Gemini version available ♊︎

Media Sites Still Filled to the Rim With Pro-Software Patents Propaganda (Lies by Omission)

Posted in America, Deception, Patents at 4:36 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Selective media coverage as a biasing strategy

India Nepal cartoon

Summary: Sites of patent lawyers continue to tell only a fraction of the whole story, focusing on one single old case involving Microsoft (which supports software patents) rather than the full picture (Alice and PTAB crushing software patents in the United States)

PATENTS on software are worse than inessential. They’re extremely harmful, especially but not only to software developers (irrespective of the type of software and whether it’s proprietary or not). They are being promoted for (self) gain by billionaires and patent lawyers, as we noted in our previous post. So why are we still hearing software patents advocacy? Well, for one thing, patent lawyers have a grip on the media. They even have their own media sites and these often look like news sites (basically marketing/sales disguised as analysis or reporting). This post presents some of the latest propaganda on these matters.

According to this recent post from a patent lawyers’ site: “A court was easily able to analogize claims of two patents directed to electronic messaging to manual communications processes; the court consequently granted a motion for summary judgment of invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Mobile Telecommunications Technologies LLC v. Blackberry Corp., No. 3:12-cv-1652-M (N.D. Texas May 12, 2016).”

“They’re extremely harmful, especially but not only to software developers (irrespective of the type of software and whether it’s proprietary or not).”Notice the “invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 101″ part. We’re seeing lots of that today, but patent lawyers would rather de-emphasise or ignore such things. “US Pat 8,545,575,” wrote Patent Buddy the other day. “This is the patent a UT Judge held invalid under 101/Alice” (the SCOTUS ruling on Alice in 2014).

There’s more of that, e.g. Patent Buddy’s “Portable Data Storage Device Patent Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C. § 101″ (same grounds).

The cited decision is described as follows: “In a final written decision, the Board found claims of a patent directed to a portable data storage device unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101.”

And from the decision: “The underlying concept of claims 13 and 14, particularly when viewed in light of the ’720 patent specification, is conditioning and controlling access to content based upon payment. This is a fundamental economic practice long in existence in commerce. We are, thus, persuaded, based on the ’720 patent specification and the claim language, that each of claims 13 and 14 is directed to an abstract idea.”

“They even have their own media sites and these often look like news sites (basically marketing/sales disguised as analysis or reporting).”Looking at the site best known for software patents advocacy, they now have an article titled “Avoiding Alice Rejections with Predictive Analytics” (trying to find loopholes around the law). “Having affirmed the claim construction,” says another such site, “the Federal Circuit likewise affirmed summary judgment of noninfringement, adding that disclaimer applied to both literal infringement and to infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.”

This is actually about CAFC, not SCOTUS. CAFC is responsible for bringing software patents to the United States in the first place.

3 days ago Ping Hu and Michael McNamara of Mintz Levin tried hard to cherry-pick cases to bring back software patents, in spite of SCOTUS. Their ‘article’ was titled “A New Hope for Software Patents?” It looks like an analysis, but it’s shameless self-promotion, as usual. Mintz Levin wasn’t alone here. Patent lawyers are so desperate to spread one single case (Enfish v Microsoft) to the appeals folks in order to save software patents. See “The PTAB Applies Enfish” (the case everyone leans on for legitimisation of software patents). It says: “However, relying on the recent Enfish decision, the PTAB found that the claimed method did not recite an abstract idea. Id. at 15. In so finding the PTAB faulted Petitioner’s argument for failing to analyze the claims as a whole. Id. at 15. The PTAB went on to analyze the claimed method under the second step of the Alice test and found that it too was not met. Id. at 16. The PTAB found that, like the claims in DDR Holdings, the challenged claims are necessarily rooted in computer technology. Id. at 17.”

“CAFC is responsible for bringing software patents to the United States in the first place.”PTAB is not stupid (or corruptible or greedy like the USPTO), so almost every software patent that comes there will end up dead. The blog post “Corelogic, Inc. v. Boundary Solutions, Inc. (PTAB 2016)” says: “On May 24, 2016, the U.S. Patent Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a decision denying institution of covered business method (CBM) patent review of U.S. Patent No. 7,092,957 owned by Boundary Solutions.”

That’s more of the same, obviously. Even Apple is now running to the PTAB, having found itself on the receiving end of abuses it's now so renowned for. To quote IAM: “Shortly after Smartflash won a $533 million infringement decision against Apple early last year this blog pointed out that the NPE [troll] was still unlikely to ultimately receive such a big payout. For one thing the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) has shown its predilection for over-ruling big district court awards, particularly from the Eastern District of Texas and particularly damages awarded to NPEs.”

What’s noteworthy here is that Apple, which uses software patents against Android (and by extension Linux) suddenly does not like them (because they’re used against Apple) and resorts/retreats to PTAB for reprieve. How pathetic is this? Double standards all over this…

“What’s noteworthy here is that Apple, which uses software patents against Android (and by extension Linux) suddenly does not like them (because they’re used against Apple) and resorts/retreats to PTAB for reprieve.”Regarding PTAB, also see MCM v HP Briefs. To quote Patently-O: “MCM-Petition-and-Appendix: (1) Whether inter partes review (IPR) violates Article III of the Constitution; and (2) whether IPR violates the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution. Response Due June 30, 2016.”

The inter partes reviews are carried out by PTAB, which we need a lot more of (the EPO equivalent, E/BoA, is being crushed by Battistelli these days).

Going back to Enfish v Microsoft, 3 weeks later patent lawyers still try to prop up this one single pro-software patents ruling. CoffyLaw published this promotional piece and Bastian Best is cherry-picking cases again, citing Michael Best who latches onto CAFC. Fish & Richardson PC, which we mentioned here many times before, also joins the opportunists with a so-called ‘analysis’ or comparison between Enfish and TLI (a case which soon after Enfish crushed software patents at the same court). Meanwhile, a Microsoft-connected patent lawyers firm (Shook Hardy and Bacon LLP) is trying to expand patent scope with a so-called ‘analysis’. The common thing (or theme) here is that they only pay attention to what suits their agenda. It’s not analysis, it’s propaganda.

“The common thing (or theme) here is that they only pay attention to what suits their agenda. It’s not analysis, it’s propaganda.”Owing to patent lawyers’ hype and media saturation, Enfish v Microsoft is now widely known only for reinforcing software patents in the US. “Enfish Could Not Save Patents Asserted Against Nvidia,” Patent Buddy wrote, citing this PDF. So obviously there’s not much impact to Enfish v Microsoft after all.

Why does the media keep covering it like it’s a groundbreaking decision? Here is the corporate media mentioning it almost a month later, stating: “The court wrote in Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp that any “improvement to computer functionality itself” overcomes the abstract idea exception to patent eligibility that holds that what is abstract can’t be patented.” Yes, but how many similar cases were decided/ruled against software patents? Why are these being ignored? Selective attention? Or just propaganda dressed up as ‘reporting’? These are rhetorical questions really.

Share in other sites/networks: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Reddit
  • email

Decor ᶃ Gemini Space

Below is a Web proxy. We recommend getting a Gemini client/browser.

Black/white/grey bullet button This post is also available in Gemini over at this address (requires a Gemini client/browser to open).

Decor ✐ Cross-references

Black/white/grey bullet button Pages that cross-reference this one, if any exist, are listed below or will be listed below over time.

Decor ▢ Respond and Discuss

Black/white/grey bullet button If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

DecorWhat Else is New

  1. Links 27/05/2023: Plans Made for GNU's 40th Anniversary

    Links for the day

  2. Social Control Media Needs to be Purged and We Need to Convince Others to Quit It Too (to Protect Ourselves as Individuals and as a Society)

    With the Tux Machines anniversary (19 years) just days away we seriously consider abandoning all social control media accounts of that site, including Mastodon and Diaspora; social control networks do far more harm than good and they’ve gotten a lot worse over time

  3. Anonymously Travelling: Still Feasible?

    The short story is that in the UK it's still possible to travel anonymously by bus, tram, and train (even with shades, hat and mask/s on), but how long for? Or how much longer have we got before this too gets banned under the false guise of "protecting us" (or "smart"/"modern")?

  4. With EUIPO in Focus, and Even an EU Kangaroo Tribunal, EPO Corruption (and Cross-Pollination With This EU Agency) Becomes a Major Liability/Risk to the EU

    With the UPC days away (an illegal and unconstitutional kangaroo court system, tied to the European Union in spite of critical deficiencies) it’s curious to see EPO scandals of corruption spilling over to the European Union already

  5. European Patent Office (EPO) Management Not Supported by the EPO's Applicants, So Why Is It Still There?

    This third translation in the batch is an article similar to the prior one, but the text is a bit different (“Patente ohne Wert”)

  6. EPO Applicants Complain That Patent Quality Sank and EPO Management Isn't Listening (Nor Caring)

    SUEPO has just released 3 translations of new articles in German (here is the first of the batch); the following is the second of the three (“Kritik am Europäischen Patentamt – Patente ohne Wert?”)

  7. German Media About Industry Patent Quality Charter (IPQC) and the European Patent Office (EPO)

    SUEPO has just released 3 translations of new articles in German; this is the first of the three (“Industrie kritisiert Europäisches Patentamt”)

  8. Geminispace Continues to Grow Even If (or When) Stéphane Bortzmeyer Stops Measuring Its Growth

    A Gemini crawler called Lupa (Free/libre software) has been used for years by Stéphane Bortzmeyer to study Gemini and report on how the community was evolving, especially from a technical perspective; but his own instance of Lupa has produced no up-to-date results for several weeks

  9. Links 27/05/2023: Goodbyes to Tina Turner

    Links for the day

  10. HMRC: You Can Click and Type to Report Crime, But No Feedback or Reference Number Given

    The crimes of Sirius ‘Open Source’ were reported 7 days ago to HMRC (equivalent to the IRS in the US, more or less); but there has been no visible progress and no tracking reference is given to identify the report

  11. IRC Proceedings: Friday, May 26, 2023

    IRC logs for Friday, May 26, 2023

  12. One Week After Sirius Open Source Was Reported to HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) for Tax Fraud: No Response, No Action, Nothing...

    One week ago we reported tax abuses of Sirius ‘Open Source’ to HMRC; we still wait for any actual signs that HMRC is doing anything at all about the matter (Sirius has British government clients, so maybe they’d rather not look into that, in which case HMRC might be reported to the Ombudsman for malpractice)

  13. Links 26/05/2023: Weston 12.0 Highlights and US Debt Limit Panic

    Links for the day

  14. Gemini Links 26/05/2023: New People in Gemini

    Links for the day

  15. IRC Proceedings: Thursday, May 25, 2023

    IRC logs for Thursday, May 25, 2023

  16. Links 26/05/2023: Qt 6.5.1 and Subsystems in GNUnet

    Links for the day

  17. Links 25/05/2023: Mesa 23.1.1 and Debian Reunion

    Links for the day

  18. Links 25/05/2023: IBM as Leading Wayland Pusher

    Links for the day

  19. IRC Proceedings: Wednesday, May 24, 2023

    IRC logs for Wednesday, May 24, 2023

  20. Links 25/05/2023: Istio 1.16.5 and Curl 8.1.1

    Links for the day

  21. Gemini Links 25/05/2023: On Profit and Desire for Gemini

    Links for the day

  22. SiliconANGLE: Sponsored by Microsoft and Red Hat to Conduct the Marriage Ceremony

    SiliconANGLE insists that paying SiliconANGLE money for coverage does not lead to bias, but every sane person who keeps abreast of SiliconANGLE — and I read their entire feed every day — knows that it’s a ludicrous lie (Red Hat/IBM and the Linux Foundation also buy puff pieces and “event coverage” from SiliconANGLE, so it’s marketing disguised as “journalism”

  23. Links 24/05/2023: Podman Desktop 1.0, BSDCan 2024, and More

    Links for the day

  24. Gemini Links 24/05/2023: Razors, Profit, and More

    Links for the day

  25. [Meme] When the Patent Office Controls Kangaroo Patent Courts and Judges

    The EPO has been hijacked by industry and its lobbyists; now the same is happening to EU patent courts, even though it is illegal and unconstitutional

  26. The Illegally 'Revised' Unified Patent Court Agreement (UPCA) is Disgracing the Perception of Law and Order in the European Union

    The Unified Patent Court (UPC) isn’t legal, the Unified Patent Court Agreement (UPCA) is being altered on the fly (by a person patently ineligible to do so), and so it generally looks like even patent courts across Europe might soon become as corrupt as the European Patent Office, which has no basis in the Rule of the Law and is basically just a front for large corporations (most of them aren’t even European)

  27. Sirius 'Open Source', With High-Level Political Clients, Reported to Politicians

    The crimes of Sirius ‘Open Source’ are of interest to the British public sector; we’ve begun contacting relevant people

  28. IRC Proceedings: Tuesday, May 23, 2023

    IRC logs for Tuesday, May 23, 2023

  29. RSS Feeds (or XML/Atom) Are Far Better Than Social Control Media, Doing It With CLI and Text Editors Works Best for Us

    Consumption (marketing term) of content (another misnomer) on the World Wide Web has been geared towards engagement (fancy term for time-wasting), so we’re trying to correct this with RSS feeds and processing of news (to Separate the Wheat From the Chaff)

  30. [Meme] The Payslip Lies

    Be wary of Sirius ‘Open Source’; They steal your pension money and give you fake (false) payslips (this was reported to HMRC last week)

RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channel: Come and chat with us in real time

Recent Posts