01.16.17

Independent and Untainted Web Sites About Patents Are Still Few and Rare

Posted in Patents at 8:00 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: Commentary about news sources that we rely on, as well as the known pitfalls or the vested interests deeply ingrained in them

TECHRIGHTS started in 2006 primarily as a campaigning site. Our first campaign was about patents and about Novell. We have since then never been funded or affiliated with anyone. We are not perfect, but nobody out there is able to claim that we’re compromised by some monetary interests. I actually left my job as a writer (for a large publisher) the following year, after I had experienced editorial censorship that impeded my freedom of expression and inevitably led to an unhealthy dose of self-censorship (could not quite criticise the advertisers/sponsors).

“We are not perfect, but nobody out there is able to claim that we’re compromised by some monetary interests.”It’s no secret that a lot of news sites are funded (salaried) by venture capitalists who want something in return (like selling of an agenda for some particular client/s, setup of ‘events’ for lobbying etc.) and sites of patent lawyers are all about shameless self-promotion (even IP Kat resorted to that). They’re not reader-funded and definitely not independent. In the case of sites like IP Watch, there seems to be relatively real independence; Patently-O, on the other hand, seems indebted or beholden to the funding sources of Crouch’s university and the drivers of his research. There is no true independence there. As for the UK-based IAM and MIP (Managing IP), just look where their subscribers and partners come from; they are both megaphones of the patent microcosm and occasionally the EPO‘s too. In Patent Docs, Donald Zuhn’s (Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP) choice of top patent stories for last year omits cases where software patents are rejected and instead focuses on the opposite, i.e. more of the usual. Also see MIP’s “Cases to look out for in 2017 – Japan and China” (it’s actually behind a paywall, so only the patent microcosm is likely to read it all). As we repeatedly said here before, a lot of the corporate media is still steered by the patent microcosm whenever it covers patent issues/news; it either quotes it extensively, consults it extensively (for supposed fact-checking), or simply hands over the platform to it (guest posts, occasional columns and so on).

Firmly established bias connected to the income sources (strings) cannot be dismissed, ignored or downplayed. It’s a crucial factor and it’s almost everywhere. Some sites, such as Wikileaks, rely on donations from the public ; media partners too provide a cushion. Here is how they present their list of media partners (past and present):

Wikileaks partners

Not everyone out there likes Wikileaks. It is thoroughly demonised by corporate media which deems it “competition” and envies its breadth of sources, troves of material etc. In our view, in spite of the witch-hunt, Wikileaks has a lot of credibility because it provides original material with which to back its claims. We have operated similarly for over a decade, but never did we receive the same scale or magnitude of leaks.

Going back to patents, while we’re reading very closely a lot of sites that cover the topic, very few of them we can actually trust for objective assessment. Scepticism is sorely required. Whitewashing of software patents from The Economist came just days ago in an article about Blockchain. Reality evades the author [1, 2, 3], who appears to conflate patenting with “success” or good news. Also see today’s article from the Nigerian media, titled “Things Bitcoin Companies Try To Patent”. Here is how it starts (name-dropping big brands, which have had nothing to do with Bitcon’s inception or popularisation): “Amazon. AT&T. Bank of America. Goldman Sachs. IBM. JPMorgan. Mastercard. R3. Western Union. Verizon. These are just a few of the corporations which have filed blockchain-related patent applications worldwide. But, what about bitcoin-specific patent applications, not blockchain?”

“We previously highlighted the use of terms like “death squad” (PTAB), “kill” (invalidate), and “survive” (not invalidated) in relation to patents. These are the terms made up by the patent microcosm, which typically inverses the narrative of aggression.”All that they hope to accomplish here is protectionism and control over disruptive technology that they had nothing to do with in the first place. It’s like the strategy of buying one’s competitor, often idealogical competitor (like buying the “organic” or “generic” competitor so as to limit people’s ability to escape unethical monopolies).

The use of language sure can be misleading. We previously highlighted the use of terms like “death squad” (PTAB), “kill” (invalidate), and “survive” (not invalidated) in relation to patents. These are the terms made up by the patent microcosm, which typically inverses the narrative of aggression. The defendant magically becomes a “killer”, the aggressor becomes the victim, and scientists are basically a “death squad”. George Orwell would have loved it!

In IAM, in this recent self-promotion (we assumed it’s paid for), the word “damages” is chosen as a truth-inverting euphemism; when the party damaged is one that must pay a ‘fine’ (settlement) why must we accept the narrative when the plaintiff is the ‘poor baby’? Such is the inherent bias of IAM, where the “T” word (troll) is rarely used at all.

“Since virtually none of these agents and clients use encryption, and as mass surveillance has become so pervasive, privilege has become merely an illusion for them. It’s marketing.”Now, let’s turn our attention to some recent articles from Patently-O, which some people out there consider to be some sort of yardstick of objectivity because it’s supposedly “academic” or “scholarly” (not that it rules out financial strings or conditions for employment/grants). We wrote about this subject 6 years ago in “Subjective Subject Matter”. This one Patently-O post says that “the Federal Circuit has reversed — finding that the examiner did not have (or at least explain) a substantial ‘reason to believe’ that the prior art inherently taught the functional limitation of being configured to reach a bone.”

Prior art is key to rejection of patent applications (i.e. patent quality); the very fact that one would go as high as the Federal Circuit to dispute an examiner’s judgment is rather worrisome.

On another day, Patently-O called for help with a job. To quote: “I’m writing a paper on privilege (patent agent, and patent lawyers who are in-house but not licensed in the state they practice in). In the course of doing so , I’ve been reading these state statutes and also thinking about them. I compiled a list and thought I’d share it. The ABA’s first, since it compiles them, but many links are broken and so the correct ones follow. So, if you don’t see your state, go to the ABA site. If you see your state, use this link.”

Well, “privilege” alludes to privacy in this case. Since virtually none of these agents and clients use encryption, and as mass surveillance has become so pervasive, privilege has become merely an illusion for them. It’s marketing.

“Patent maximalism keeps them and their occupation relevant.”Patently-O also entertained the possibility of lack of loyalty, or a patent agent knowing something that constitutes a conflict of interest. To quote: “Suppose you’re representing a party to a lawsuit, and you have no conflicts, but you need to take discovery of a client, or a former client and the lawsuit is related to your work for your former client. While your representation of the party in the suit isn’t adverse, some courts hold that taking discovery is adverse, and so if it’s taken from a current client, that’s a conflict, and if taken from a former client, that’s adverse and can’t be done if the matter for the former client is “substantially related” to the discovery requests.”

It comes to show just how problematic this whole occupation might be. And let’s not forget that lawyers like to plagiarise legal documents or reuse their own, i.e. using the work done for a former client to make shortcuts in the next (templates, copy-paste and so on).

Last but not least, consider this PTAB article from Patently-O. “In this case,” it says, “the patentee ImmunoGen won its case before the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) with a judgment that the challenged claims are not obvious. U.S. Patent No. 8,337,856 Phigenix appealed, but the court here has dismissed the case for lack of standing – holding that the challenger-appellant failed provide “sufficient proof establishing that it has suffered an injury in fact.””

We wrote about this on Sunday afternoon, noting that PTAB remains strong in enforcing patent quality — something which the patent microcosm sure likes to deny.

“The majority of sites provide some information or links to information, but their analysis tends to fall short because it’s basically marketing or lobbying wrapped up (or disguised) as “news”.”Today or last night, Patently-O highlighted a criticism of patent maximalism. It’s titled “Has the Academy Led Patent Law Astray?”

“In the article,” Patently-O says, “Barnett primarily focuses on the idea of a patent thicket and whether these patent thickets have inhibited downstream innovation. Barnett concludes: “Without a secure expectation of injunctive relief and compensatory damages, false prophecies of too many patents may result in too little innovation.” Of course this conclusion also rests upon weak empirical ground.””

We still get the impression that Patently-O opposes these views, based on what it has been writing over the past half a decade. It’s not hard to see the vested interests of the writers there. Patent maximalism keeps them and their occupation relevant.

One last example of bias comes from this new article, courtesy of a patent maximalism site, promoted by an advocate of software patents in Europe (he profits from it). It says that the “patent-eligibility jurisprudence under Section 101 and Alice is a model of inconsistency,” which is untrue. The author, Charles Bieneman (patent microcosm, obviously), is attempting to impose alternatives to Alice — those that would make software easier to patent. He basically does what David Kappos is now paid to do at the behest of companies like IBM and Microsoft.

We often sound negative and critical of many if not most things we cite. Well, when it comes to patents, it’s just so hard to find objective sources (there used to be Groklaw). The majority of sites provide some information or links to information, but their analysis tends to fall short because it’s basically marketing or lobbying wrapped up (or disguised) as “news”. Great caution is therefore imperative.

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

This post is also available in Gemini over at:

gemini://gemini.techrights.org/2017/01/16/patents-propaganda-sites/

If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

Pages that cross-reference this one

What Else is New


  1. Links 18/6/2021: Mir 2.4, ActivityWatch 0.11, Microsoft Breaks Its Own Repos

    Links for the day



  2. [Meme] When the 'Court' Drops

    As the EPO sneakily outsourced courts to American companies and parties in dispute depend on their ISP for “access to justice” there’s a catastrophic impact on the very concept of justice or the right to be heard (sometimes you don’t hear anything and/or cannot be heard)



  3. The EPO's Virtual Injustice and Virtual ('News') Media

    A discussion of this morning's post (part 10 in a series) about the shallow media/blog coverage that followed or accompanied last month's notorious EPO hearing



  4. Links 18/6/2021: LibreOffice 7.2 Beta, Elementary OS 6.0 Beta 2, and Linux Mint 20.2 “Uma” Beta

    Links for the day



  5. The Self-Hosting Song

    Cautionary tales about outsourcing one's systems to companies that could not care less about anyone but themselves



  6. IRC Proceedings: Thursday, June 17, 2021

    IRC logs for Thursday, June 17, 2021



  7. [Meme] Swedish Justice

    The EPO‘s patent tribunals have been mostly symbolic under the Benoît Battistelli and António Campinos regimes; giving them back their autonomy (and removing those who help Battistelli and Campinos attack their autonomy) is the only way to go now



  8. Virtual Injustice -- Part 10: Vapid and Superficial Coverage in the 'IP' Blogosphere

    The media has come under attack by Benoît Battistelli; during the term of António Campinos most of the media critical of the EPO has mostly vanished already; so one needs to look carefully at comments and social control media



  9. Links 18/6/2021: RasPad 3 and Pushing Rust Into the Linux Kernel

    Links for the day



  10. Heli Pihlajamaa Promoting Software Patents to Patent Maximalists

    "Ms Pyjamas" from the EPO is promoting illegal software patents to a bunch of patent zealots (CIPA)



  11. The Lying by Team UPC, Led Again by Kevin Mooney

    Team UPC, or specifically Mr. Mooney, lies to the public about the prospects of the UPC; similarly, EPO and EU officials keep bringing up false claims about the UPC, so while the UPC itself has likely died for good the lies have not



  12. Links 17/6/2021: Cutelyst 3 and Lenovo Move Towards ThinkPad BIOS Configuration From Within Linux

    Links for the day



  13. Too Much Noise and/or Distraction and General Loss of Focus (on the Real and Urgent Issues, Such as the Ongoing Anti-FSF 'Coup')

    The media is full of Microsoft fluff and technical blog posts still focus on the Freenode fiasco, among other things that don't matter all that much; but we certainly need to talk about steps undertaken to undermine the FSF's power because long-term ramifications may be huge



  14. [Meme] The Enlarged Bored People With Presidential Decrees

    The laughable state of the EPO‘s EBA (or EBoA) is rarely commented on anymore, not even in so-called ‘IP’ blogs; maybe they’re just so eager to see patents on everything, even European software patents, so tyrants who destroy the courts (with UPC lobbying and removal of EBA independence) don’t bother them so much anymore



  15. Response to Misinformation From EPO Officials

    Opponents of European software patents are clearly being mischaracterised by EPO officials, who also use meaningless buzzwords to promote such patents; as an aside or footnote that relates to our ongoing series we’re making this quick video, which is days late



  16. [Meme] Tilting the Scales for Software Patents

    Shovelling up lots of patents, even worthless patents such as software patents, dooms the EPO (EPC violations, lawlessness), dooms European professionals, but the wrong people have been put in charge and courts are being intimidated by them



  17. Virtual Injustice -- Part 9: Heli, the EPO's Nordic Ice-Queen

    Team Campinos is full of people who instead of grasping and working to promote innovation are boosting the agenda of litigation (scientists are not being employed)



  18. IRC Proceedings: Wednesday, June 16, 2021

    IRC logs for Wednesday, June 16, 2021



  19. Links 17/6/2021: elementary OS 6 Beta 2 and JingPad Linux Tablet Crowdfunding

    Links for the day



  20. Techrights Statement on IRC

    Freenode needs to explain what the hell happened this week and why communities that make up the network weren't informed or consulted



  21. IRC Proceedings: Tuesday, June 15, 2021

    IRC logs for Tuesday, June 15, 2021



  22. Virtual Injustice -- Part 8: A Well-Connected 'IP' Maximalist

    The EPO‘s lobbying for European software patents goes all the way to the top, including António Campinos and his circle



  23. Links 16/6/2021: Alpine 3.14.0 and DXVK 1.9

    Links for the day



  24. Links 15/6/2021: Debian Installer Bullseye RC 2 and Zink Updates

    Links for the day



  25. IRC Proceedings: Monday, June 14, 2021

    IRC logs for Monday, June 14, 2021



  26. Virtual Injustice -- Part 7: Musical Chairs and Revolving Doors

    Cross pollination in Alicante and Munich serves to show that people aren't picked for their skills and experience; it's like a private club or a clique



  27. Hardly Shocking and Not At All Surprising That Thugs Who Run the EPO Hired External Thugs to Help Them Oppress Aggrieved Staff

    With the EPO's management flooding the bank accounts of aggressive law firms (at our expense) we need to ask serious questions about how such a "Mafia" (what EPO staff calls the management) managed to metastasise inside Europe's second-largest institution and how to remove this "Mafia" as soon as possible (some arrests too are well overdue)



  28. [Meme] There Are No Elections in Mafia-Type Regimes; It's About Family and Friends...

    With no real concept or notion of "elections" (the so-called 'mafia' members choose their successors and colleagues) the EPO's patent examiners clearly need outside intervention, e.g. inquest by the EU authorities (the EPC died and maybe the EPO too; it's unregulated and it grants false patents that harm Europe because the courts don't function, either)



  29. Today's Linux Standing for the Opposite of What Linux Users Stand for

    The so-called 'Linux' Foundation or the "Corporate Linux Foundation" is alienating many of the original users of GNU/Linux and it still insults their intelligence; it's rewriting history, it still distorts the objectives, and before we know Linux will perish and lose momentum because all the excitement associated with the brand will fizzle away



  30. Links 14/6/2021: Kdenlive 21.04.2 and Raspberry Pi 400 Support in Linux

    Links for the day


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