05.05.16
Posted in IBM, Law, Patents at 8:51 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
The ‘Microsoft syndrome’ strikes or spreads to IBM, its cross-licensing buddy

Photo source (modified slightly): The 10 Most Powerful Women in Technology Today
Summary: Deservedly if not belatedly too, more and more pundits come to recognise the rogue element which is IBM, having promoted software patents all around the world, utilised software patents aggressively (to attack/marginalise/tax rivals), lobbied the government to antagonise the Supreme Court’s decision on Alice (using former IBM staff which it had somehow snuck into the USPTO), created bogus solutions to the side effects (such as patent trolls) and so on
“Patent Trolls have already begun to try & discredit the FTC PAE Report & it’s not even been released yet,” Anti-Software Patents wrote earlier this week. All this while the software patents lobby trash-talks SCOTUS (and one particular Associate Justice in particular), PTAB, an Australian report against software patents etc. As we showed here in recent days, IBM played a major role in this lobby. Are they thugs or trolls? Or both maybe?
“Patent Trolls have already begun to try & discredit the FTC PAE Report & it’s not even been released yet”
–Anonymous“PTABWatch”, a blog of patent lawyers (Marshall Gerstein & Borun LLP) now evokes David Kappos again (his lobbying is now funded by massive patent aggressors including Apple, IBM, Microsoft etc. but he came from IBM) and to quote the relevant portion: “In a recent speech at a Federal Circuit Judicial Conference, David Kappos, former Under Secretary of Commerce and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, suggested § 101 should be abolished because recent case law in this area has resulted in “a real mess.” Like many practitioners, Mr. Kappos reiterated that courts can ensure basic concepts are not patented while protecting innovation by applying other areas of patent law to make sure patents are novel and non-obvious. Consistent with Mr. Kappos’s criticisms of the developing case law on § 101, Sequenom recently has sought the Supreme Court’s review of the Federal Circuit’s application of § 101 in the Ariosa decision, and many companies and industry organizations have filed amicus briefs supporting Sequenom. What will happen remains to be seen, but there is a growing and significant consensus (among practitioners at least) that something needs to be done at a higher level to clean up this “real mess.” Until such time, this blog will keep a close watch on the developments of decisions relating to §101 in IPRs and how patent eligibility is being viewed at the PTAB and the courts.”
It should be clear that the same forces which lobby for software patents often, unsurprisingly, oppose patent reform. Pieter Hintjens, who has not much time left to live, reminisces: “well, they were just lying. IBM was the one that broke the US patent system to allow software patents.”
“IBM was the one that broke the US patent system to allow software patents.”
–Pieter Hintjens“IBM says software patents drive OSS development,” he recalls (from a 2009 article). We never forgot that.
Now that IBM openly attacks companies using software patents John C. Dvorak publishes the article “IBM Is the World’s Biggest Patent Troll” in which he says:
IBM’s real value is with the R&D folks who have helped IBM top the list of companies with the largest number of US patents granted year after year. This has never stopped growing. Last year it was 7,355 patents granted for IBM (followed by 5,072 for Samsung and 4,134 for Canon, with a big drop-off after that to Qualcomm with 2,900 and Google with 2,835).
The patent system is out of control since many of these patents are idiotic software algorithm or blocking patents, designed to keep others away from certain technologies. The point, though, is that IBM has been leading this pack for over two decades and shows no signs of slowing down. That is unless you think 7,355 is slowing down from its 2014 tally of 7,534 patents. In 2013, it secured a mere 6,809.
These numbers are outrageous when you stop to consider that patents were intended to protect small inventors and companies. Now the system is used to dominate that small fry. Good work, USPTO.
Many of IBM’s current patents are about data analytics and so-called cognitive computing, like Watson. It in turn collects “over” a billion dollars a year from licensing, which sounds low to me. I say this because on its licensing page, IBM claims to have 250,000 experts who will work with you to find the right patents for your company.
Those experts likely generate at least $100,000 in business each every year, which I think is conservative. You do the math and that’s $25 billion. This makes sense when the company claims to drop $6 billion into R&D each year. In fact, it would not surprise me if most of its revenues were from licensing, and far more than $25 billion. IBM’s overall revenues are around $82 billion.
With puff pieces like this new one about IBM, no wonder few people care to have noticed what IBM recently turned into (amid layoffs).
“Just last week, the Federal Circuit declined to fix this problem, leaving it up to Congress or the Supreme Court to act.”
–EFFPatent trolling is a very serious problem in the US and CAFC, which brought software patents to the US, refuses to stop these trolls [1, 2]. The trolls typically use software patents. Here is an MIP report about it and here is the EFF expressing frustration over it: “As the law stands now, patent owners have almost complete control over which federal district to file a case in. That’s a major problem. It lets patent owners exploit significant differences between courts, an advantage that the alleged infringers in patent suits don’t have. It effectively leads to outcomes being determined not by the merits of a case, but rather by the cost of litigation. Just last week, the Federal Circuit declined to fix this problem, leaving it up to Congress or the Supreme Court to act.”
“Mossoff just can’t help attacking the messenger for trying to stop patent trolls.”Trolls’ apologists aren’t idle either right now. Consider Adam Mossoff, who works for some kind of patent maximalism think tank (“The Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property at Mason Law promotes the scholarly analysis of IP rights and the creative innovation they make possible,” by its own description), so it’s not too shocking that he keeps protecting patent trolls, attacks their critics, and now picks on the EFF. Mossoff just can’t help attacking the messenger for trying to stop patent trolls. This isn’t a new thing from him.
“How to Kill a Patent Troll” is a new article which speaks about what patent trolls are and then promotes the IBM-connected RPX as the solution. It’s not the solution at all. To quote portions from this article:
Anecdotally, NPEs are trolls. But Cohen, Gurun, and Kominers wanted some hard proof. For that, they turned to data from RPX Corporation, which maintains a database on NPE litigation going back to 1977. (RPX also offers its clients a novel and slightly odd solution to patent trolling: It buys patents from NPEs before they start suing others for licensing fees. RPX asserts they are not themselves patent trolls.)
Both the RPX data and other sources make it clear that NPEs are predominantly trolls, mainly because of who NPEs go after: cash-rich tech companies. Cohen, Gurun, and Kominers calculate that the likelihood of getting sued by an NPE is roughly 16 percent among companies with the most cash, roughly double the baseline rate. By comparison, the likelihood of getting sued by a practicing entity—that is, a company that actually worked to create its patents—is less than five percent. NPEs are also more likely to sue firms with small legal teams and those dealing with other lawsuits. In other words, they go after companies with the biggest wallets and the fewest available minutes.
They conveniently neglect to mention that RPX is now a powerhouse of huge ‘patent trolls’ such as IBM. Not good advice at all… this is even more useless than OIN, which was also (co-)created by IBM and was originally led by IBM staff, Jerry Rosenthal. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 8:06 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Benoît Battistelli and his attack dogs can’t help attacking Europeans and undermining EU interests
Summary: The US-leaning corporate occupation by Battistelli and his big corporate clients (or bosses) comes up north, approaching even Russia’s border
Benoît Battistelli and his bodyguards are going places. They’re pushing the UPC into countries that now consider quitting the EU altogether (jeopardising this entire UPC plot as a whole).
If Battistelli had to face actual citizens of Europe, he’d get nothing but rotten tomatoes. He knows that. So he’s finding clever ways to rig the debates, keeping them limited to his own choir, typically behind closed doors (or expensive entrance fees). Here is how to staff/stuff panels like the Administrative Council of the EPO (already staffed/stuffed by NPOs’ heads). Based on publicly available photos and posts, e.g. [1, 2], PATLIB 2016 was staffed/stuffed with NPOs; where’s the balancing factor? The EPO’s own propaganda was soon promoted by the EPO’s PR people, who shed light on Benoît Battistelli’s lobbying for UPC in Finland. To quote their own words (warning: epo.org
link, signed by Battistelli in his blog, also promoted by his obedient PR people): “During his visit to Helsinki, the EPO President met Jari Gustafsson, Permanent Secretary of the Finnish Ministry of Economy and Employment, and representatives of major Finnish companies, including Nokia, KONE, Orion, UPN and Beneq. The industry speakers highly praised the quality of the examination work at the EPO and the progress made in the timely processing of their applications.
“The President also gave interviews to Finnish business and technology media. Here the focus was strongly on the unitary patent and on developments in the European patent system.
“In late January, Finland became the 9th country to ratify the Unified Patent Court (UPC) Agreement, which needs 13 ratifications (including France, Germany and the UK) to enter into force. The Finnish and European partners agreed that when the unitary patent arrives – hopefully at the beginning of 2017 – it will bring benefits to Finnish and other European companies, especially SMEs and universities, by offering more choice, enhanced legal certainty and simplified administration.”
The UPC would harm European businesses, including Finnish businesses [1, 2], but the EPO cares not at all about Europe’s interests. Like TTIP, it’s an effort to give large corporations (usually foreign) free reign over Europe. Recall the EPO’s controversial acceptance of patents on plants (vetoed and vigorously opposed by European authorities) and read this new article from Dr. Glyn Moody on the subject. Remember only this: the EPO is not European and it does not care what’s good for Europe. The EPO often promotes policies that directly harm Europe and it’s not an accident or a design flaw. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Microsoft, Patents at 7:45 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Become a Microsoft client first, then the EPO will be willing to serve you…
Summary: The European Patent Office (EPO) continues to show technical and bureaucratic anomalies that have essentially turned it into agent of monopolisation, benefiting firms from across the Atlantic
THE EPO‘s Microsoft favouritism [1, 2, 3] was explored here before and it’s only getting worse the deeper we look. Remember the French CIO who flushes money down the toilet (not literally)? We still wish to see what kind of contract he and/or his colleagues signed with Microsoft (leaks might be imperative). We might never find out, however, for reasons that are explained below:
Financial (de-)regulation
In October Mr Battistelli submitted to the Council a document, CA/38/15, entitled “Periodical review of the Financial Regulations”. As most documents produced by the Battistelli administration it claims to increase efficiency, this time in procurement. And as with most documents produced by the Battistelli administration, its title is misleading: the document proposes the introduction of a new procurement procedure “with negotiation”, as opposed to the normal tender procedure where the requirements are set out and published in advance, i.e. the same and clear (transparent) for all potential competitors. The CA document (point 15) claims to have been “inspired” by the procedure with the same name recently introduced in the EU (Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014). The EU regulation should itself already raise eyebrows because it reduces transparency. But the EPO is taking things several steps further. In the EU the new procedure is meant as an exceptional procedure to be used only in specific defined situations. In the EPO it is meant as a full alternative to the normal open tender mechanism. We refer again to point 15 of CA/38/15 “the new procedure is applicable to all procurements below the threshold without any specific justification.“ The threshold will be one million (!) euro. The EU directive foresees that combinations of smaller lots, the value of which, if added up, reach the threshold, fall under the normal rules. CA/38/15 does not bother with such niceties. The EU directive sets out compliance audit and enforcement measures. None of these are mentioned in CA/38/15. Mere telephone conversations between an examiner and applicant require minutes to be recorded and made public. For the new up-to-one-million-euro negotiations foresee no recording, let alone publication of the negotiations. Last but not least the “efficiency” (apparently 4-6 weeks) foreseen with the new procedure is truly frightening: this hardly leaves the time forthe submission and evaluation of several serious offers. The overall impression is the Mr Battistelli has given himself the power to award direct placements of (over) one million euro at his discretion.
Battistelli’s EPO is worse than a joke. It’s structured and further optimised to mask/hide misconduct. There is no transparency and it’s easy to see why. As the old saying goes, if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear, right? Well, presumably, Battistelli has a lot to fear.
Meanwhile, judging by this tweet from earlier this week, the EPO’s new Web site is causing issues for Firefox users (proprietary Web browsers of firms from the US work however). How many Free/Open Source software (FOSS) Web browsers remain usable at the EPO then? How many people who work with or for the EPO can even still use any operating system other than Windows, which comes with US back doors and is now officially malware?
Nina Milanov wrote: “I have some problems with your new web site? Don’t you support Firefox any more? IE and Chrome seem to work.”
Well, both IE and Chrome are proprietary and we suppose Milanov uses these on Windows, which is also proprietary. On numerous occasions this year I reported Web site issues (over at Twitter) to the EPO. The whole Web site is a mess and it was built using all sorts of proprietary software, so this should not be surprising (proprietary browser plugins are at times needed).
The EPO supports Microsoft like no other body in Europe, in our humble assessment. It is also hyper-sensitive about bloggers who mention this (enough to threaten them), so we urge EPO staff to leak to us any details they have about the technical relationship, never mind the well-documented nepotism. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in America, Europe, Patents at 7:22 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
EPO is not really European (US firms rely on it), so it shouldn’t be unthinkable for the US to launch a probe

Francis Gurry. Photo source: WIPO
Summary: The US takes more and more actions against WIPO for abuses against workers, but why not the European Patent Office (EPO) as well?
EARLIER this year we mentioned Federal/US scrutiny against WIPO. Why go only as far as WIPO though?
Crucial fact to note here is that both Gurry and Battistelli (two notorious self-righteous sociopaths) competed for the same WIPO post. Members of the US Congress should investigate EPO abuses (it’s not a European body but an international one), but instead they go after WIPO ([1] below). The main difference is that EPO employs European citizens, whereas WIPO employs (and habitually abuses) US citizens, among others.
There is meanwhile a WIPO event in Geneva (Europe) and it is expected to have software patents promotion, as Benjamin Henrion noticed yesterday (Battistelli and his EPO maximalists surely would approve such a move). █
Reference/s:
-
WIPO Director General Francis Gurry was investigated after charges were levelled by a deputy director that he wrongfully ordered DNA samples to be taken from several unknowing staff members, and that he improperly influenced a WIPO contract to steer it toward a particular businessman. The congressional members said Gurry is “engaging in a lobbying effort to prevent disclosure of the report or to have the report heavily redacted.” Redacted means sections are blacked out.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 7:10 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Largely French management the culprit, so can French politicians correct these ills?


As protests grow broader, larger venues required (Consulat Général de France à Munich above)
Summary: Next Wednesday at lunchtime staff of the European Patent Office will march to the French consulate in Munich in pursuit of labour rights, human rights etc. (not just of EPO staff but also, by extension, all staff in such unaccountable international institutions)
YESTERDAY it was announced by the staff union of the EPO that “actions [shall] continue at the European Patent Office” (the usual template), just shortly after French politicians had shown interest in the pleas of this union (we speculate there is a strategic correlation). “On Wednesday 11 May 2016,” unnamed SUEPO officials wrote (it’s highly risky identifying oneself these days), “a demonstration will take place in Munich (Germany) starting from the Kurt Haertel passage at 12.15h and ending at the French consulate.”
We have only found one instance of press coverage about it so far. It came from WIPR this morning and it provided some background as follows:
Staff members at the European Patent Office (EPO) will hold another demonstration next week, a month after nearly 3,000 workers went on strike.
According to the Staff Union of the European Patent Office, the next demo will be held on May 11.
The protest, at the EPO’s Munich branch, will start at Kurt Haertel passage, next to the EPO, at 12.15pm (local time) and end at the French consulate.
Last month, more than 2,600 staff went on strike in what an EPO source claimed was the highest number of strikers the office has seen.
According to the source, 2,078 employees were on strike for the full day, while 579 people went on a half-day strike. The total number of strikers throughout the day stood at 2,657 across the EPO’s four sites.
If thousands of workers are brave enough to go on strike in this climate of fear and intimidation by EPO management, then surely several thousands can gather in front of the French consulate (pictured above). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend