La definición de un Troll de patentes es totalmente simple,” escribió una persona temprano esta semana, haciendo eco a lo que algunos de nostros define “[cref 90921 PAE” estos dias. Es “cualquier compañía que hace la mayoría de su dinero usando patentes al amenazar con litigatión.”
Eso es exactamente lo que el “licensing de Microsoft” esta haciéndo. Microsoft ahora tiene su in-house troll de patentes, or PAE, de lo que escribimos la semana pasada.
“Eso es exactamente lo que el “licensing de Microsoft” esta haciéndo. Microsoft ahora tiene su in-house troll de patentes, or PAE…”Afortunadamente la consecuencias de la mayoría de trolles (or PAES) esta en las rocas por Alice. Las patentes de software no pueden dejar de morir, en ambas PTAB y en las cortes. La USPTO últimamente permite que casi cualquier cosa sea patentada (la EPO tiene que observar esto y tomarlo como algo precaucionador), pero simplemente por que una patente es otorgada, no significa que sea válida si/cuando es desafíáda de la manera apropiada, especialmente si esta patente cubre o se relaciona al software.
“Esta decisión de la PTAB invalidándo los reclamos de la patente IV bajo 101 es transtornada,” escribió un abogado de patentes, linking a esta decisión contra Intellectual Ventures, el TROLL de PATENTES de Microsoft y Bill Gates, así como el troll de patentes MÁS GRANDE DEL MUNDO.
“La única patente buena es la patente muerta.”“La hermana de esta patente,” añadió este abogado (citando la patente #9050977), “Conseguí una Rechazo 101” o como este tweet lo pone: “This reads like an un-patentable mental process that drivers do-just “done on a computer”. http://www.pat2pdf.org/patents/pat9290181.pdf” [patent #9290181]
La única patente buena es la patente muerta. Otro nuevo ejemplo de patente de software muerta es esta. Para citar el blog de Docket Rport:
En una escrita decisión final, el Jurado encontró recmaos de un contenido electrónico de distribución no-patentabje bajo
35 U.S.C. § 101. “La ’patente 464 describe que publicaciones electrónicas fueron comúnmente repeditas en una forma leíble por computadora en storage magnético o óptico diskettes y distribuídos a tiendas o por ventas directas de correo. Así el concepto de distribución de publicaciones (contenido), ha sido conocido mucho antes que la patente ´464. Más aún acordamos con el petitioner que distribución de publicaciones (versus publicaciones electrónicas), han sido conocidas por largo tiempo… [Nosotros] determinamos que los reclamos están dirigidos al concepto ABSTRACTO de distribuír contenido electrónico, o más específicamente, a seleccionar, transportar, guardar y enseñar contenido electrónico.”
Es buenho ver noticias como la de arriba porque no sólo devalúa existentes patentes de software pero también reduce el incentivo de llenar aplicaciones por nuevas patentes. ¿Hará SCOTUS lo mismo con las patentes de diseño pronto?
El Caso Apple-Samsung
“A diferencia de Apple, esta compañía Asiática actualmente produce cosas, no simplemente hacen propaganda y rediseñan sus logos.”Vis-à-vis diseño de patentes and patentes de software at SCOTUS, siguiendo talvez miles de reportajes de los medios en casos como este, IDG sirvió para confirmar lo que Florian Müller había pronósticado, principalmente esto. De la historia de IDG: “la Jueza Lucy Koh está preoucpada que el resultado del juicio pueda ser cuestionado después de una revisión de la Corte Suprema” (extraído por Müller).
¿Habrá alguna vez paz? Bueno, todo eso depende de Apple, quién comenzó toda esta guerra total con sus patentes de software y diseño (usuamente GUI software). Esto es lo que pasa entre compañías Asiáticas como Samsung ahora mismo: “Midea y Toshiba anunciaron la semana pasada que ellos han firmado un memorandum de entendimiento por un tratado el cual vería a la más larga compañíá China fabricante de apáratos para el hogar adquirir la mayoría del gigante Japonés bienes blancos.” A diferencia de Apple, esta compañía Asiática actualmente produce cosas, no simplemente hacen propaganda y rediseñan sus logos. Apple ahora gasta un montón de dinero en abogados de patentes; no nos sorprende el porque sus productos están obscenamente con sobreprecio (costos asociados con propaganda sin fin y abogados de patenes son pasados al consumidor). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
03.24.16
Posted in America, Apple, Patents, Samsung at 11:50 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
The unprecedentedly low examination bar at the US patent office made a lot of software patents suspect or altogether bogus
Summary: Stamping-happy examination when it comes to software patents takes its belated toll on applicants, who see their patents either invalidated or massively devalued after the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) weighed in
“The definition of a Patent Troll is quite simple,” wrote one person earlier this week, echoing what some use to define "PAE" these days. It’s “any company that makes the majority of its money using patents by threatening litigation.”
That’s exactly what “Microsoft licensing” is doing. Microsoft now has its own in-house patent troll, or PAE, which we wrote about in the previous post.
“That’s exactly what “Microsoft licensing” is doing. Microsoft now has its own in-house patent troll, or PAE…”Fortunately, the tool of most trolls (or PAEs) is on the rocks because of Alice. Software patents just can’t stop dying, both in PTAB and in the courts. The USPTO nowadays allows virtually anything to be patented (the EPO too should watch out and treat it as a cautionary tale), but just because a patent is granted doesn’t mean it’s valid if/when properly challenged, especially if this patent covers software.
“This PTAB decision invalidating IV patent claims under 101 is deranged,” wrote a patent lawyer, linking to this decision against Intellectual Ventures, Microsoft’s and Bill Gates’ patent troll, as well as the world’s biggest patent troll.
“The only good software patent is a dead one.”“The Sibling Patent to This One,” added this lawyer (citing patent #9050977), “Did Get a 101 Rejection” or as this tweet puts it: “This reads like an un-patentable mental process that drivers do-just “done on a computer”. http://www.pat2pdf.org/patents/pat9290181.pdf” [patent #9290181]
The only good software patent is a dead one. Another new example of a dead software patent is this one. To quote the Docket Report blog:
In a final written decision, the Board found claims of an electronic content distribution patent unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101. “The ’464 patent describes that electronic publications were commonly replicated in computer-readable form on magnetic or optical storage diskettes and distributed to retails stores or by direct mail sales. Thus, the concept of distributing electronic information products (content) was known prior to the ’464 patent. Further, we agree with Petitioner that distribution of publications (versus electronic publications), has long been known. . . . . [W]e determine that the claims are directed to the abstract concept of distributing electronic content, or more specifically, to selecting, transporting, storing, and displaying electronic content.”
It is nice to see news like the above because it not only devalues existing software patents but also reduces the incentive to file applications for new ones. Will SCOTUS do the same to design patents soon?
Apple-Samsung Case
“Unlike Apple, these Asian company actually produce things, not just advertising and refining their logos.”Vis-à-vis design patents and software patents at SCOTUS, following perhaps thousands of media reports such as this, IDG served to confirm what Florian Müller had foreseen, namely this. From the IDG story: “Judge Lucy Koh is concerned that the outcome of the trial could be questioned after a Supreme Court review” (excerpted by Müller).
Will there ever be peace? Well, that all depends on Apple, which started this whole war with its patents on software and design (usually software GUI). Here is what happens among Asian companies like Samsung right now: “Midea and Toshiba announced last week that they had signed a memorandum of understanding for a deal which would see China’s largest home appliances manufacturer acquire the majority of the Japanese tech giant’s white goods business.” Unlike Apple, these Asian company actually produce things, not just advertising and refining their logos. Apple now spends a lot of money on patent lawyers; no wonder the products are obscenely overpriced (costs associated with endless advertising and patent lawyers get passed down). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
03.22.16
Posted in Apple, Courtroom, Patents, Samsung at 3:44 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Wasting valuable courts’ time on some silly patents that are neither novel nor nontrivial (prior art below)
Summary: The US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) is going to deal with inane Apple patents that are being used in an effort to make billions of dollars (‘Apple tax’) out of a Linux-based operating system (Android) which competes against Apple’s
TECHRIGHTS has among its primary goals the abolition of software patents and the success of FOSS, which is ascending in Europe these days. This would be beneficial to software developers and probably for the public as a whole. The losers? Probably patent lawyers and their biggest clients, who refer to their patent portfolio as a “war chest”.
“We believe that real change can come from the courts, especially the high ones, which everyone must follow.”We recognise that significant change hardly comes from politicians anymore, as they are nowadays funded (especially in the United States) by the aforementioned “biggest clients”. We believe that real change can come from the courts, especially the high ones, which everyone must follow. Consider the long-awaited SCOTUS appeal regarding an Android case. Can SCOTUS bury so-called ‘design’ patents, which are essentially akin to software patents (usually a GUI with some buttons and unspecified callback functions for behaviour)? After Alice, which changed a lot, we sure hope so.
We have been covering Apple’s attacks on Android/Linux since the very beginning (the Apple vs HTC case). It’s still being dragged on, even several years after the death of Steve Jobs, which says a lot about Apple (they are still an aggressive patenting company). The expected decision on whether it shall be dealt with by SCOTUS was scheduled for Monday, after some people waited in vain on Friday. This has been covered to death in the media by now, so we won’t bore our readers with yet more of the mundane pertinent details (we covered these before anyway, including the laughable patents at hand [1, 2]).
“It’s still being dragged on, even several years after the death of Steve Jobs, which says a lot about Apple (they are still an aggressive patenting company).”To give just a short media survey/roundup, Spicy IP oddly enough chose to focus on another case. It said: “We’ve been given to believe that the Roche vs Cipla appeal came up at the Supreme Court today.”
An article by Joe Mullin, on the other hand, noted: “Are design patents for “carpets and wall-papers and oil-cloths” or smartphones?”
Korean English-speaking media said the obvious, FOSS proponents like SJVN spread the news early on, and maybe hundreds if not thousands of media outlets wrote about this as well. To quote SJVN: “Years in the making, the Supreme Court has agreed to listen to Samsung’s appeal of Apple’s design patent awards. [...] At first it looked like Apple won its design patent wars over Samsung. As time went on, that “victory” started looking more like a defeat as Samsung won its appeals. Now, Apple is in even more trouble. The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has elected to hear Samsung’s appeal of the $548-million award lower courts gave Apple.”
“The expected decision on whether it shall be dealt with by SCOTUS was scheduled for Monday, after some people waited in vain on Friday.”To quote Florian Müller, who used to be a FOSS opponent (Microsoft/Horacio Gutierrez paid him for this) but later seemed to have flipped back to pro-FOSS, he wrote: “The Supreme Court of the United States has just published a decision it had already made on Friday (March 18): Samsung’s December 2015 petition for writ of certiorari (request for Supreme Court review) in Apple’s design patents case has been GRANTED with respect to question 2 (damages). As a result, the Apple v. Samsung damages re-retrial scheduled to begin later this month in the Northern District of California is almost certainly going to be postponed indefinitely, as Apple is seeking unapportioned infringer’s profits on all five products still at issue and won’t be entitled to that if Samsung prevails in the top U.S. court.”
“For my take on why design patents were neglected for such a long (and crucial) time,” wrote this person to Müller (whose expertise is this one particular case), linking to the paper about design patents. To quote part of the abstract: “This project, initially published as a two-part series of articles entitled ‘Design and Deviance: Patent as Symbol, Rhetoric as Metric,’ reveals the unrecognized power of gender and sexuality norms in the deep discourse of pivotal American case law on design patents.”
“A re-retrial was scheduled to take place in California in a week,” Müller wrote. “In light of the Supreme Court decision I’m sure Judge Koh will cancel it.”
The reason we quote Müller so extensively about this particular case is that, with respect, he did follow this case for many years. He later added:
- “Apple’s lawyers filed 10 pages to tell Judge Koh the re-retrial should go ahead despite SCOTUS cert presenting risk of re-re-re-retrial…” (source)
- “Now, I understand Apple’s lawyers in the sense they want to just dismiss Samsung’s Supreme Court case and say “hey, they ain’t gonna win it”” (source)
- “But when a case has already had a trial and a retrial, and needs a re-retrial, then the judge won’t take the risk of a re-re-retrial.” (source)
- “I actually thought it was not a bad thing to have a Korean-American judge in charge to understand cultures, documents etc.” (source)
- “What I accuse her of is upholding ultraweak patents. Injunctions: granted some, denied some, appeals court was moving target.” (source)
“Watch how some patent lawyers view things. It’s all about money to them (even a crude picture of dollars).”Here is an analysis by a Professor of Law (journalists tend to be clueless about these matters) and Patently-O‘s take from Jason Rantanen and Professor Crouch, who looks for some input through a survey.
Levy from CCIA (lobbying) wrote: “CCIA argued to the Court that this interpretation overreached in an unconstitutional way, and that the correct interpretation could be found by looking at a related statute, the Vessel Hull Design Protection Act.” Rob Lever, a journalist, said that: “The US Supreme Court on Monday opened the door to reducing the hundreds of millions of dollars in damages owed by Samsung to Apple in the blockbuster patent case between the world’s biggest smartphone makers.”
“We look forward to following the case and hopefully we shall see Apple walking away with nothing.”Watch how some patent lawyers view things. It’s all about money to them (even a crude picture of dollars). To quote a part of it: “It is penny-wise and pound-foolish to scrimp on “preparation and prosecution” of patents—which if the invention is any good, will be infringed and attacked—and then to spend hundreds of millions on patent infringement and validity and damages litigation and appeals.”
We look forward to following the case and hopefully we shall see Apple walking away with nothing. As usual, only the lawyers are guaranteed to win. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
03.21.16
Posted in America, Apple, Courtroom, Patents, Samsung at 7:36 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
English/Original
Publicado en America, Apple, Courtroom, Patents, Samsung at 12:43 pm por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Sumario: Casos de patentes en Texas, prospecto de reforma de patentes, casos de Delaware, y algunas actualizaciones acerca de casos de gran importancia
Eastern District of Texas
BASADO en los últimos números de Lex Machina, cuyas figuras son típicamente usadas para oponerse a ligigación excesiva y apoyo por una reforma de patentes (simplemente miren quien está detrás de Lex Machina), indica que hay una reducción/decline en prospectos para litigación de patentes. Los máximalistas de patentes interpretan esto como sigue: ¨sabemos que los caso en los US estuvieron de nuevo arriba, no alcanzándo los niveles del 2013 pero todavía fue el segundo record. Sabemos que la actividad en Noviembre fue unprecedente gracias a nuevos, estrictos estandares de pelea a ponerse en efecto en Diciembre. Y también ha sido ampliamente reportado que incluso por sus propios estándares sobresalió en el Distrito Este de Texas, donde 44% de casos nuevos fueron traídos, y el Juez de ese Distrito Rodne Gilstrap quien se anotó un increíble 1686 nuevas demandas”.
“Alguos creen que una reforma en las juridicciones simplemente ayudaría a mitigar/limitar el problema.”El Distrito Este de Texas, la capital de los trolles de patentes, es absolutamente un pozo negro. Incluso se anuncia a sí misma como tal (barra baja de patentes en los tribunales).
Basado en este nuevo artículo from Heather Greenfield (de CCIA): “Senadores Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., Cory Gardner, R-Colo., y Mike Lee, R-Utah, han introducido a bill cuyo objetivo son los trolles de patentes llevando a cabo abusivos casos de patentes en el Distrito Este de Texas, considerado territorio amigable para aquellos cuyo negocio principal son los juicios de patentes en vez de hacer productos. El Distrito Este de Texas tomó 44 por ciento de todos los casos de patentes el 2015. Juez Gilstrap del Distrito Este esta basado en Marshall, Texas, que tiene una población de 24,000 people, sin embargo el esta a cargo de un quinto de todos los casos de patentes en los Estados Unidos.”
Ambos usan las mismas estadísticas y puntos de vista: “El Distrito Este de Texas tomó 44 por ciento de todos los casos de patentes el 2015.”
Algunos creen que una reforma basada en juridicción de patentes simplemente ayudaría a mitigar el problema.
Juicios en Texas Trials y Preguntas de Jurisdicción
Escribimos previamente acerca del caso Metaswitch/Genband y esta de regreso en los titulares de nuevo [1, 2, 3, 4]. Compañías reales (practicantes) de Europe estan siendo afectadas, nos deja preguntándonos por que le toma tanto tiempo al Congreso hacer algo. Uno sugirió una clase de reformas basadas en la vena de juridiscción/cambio, o sanciones en el. Una mejor solución identificaría em modelo de patentes mismas (patentes de software) y trabajan para aplastarlas.
“Un tipo sugerido de reforma se refiere a la jurisdicción/cambio de lugar, o sanciones en él.”Vean este nuevo artículo titulado “Venue and Personal Jurisdiction Updates” y tambien “ANDA llenado crea una Juridiscción Personal a nivel Nacional”, que la precede. Es acerca de génericos, envuelve a la CAFC, y dice: “Los echos aquí envuelven a Mylan buscando a la FDA aprobar su mercadeo de drogas genéricas que eventualmente serán vendidas en Delaware (como también en todos los estados de la Union). Al considerar esa acción, la courte encontró que tiene suficiente juridicción personal para casos irradiando de una aplicación de aprovación de ANDA.”
Aquí esta la parte acerca de jurisdicción: ¨En este caso de jurisdicción personal, el Circuito Federal ha afirmado el juicio emitido por al Corte de Delaware, que la corte tiene específica jurisdicción sobre dos casos paralelos de Mylan. En un super amplia tenencia la corte encuentra que cuando una compañía de genéricos llena una nueva aplicación por genéricos (ANDA) con la FDA, y que su llenamiento abre la puerta a la jurisdicción personal de cualquier estado donde la Compañía Genérica venderá la droga si es aprovada. Esto efectivamente significa que la compañía genérica puede ser enjuiciada en cualquier estado de la Unión.¨
“Una mejor solución identificaría em modelo de patentes mismas (patentes de software) y trabajan para aplastarlas.”Hablando de Delaware, vemos esta nueva actualización acerca de otro caso allí (detrás de la pared de pago). La parte accesible al público dice: “La compañíá de tecnología Wireless Novatel y una compañíá dueña de patentes que la acusó de infringir dos de sus patentes de communicaciones han acordado deshacerce de su caso, una semana después que un juez Federal de Delaware estrechó las pretensiones de la demanda y la tiró a cabo expertos de ambos lados.”
Delaware, a diferencia de Texas, esta al noete, y no es tan amigable como Texas en cuanto se trata de los demandantes.
Patentes Dudosas
Un artículo por Timothy Geigner cubre una materia que hemos tratado aquí dos veces antes. “Es frecuentemente reclamado,” Geigner escribe, “litigaciones de que patente y marcas es empleada frecuentemente como medida de simplemente alejar/bloquear competición libre.” Eso es exáctamente lo que tenemos aquí. Para citar su artículo:
El fundador de Global Archery, John Jackson, en el otro lado, aparece perfectamente voluntario de salir y describir su motivación por llenar un juicio de infringimiento de patentes y marcas contra a LARPing entusiásta que vende flechas no-letales al lado.
Pero primero veamos el marco. LARP representa juego de acción vivo, para aquellos que no lo saben todavía. Para ayudar en el rol de reescenificar batallas, LARPers usarán ¨armas¨ no letales, como espadas y flechas de espuma, y parecidos. Larping.org es un sitio de pasatiempos de fabricantes de tercera parte. Ahora, Global Archer tiene patentes en específicos diseños de flechas, que principalmente se refieren en la manera en que la cabeza de la flecha se asegura al mango. Una mitad del reclamo de la compañíá contra Larping.org es por infringimiento de esas patentes.
¿Porqué fueron tales patentes otorgadas en primer lugar? ¿Cuánto costaría al acusado probar que ellas son falsas?
Sanciones
Apple ha confíado en embargos, o amenazas de embargos, en order de forzar a compañías a pagarles por aparatos Android y/o remover funciones básicas (como un slider que abre la pantalla). La ITC ha sido usada por apple para ello, y Microsoft lo ha hecho también. Ambos están atacando a Linux (especialmente e aparatos) usando patentes de software. Este nuevo artículo sirve para reforzar estimados de tiempo dice que será el Lunes cuando conocerá si Apple [ref 89542 puede llevar Android (actualmente Samsung) a la Corte Suprema). Para citar:
Decisiones en el caso Apple versus Samsung de infringimiento de patentes ha oscilado ampliamente para ambos lados, sugiriendo que las cortes son incapazes de emitir juicios justos para el rápidamente-cambiate sector de alta tecnologíá. Pero dos expertos aconsejan tomar una perspectiva más amplia acerca cambios históricos en la ley de propiedad intelectual, uno de ellos probablemente todavía adelante.
La Corte Suprema de los US podría decider este Lunes (Mar. 21) si escuchará o no una apelación en diseño de patentes envuelta en el caso. ¨No muchos casos han percolado a la cumbre…[pero] hemos visto le perfil de derechos de diseño salir de las aguas al candelero,¨ dijo Christopher V. Carani, un socio e McAndrews Held & Malloy Ltd. (Chicago) quien se especializa en patentes de diseño.
Apple todavía esta tratándo duramente de extraer billones de dolares de Samsung, bajo una intensa presión de embargos y que no. Apple usó HTC como precedente contra Samsung. Si Samsung cae, ¿quién será le próximo en el camino de destrucción de Apple? También consideren el siguiente nuevo artículo:
ZTE se apresta a apelar un ban de exportaciones de los US
ZTE Corp de CHINA apelará unas duras restricciónes de exportaciones en los US impuestos la semana pasada, de acuerdo a una persona familiar con la materia, después de que el esfuerzo de cabildeo del fabricante de equipo de telecomunicaciónes falle de evitar las preocupaciones acerca de sus negocios.
El Departamento de Comercio de los US impuso restricciones a los proveedores de los US proveyendo cruciales componentes a ZTE por supuestas violaciones contra las sanciones contra Iran, un movimiento que disruptirá su cadena de provisión global.
“El Departmento de Comercio de los US y ZTE Corp están en continuas discusiones,” dijo un oficial mayor del Departamento de Comercio. “Estas discusiones han sido constructivas, y continuaremos buscando una resolucion.”
¿Quién se beneficia de tales embargos políticos? Seguramente Apple debe estar a favor, Este caso fue mencionado temprano este mes por IAM, que cree que se relaciona indirectamente a los embargos inducidos por patentes. ¿Cuán lejos irá el sistema de los Estados Unidos? Los embargos o sanciones no ayudan a los consumidores; ¿cuándo se darán cuenta de ello? y ¿cuándo el público se dará cuenta que el exceso de patentes perjudican a todos? █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
03.19.16
Posted in America, Apple, Courtroom, Patents, Samsung at 12:43 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Texas patent cases, patent reform prospects, Delaware cases, and some updates on high-profile patent cases
Eastern District of Texas
BASED on the latest numbers from Lex Machina, whose figures are typically used to oppose excessive litigation and support patent reform (just look who’s behind Lex Machina), indicate that there’s a reduction/decline in prospects for patent litigation. The patent maximalists interpreted this as follows: “We know that new cases in the US were back up again last year, not hitting the heights of 2013 but still the second busiest on record. We also know that activity in November was unprecedented thanks to new, tougher pleading standards coming into effect in December. And it has also been widely reported that even by its standards it was a standout year for the Eastern District of Texas, where almost 44% of new cases were filed, and East Texas judge Rodney Gilstrap, who chalked up an incredible 1686 new lawsuits.”
“Some believe that jurisdiction-based patent reform alone would help mitigate/limit the problem.”The Eastern District of Texas, the capital of patent trolls, is quite a cesspool. It even advertises itself as such (low patent bar in the courts).
Based on this new article from Heather Greenfield (at CCIA): “Senators Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., Cory Gardner, R-Colo., and Mike Lee, R-Utah, have introduced a bill aimed at patent trolls filing abusive patent cases in the Eastern District of Texas, considered friendly territory for those whose main business is patent lawsuits rather than making products. The Eastern District of Texas took 44 percent of all patent cases filed in 2015. Judge Gilstrap of the Eastern District is based in Marshall, Texas, which has a population of 24,000 people, yet he hears about one-fifth of all patent cases in the United States.”
They both use the same statistics and talking points: “The Eastern District of Texas took 44 percent of all patent cases filed in 2015.”
Some believe that jurisdiction-based patent reform alone would help mitigate/limit the problem.
Texas Trials and Jurisdiction Questions
We previously wrote about the Metaswitch/Genband case and it is back in the headlines again [1, 2, 3, 4]. Real (practicing) companies from Europe are being hurt, so we’re left wondering what takes US Congress so long to take action. One suggested kind of reform pertains to jurisdiction/venue shifting, or sanctions on it. A better solution would identify the pattern in the patents themselves (software patents) and work towards squashing them.
“One suggested kind of reform pertains to jurisdiction/venue shifting, or sanctions on it.”See the new article titled “Venue and Personal Jurisdiction Updates” and also “ANDA filing creates Nationwide Personal Jurisdiction”, which precedes it. It’s about generics, it involves CAFC, and it says: “The facts here involve Mylan seeking FDA approval to market its generic drugs that will eventually be sold in Delaware (as well as every other state in the Union). In considering that action, the court found it sufficient for personal jurisdiction for cases steming from the ANDA approval application.”
Here is the part about jurisdiction: “In this personal jurisdiction case, the Federal Circuit has affirmed the Delaware Court’s ruling that the court has specific jurisdiction over Mylan in two parallel cases. In a super-broad holding, the court here finds that when a generic company files a new drug application (ANDA) with the FDA, that the filing opens the door to personal jurisdiction in any state where the Generic Company will market the drug if approved. This effectively means that the generic company could be sued in any state in the Union.”
“A better solution would identify the pattern in the patents themselves (software patents) and work towards squashing them.”Speaking of Delaware, see this new update about another Delaware case (it’s behind a paywall). The publicly-accessible part says: “Wireless technology company Novatel and a patent holding company that accused it of infringing two communications patents have agreed to dismiss their case, one week after a Delaware federal judge narrowed the claims in the suit and threw out experts from both sides.”
Delaware, unlike Texas, is up north, and it is not as friendly as Texas when it comes to plaintiffs.
Dubious Patents
An article by Timothy Geigner covers a topic which we touched here twice before. “It’s often claimed,” Geigner writes, “that patent and trademark litigation is chiefly employed as a measure to simply lock out otherwise fair competition.” That’s exactly what we have here. To quote his article:
The founder of Global Archery, John Jackson, on the other hand, appears perfectly willing to come out and describe his motivation for filing a patent and trademark infringement suit against a LARPing hobbyist that sells some non-lethal foam arrows on the side.
But first some background. LARP stands for live action role play, for those of you who didn’t know that already. To aid in the roleplaying of battles, LARPers will use non-lethal “weapons”, such as foam swords and arrows, and the like. Larping.org is a hobby site for LARPers, featuring interviews, how-to videos, etc. In their shop, they also sell LARPing gear, all of which I believe is resold from third party manufacturers. Now, Global Archery has patents on specific foam-arrow designs, which chiefly revolve around the way the foam arrowhead is secured to the shaft. One half of the company’s claim against Larping.org is for infringement on those patents.
Why were such patents granted in the first place? How much would it cost the defendant to prove them to be bogus?
Sanctions
Apple has relied on embargoes, or threats of embargoes, in order to get companies to pay Apple for Android devices and/or remove basic features (like a slider that unlocks a screen). The ITC has been used by Apple for this and Microsoft has done so too. They’re both attacking Linux (especially on devices) using software patents. This new article serves reinforce time estimates that say it will be Monday when we finally know if Apple [cref 89542 can take Android (Samsung actually) to the Supreme Court). To quote:
Decisions in the Apple v. Samsung patent infringement cases have swung widely to both sides, suggesting the courts are unable to make clear rulings for the fast-moving high tech sector. But two experts advise taking a broader perspective about historic shifts in intellectual property law, some of them probably still ahead.
The U.S. Supreme Court could decide as early as Monday (Mar. 21) whether or not to hear an appeal on design patents involved in the case. “Not a lot of design cases have percolated to the top…[but] we have seen the profile of design rights come out of the backwaters and into the limelight,” said Christopher V. Carani, a partner at McAndrews Held & Malloy Ltd. (Chicago) who specializes in design patents.
Apple is still trying hard to extract billions of dollars out of Samsung, under intense pressure of embargoes and whatnot. Apple used HTC as precedence against Samsung. If Samsung falls, who’s next in Apple’s path of destruction? Also consider the following new article:
ZTE set to appeal US export ban
CHINA’S ZTE Corp will appeal tough US export restrictions imposed last week, according to a person familiar with the matter, after the telecom equipment maker’s costly lobbying effort failed to allay concerns about its business.
The US Commerce Department imposed restrictions on US suppliers providing crucial components to ZTE for alleged Iran sanctions violations, a move likely to disrupt its global supply chain.
“The US Department of Commerce and ZTE Corp are in ongoing discussions,” a senior Commerce Department official said. “These discussions have been constructive, and we will continue to seek a resolution.”
Who benefits from such political embargoes? Surely Apple must be in favour. This case was mentioned earlier this month by IAM, which believes it indirectly relates to patents-induced embargoes. How far will the US system go? Embargo or sanctions cannot help costumers; when will this be realised and when will the public realise that patents excess generally harms everyone? █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
03.18.16
Posted in America, Apple, Patents at 6:41 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
English/Original
Publicado en America, Apple, Patentes at 3:53 pm por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Segway reclama propiedad de hovering ahora
Sumario: Un bosquejo de desarrollos reciéntes en los Estados Unidos, donde compañías que no son muy grandes (no simplemente trolles de patentes) utilizan las patentes de software para sacar ventaja sobre la competición…al simplemente enjuiciar a la competición
EMC Agresión de Patentes
Casi toda compañíá que acumula y amasa patentes eventualmente se convierte en un MATÓN de patentes. Militarización de las patentes es como un plan de seguros, red de salvación o un Plan B para tiempos en que la compañía este a duras penas. Miren a Apple, Microsoft y más reciéntemente Facebook y IBM. A EMC tampoco le esta yendo bien y de acuerdo a noticias de ayer y hoy nos recuerdan [1, 2, 3, 4, 5], la compañía ahora usa patentes para enjuiciar a sus rivales. Como lo resumió El Register, hablamos de:
Patent 6,915,475 – EMC la retiró del juicio.
Patent 8,375,187 – La Corte del Distrito sumariamente falló en contra de EMC.
Patent 7,434,015 – La Corte del District encontró que Pure infringió aspectos de ella; el juicio de patentes la declaró valida y otorgó compensaciones.
Patent 6,904,556 – El Jurado del juicio declaró que Pure no infringió nada.
Patent 7,373,464 – El Jurado del juicio declaró que Pure no infringió nada.
EMC luchará cada vez más contra el software libre y otras hebras perturbadores de la tecnología, por lo que recurrirá más a la agresión de patente para generar ingresos. Estén preparados. EMC es dueño de VMware, la que es gobernada por gente de Microsoft actualmente.
OpenTV Muestra a Apple la Ira de las Patentes de Software… en Alemania
“EMC luchará cada vez más contra el software libre y otras hebras perturbadores de la tecnología, por lo que recurrirá más a la agresión de patente para generar ingresos.”Apple debería unirse a la lucha contra las patentes de software en vez de usarlas contra Linux para beneficio de los abogados. Pero Apple es muy terco y arrogante para admitir su error. Basado en este nuevo reportaje de Reuters, Apple reciéntemente ha perdido otro caso de patentes, esta vez en Alemania (la que notoriamente es leniente en patentes de software comparado al resto de Europa).
Nos tropezamos con una docena de artículos acerca de esto en la tarde, no porque es importante pero por que es Apple. Los medios corporativos trabajan de esa manera. 18 artículos acerca de este resultado (dentro de 8 horas) mostró [1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18]. Esto puede ser esperamos discutido en el contexto de la esfera de patentes, simplemente como en el caso del FBI – caso que demuestra la fascinación de los medios con Apple. Si no se tratase de Apple, de ninguna manera hubiera un simple artículo acerca de ello. Los medios que buscan ganancias escriben acerca de lo que traiga ingresos/golpes (ganancias como prioridad), he aquí les encantan escribir acerca de Apple. Sin embargo, en ninguno de esos artículos encontramos nada que cuestione la existencia de patentes de software, que estan en la corriente.
“Hoverboards” Asesinado Por Patentes
“Mucha gente siempre ha querido “hoverboards”; así, gracias a las patentes pueden ser que tengan que esperar para siempre, o simplemente encontrar que su precio es fuera de su alcance.”Apple ama usar al ITC para presionar a las compañíás que enjuician a rendirse y pagar. Este nuevo artículo nos ayuda a recordar el rol de los embargos en el mercado. Pieter Hintjens (antiguo Presidente del FFII) lo puso sarcásticamente al decir: “Una vez más las patentes tuvieron éxito en asesinar a la competencia. Sin patentes ¿nadie inventará algo? ¿verdad?”
Aquí hay un artículo acerca de ello, de un oponente de los trolles de patentes:
Una queja de patentes que Segway llenó con al US International Trade Commission en 2014 ha resultado prohibiendo una gran variedad de “transportes personales” que infringen algunas de sus patentes.
El Miércoles, la ITC emitió una exclusión general prohibiéndo varios tipos de aparatos auto-balanceables, frecuéntemente llamados “hoverboards.” El caso pudiera afectar a todo el mercado ya que una orden de exclusión general es el más poderoso remedio de la comisión y puede afectar a partes no envueltas en la investigación.
También hay una limitada order de exclusión emitida directamente contra los productos de varias compañías Chinas enjuiciadas por Segway. Sólo una de aquellas respondió y peleó el caso, mientras las otras corrieron con el rabo entre las patas.
Proponentes de los trolles de patentes (IAM es incluso financiado por ellos) lo puso diferentemente poniéndole lápiz labial al embargo de l puerco:
La Comisión Internaciona lde Comercio (ITC) esta semana envolvió un caso de infracción de patentes Sección 337 iniciado por Segway, y su decisión tendrá gran impacto en el mercado de transportes auto-balanceables, que regresaron a vida el año pasado. En una tórcida, Ninebot, – una de las compañías Chinas nombradas como respondentes en la queja original – se convertirá en el beneficiario clave del dictámen en favor de Segway.
Mucha gente siempre ha querido “hoverboards”; así, gracias a las patentes pueden ser que tengan que esperar para siempre, o simplemente encontrar que su precio es fuera de su alcance.
Section 101 (Patentes de Software Muy Abstractas)
“¿Está la EPO prestando atención cuando una compañíá Europea, Mercedes se convierte en al victima de las patentes de software?”Las patentes de software están bajo presión en los Estados Unidos ahora mismo. Algunos artículos antigues del Bilski Blog hablan de los rechazos de la Sección 101 y dá nuevos ejemplos de patentes que son encontradas inválidas bajo esa sección. Aquí está el caso de ¨Inteligencia Vehicular¨, del que reciéntemente escribimos mucho. Ellos han tomado al gigante, Mercedes-Benz, en un esfuerzo de sacarle dinero. “Vehicle Intelligence,” escribe Bilski Blog, ¨envolviéndo a la patente U.S. Patent 7,394,392, escrita por un abogado de patentes, en el uso de sistemas expertos para determinar si un operador de equipo -e.g., el chofer de un carro- fuese inhabilitado por intoxicación, fatiga disabilidad física, u otros factores. [....] Bajo el test de Alice, is la idea abstracta es realmente asi de general, entonces usando un sistema experto es ¨significativamente más.¨ Un sistema experto no es un componente nativo or funcionalidad de un genérico ordernador de sistemas, pero un específicamente alto tipo de inteligencia artificial, en ambas diseño, arquitectura y aplicación de otros tipos de sistemas AI. Y si el juego de la patentabilidad es jugada en el sin borders campo de analogía, es fácil discutir que este reclamo es como el reclamo de Diamond v. Diehr, que envolvía contínuamente el medir una variable física (escrutinar al operador del equipo aquí, midiendo la temperatura en el molde de jebe in Diehr) y luego realizando una acción de control en respuesta al resultado (controlar la operación del aparato aquí, abriéndo el molde en Diehr). Sí Diehr was elegible también es esto.¨
Noten el rol del test de Alice. ¿Está la EPO prestando atención cuándo una compañía Europea, Mercedes se vuelve la victima de las patentes de software?
Basados en este último outline de Dennis Crouch, Alice no va a ser desafíado (por lo menos en SCOTUS) en cualquier momento cercano. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
03.17.16
Posted in America, Apple, Patents at 3:53 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Segway claims ownership of hovering now
Summary: An outline of recent developments in the United States, where companies that are very large (not just patent trolls) utilise software patents to gain an edge over the competition… by simply suing the competition
EMC Patent Aggression
Almost every company that accumulates and amasses patents eventually becomes a software patents bully. Weaponisation of patents is like an insurance plan, a safety net or a Plan B for times when the company is struggling. Look at Apple, Microsoft and more recently Facebook and IBM. EMC isn’t doing particularly well and as yesterday’s and today’s news helps remind us [1, 2, 3, 4, 5], the company now uses patents to sue rivals. As The Register summarised it, we speak about:
Patent 6,915,475 – EMC dropped it from the suit.
Patent 8,375,187 – District court summarily ruled against EMC.
Patent 7,434,015 – District court found Pure did infringe aspects of it; jury trial said patent was valid, and awarded damages.
Patent 6,904,556 – Jury trial ruled Pure did not infringe.
Patent 7,373,464 – Jury trial ruled Pure did not infringe.
EMC will increasingly struggle against Free software and other disruptive strands of technology, so it will resort to more patent aggression for revenue. Be prepared. EMC owns VMware, which is run by people from Microsoft now.
OpenTV Shows Apple the Wrath of Software Patents… in Germany
“EMC will increasingly struggle against Free software and other disruptive strands of technology, so it will resort to more patent aggression for revenue.”Apple should join the fight against software patents rather than use them against Linux for lawyers' benefit. But Apple is too stubborn and too arrogant to admit its error. Based on this new report from Reuters, Apple has just lost another patent case, this time in Germany (which is notorious for being lenient on software patenting compared to the rest of Europe).
We stumbled upon over a dozen articles about this in the afternoon, not because it’s important but because it’s Apple. Corporate media works like that. 18 articles about this outcome (within about 8 hours) showed up [1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18]. This can hopefully be discussed in the context of patent scope, just like the FBI case — a case that demonstrates Apple and media fascination. If it wasn’t involving Apple in any way, there would probably be not a single article about it. For-profit media writes about what can bring income/hits (profit as priority), hence it loves writing about Apple. Nevertheless, none of the articles we found questioned the existence of these patents, which are on streaming.
“Hoverboards” Killed by Patents
“Many people always wanted “hoverboards”; well, thanks to patents they may have to wait forever, or simply find them priced way out of reach.”Apple loves using the ITC to pressure companies it sues to just give up and pay up. This new article helps remind us of the role of embargoes in the market. Pieter Hintjens (former FFII President) put it sarcastically by saying: “Once again patents succeed in killing competition. Without patents, no-one will invent anything, right?”
Here is one article about it, from an opponent of patent trolls:
A patent complaint that Segway filed with the US International Trade Commission in 2014 has resulted in a wide-ranging order banning “personal transporters” that infringe some of its patents.
On Wednesday, the ITC issued a general exclusion order banning several types of the self-balancing devices, often called “hoverboards.” The case could affect the whole market, since a general exclusion order is the commission’s most powerful remedy and can affect even parties not involved in the investigation.
There’s also a limited exclusion order issued directly against the products of several Chinese companies sued by Segway. Only one of those companies responded and fought the case at all, while the others were in default.
Proponents of patent trolls (IAM is even funded by them) put it differently and put lipstick on the embargo pig:
The US International Trade Commission (ITC) this week wrapped up a Section 337 patent infringement investigation initiated by Segway, and its decision is set to have a big impact on a market for self-balancing personal transports that has come back to life over the past year. In a twist, Ninebot – one of the Chinese companies named as a respondent in the original complaint – is now set to become the key beneficiary of the ruling in Segway’s favour.
Many people always wanted “hoverboards”; well, thanks to patents they may have to wait forever, or simply find them priced way out of reach.
Section 101 (Software Patents Too Abstract)
“Is the EPO paying attention at all when a European company, Mercedes, becomes the victim of software patents?”Software patents are under severe pressure in the US right now. Some older articles from Bilski Blog speak of Section 101 rejections and give new examples of patents which are found invalid under that section. Here is the Vehicle Intelligence case which we recently wrote about quite a lot. They have taken on the giant, Mercedes-Benz, in an effort to extract money. “Vehicle Intelligence,” Bilski Blog writes, “involved U.S. Patent 7,394,392, written by a patent attorney, on the use of expert systems to determine whether an equipment operator–e.g., the driver of a car–was impaired from intoxication, fatigue, physical disability, or other factors. [...] Under the Alice test, if the abstract idea is really this general, then using an expert system is “significantly more.” An expert system is not a native component or functionality of a generic computer system, but a highly specific type of artificial intelligence–different in both design, architecture and application from other types of AI systems. And if the game of patent eligibility is played on the borderless field of analogy, it is easy to argue this claim is like the claim in Diamond v. Diehr, in that it involves continuously measuring a physical variable (screening the equipment operator here, measuring the temperature in the rubber mold in Diehr) and then performing a control action in response to the result (controlling operation of the equipment here, opening the rubber mold in Diehr). If Diehr was eligible so too is this.”
Notice the role of the Alice test. Is the EPO paying attention at all when a European company, Mercedes, becomes the victim of software patents?
Based on this latest outline from Dennis Crouch, Alice isn’t going to be challenged (at least in SCOTUS) any time soon. █
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