05.02.17
Posted in Asia, Europe, Patents at 10:39 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
IAM and the EPO remain joined at the hip
Summary: With the ‘good company’ of the EPO, IAM organises an event in Korea (IPBC Korea), which conveniently enough happens to be exploited for software patents and UPC purposes
THE EPO spends (wastes) a lot of money on media companies. Right now, for instance, it’s planting a lot of paid coverage about ‘European Inventor Award’ (we’ll come to that later).
“Where were the techies? Not invited? Blocked? Conveniently excluded?”Among the recipients of support and money (from the EPO's PR agency) there is that incognito site called IAM, which Battistelli really, really loves citing. Last year they did a pro-UPC event in the United States (the screenshot at the top is from there) and last week they did something similar in Korea. Was it an event for inventors? Of course not. Where were the techies? Not invited? Blocked? Conveniently excluded? Under “Speakers”, the site of IPBC Korea lists 20 individuals and they are all management or “IP” people. Let’s face it, that’s just a think tank or an echo chamber with MC Jacob Schindler from IAM as the “presenter” (staged, stacked panels). Technicolor, a patent troll which we wrote about earlier this year [1, 2], was in the panels. In IAM’s own words:
Something else that’s particularly relevant to Korean corporates given their important status in the global supply chain is the thorny issue of what to do when enforcing IP rights comes into conflict with keeping customers happy. Panellists including Park, Technicolor’s Deirdre Leane and AT&T’s Scott Taylor agreed that one of the worst conversations a head of IP can have is when the CEO wants to a know why a major customer has been sued with current or former patents. As Korean companies continue to be more active in the sales market, including in NPE deals, that’s something they are going to have to increasingly keep in mind. It may also mean pointing out uncomfortable hard truths to CEOs who are pushing for those high returns Park cautioned about – potentially a big cultural challenge in the kind of corporate hierarchies prevalent in so many Korean businesses.
“NPE” is just a euphemism for patent trolls (like Technicolor) and AT&T is hardly representative of innovation. It’s mostly renowned (or notorious) for mass surveillance. Some legal experts in Korea say that Korea’s patent office (KIPO) has bans on software patents, but not everyone agrees with them.
“Some legal experts in Korea say that Korea’s patent office (KIPO) has bans on software patents, but not everyone agrees with them.”Anyway, a “keynote presentation” there was given by a familiar person… Grant Philpott.
It takes us back to the days when EPO sent us legal threats. Back then IAM published something from him which we repeatedly said must not be published. IAM betrays sources. It’s not a professional news site, just a lobbying apparatus and at times the megaphone of the EPO. IAM should not be taken seriously; it usually does PR, it doesn’t speak anonymously to or for someone.
“IAM betrays sources. It’s not a professional news site, just a lobbying apparatus and at times the megaphone of the EPO.”Yesterday IAM wrote: “The EPO’s principal director for information and communications technology Grant Philpott gave a keynote presentation which placed significant emphasis on software patents, an area of the law that is generating significant regional differences in approach.”
Like his colleagues (earlier this year), Philpott likes to push for software patents in Europe even though it’s verboten.
“So far, everything we have ever said about the UPC turned out to be true.”“His colleague Reinoud Hesper,” IAM continued, “followed up with a deep dive on what Korean companies can expect from the Unitary Patent and Unified Patent Court.”
Battistelli’s right-hand henchwoman recently embedded herself in Korean media with lies about the UPC. Margot first, now Reinoud Hesper. What next?
A short while ago IAM wrote that the “UK gov has no coherent Brexit strategy, so it would be wrong to think it has a thought-through approach to the UPC.”
“Helped by IAM, the EPO continues to embed itself in all sorts of conferences (usually attended by Margot, especially when Managing IP sets it all up) and even though Korea virtually banned software patents, this is no taboo subject there.”“The UPC proponents like to make up, distort, [and] lie about the government’s stance on Unitary Patent,” I told them.
So far, everything we have ever said about the UPC turned out to be true. We challenge anyone out there to prove otherwise. We have studied and written about the UPC for nearly a decade and we’re not paid to lie about it.
We’ve been asking around for additional input about the above IAM event. Helped by IAM, the EPO continues to embed itself in all sorts of conferences (usually attended by Margot, especially when Managing IP sets it all up) and even though Korea virtually banned software patents, this is no taboo subject there. “I guess that being member of the WTO,” one person from the UK (Paolo) told me, “South Korea will have to enforce other countries sw [software] patents. Banning the possibility of patenting a SW doesn’t means you can ignore other countries patents or you’ll get some forms of retaliations.”
“Is the EPO prepared to give awards (at the expense of EPO stakeholders) to those whose work fed patent trolls?”The EPO is trying to get Korea into the fold, though, rather than accept Korea’s arguments against software patents. “That was my point,” Paolo told me, and “in [the] future UPC are controlled by the usual lobbyists & corporations.”
Like the ones that receive special treatment from the EPO…
Going back to the expensive lobbying charade which is ‘European Inventor Award’, the EPO is now listing as contenders people with software patents, e.g. part of the MPEG cartel. Is the EPO prepared to give awards (at the expense of EPO stakeholders) to those whose work fed patent trolls? People like Lars Liljeryd?
“Theranos is a “hall of famer” to the EPO. Says a lot about the EPO.”As a reminder, 2 years ago the EPO under Battistelli promoted and rewarded in 'European Inventor Award' a fraud that now admits culpability (may have caused many deaths by defrauding clients). Based on this morning’s news, “Theranos settles “series of lies” lawsuits from investor that chipped in $96M” and to quote:
On Monday, Theranos announced the settlement of two lawsuits that were in response to an alleged “series of lies.” Both suits had been brought by Partner Fund Management LP, a hedge fund that invested $96.1 million in the blood-testing company.
In the suits, both filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, PFM claimed that Theranos mislead investors about the abilities of its blood-testing technology, the Wall Street Journal reports. One suit sought to recoup PFM’s entire investment, plus damages. The other sought to prevent Theranos from making deals with late-stage investors. Those deals, which can now proceed, will provide additional stock to investors who agree not to sue Theranos.
Theranos is a “hall of famer” to the EPO. Says a lot about the EPO. Theranos shows that lies and corruption can pay off, at least in the short term. Chains of lies such as these often end up in suicide/s.
Speaking of Lars Liljeryd, now a “Finalist for the European Inventor Award 2017,” his work for Dolby Laboratories actually denied public access to work. It may have done more societal damage (not “societal benefit” as the EPO calls it) with those patents.
“Theranos shows that lies and corruption can pay off, at least in the short term.”Today, the FFII’s President wrote, these patents have finally expired (that actually happened some days ago and there was a large discussion about this at Reddit yesterday). Fraunhofer and Technicolor (from IAM’s panel) are also to blame. As he put it this morning: “You could not freely write an encoder for MP3 format, Fraunhofer and Technicolor has been an enemy of freedom…”
That’s just software patents with their terrible impact demonstrated for all to see. And in an act of evergreening they’re now pushing newer and supposedly better patent traps, under the guise of “HEVC” [1, 2]. Clearly, they wish to have us forever trapped, eternally shackled by a thicket of terrible software patents. The EPO is helping them rather than obeying the EPC, the directives, common sense, and public interests. Today’s EPO is a tool of corporate occupation, not a service. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in America, Deception, Google, Patents at 9:36 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: The efforts to crush patent progress in the United States are too easy to see and very easy to rebut, using simple facts that are being defended by courts
THE misleading characterisations keep flying about and the patent maximalists want us to believe that they stand for innovation. The truth is, most of them just have a degree in law (or none) and have never innovated/invented anything in their entire life. To them, the USPTO is just a cash cow, it’s nothing to do with science and technology. They’ll never openly admit it, but deep inside they can feel it.
“They hate PTAB’s guts with a great passion and they hate anyone who facilitates PTAB, including Michelle Lee.”The patent maximalists are of interest to us. We watch them closely enough to know what they’re up to and which trick/s they have up their sleeve. We rebut their arguments in simple terms that anyone out there can understand and it typically drives them nuts. They insult us, just like they insult judges. Watchtroll is calling PTAB "impotent" and habitually attacks judges. Watchtroll’s writer who recently attacked Michelle Lee was attacking PTAB yesterday, as usual. It’s a lobbying site for patent trolls and their lawyers, so no surprise there. They hate PTAB’s guts with a great passion and they hate anyone who facilitates PTAB, including Michelle Lee. They will never make allies with tweets like these:
When challenged, this is what he told me:
So conspiracy theories against Michelle Lee turn into conspiracy theories against me. Maybe he also thinks Google is “Illuminati” or something… or that it controls the entire planet, yours truly included (I never worked for Google or even had it as a client at work).
The attacks on PTAB are not limited to the cesspool which is Watchtroll (“IP Watchdog”). Patently-O has been doing the same thing, albeit with a more diplomatic language (the “scholar” façade).
“The attacks on PTAB are not limited to the cesspool which is Watchtroll (“IP Watchdog”).”There are more openings/opportunities for invalidation of patents based on prior art, more so post-AIA (2011), so yesterday and today Patently-O wrote a couple of posts [1, 2] in which the maximalist argued that “a Federal Circuit has interpreted the post-AIA on-sale bar of 35 U.S.C. § 102 to include sales made available to the public (i.e., noticed in an SEC filing), even if the published portion does not fully disclose the invention.”
He said that the “PTO needs to immediately change its rules, and some prosecutors will need to start disclosing again.”
“These issues,” he wrote in a followup post today, “involve an interesting and largely unresolved mix between statutory prior art and “non-statutory bars to patentability.” The outcome of this mix becomes quite relevant and important once we begin focusing on obviousness. The Post-AIA obviousness statute redoubles its focus on the prior art – as such any non-statutory-bars eventually developed by the courts should probably not qualify as prior art for obviousness purposes.”
“Thankfully, however, courts in Japan have been getting tougher on patents and are now closely scrutinising all these rubbish patents.”Put in very similar terms (people with law degrees like to over-complicate things), when someone produces something — with or without a patent — that thing can be considered prior art, obviousness aside. It takes the patenting bar even higher, as many patents (software patents for sure) can be discredited by simply pointing to a working prototype/code that predates the date of filing.
No post about patent maximalism would be complete without IAM’s pearls of ‘wisdom’ (mind the scare quotes for sarcasm). This morning it once again piggybacked Japan (JPO has been used as a lobbying tool of IAM quite routinely as of late) to shame the US into granting abstract patents on business methods. Here is the relevant part:
In the United States, Supreme Court decisions in eBay (2006), Bilski (2010) and Alice (2014) have significantly reduced the prospects of obtaining patent protection on such inventions – as well as of successfully enforcing business method patents where they have been obtained.
In Japan, the reverse appears to be true. Applications for patents on business-related inventions hovered between 2,000 and 4,000 until a massive spike to 19,231 in 2000 – almost a fivefold increase on the figure for 1999 – which the JPO ascribes to the effects of “judgments and litigation over patents on business methods in the United States”. This application rate slowed over the following years, though – unlike the general picture in Japan when it comes to patent filings – business method applications have generally risen in number each year since 2011.
That’s not a good thing. It’s a very, very bad thing. Thankfully, however, courts in Japan have been getting tougher on patents and are now closely scrutinising all these rubbish patents. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in America, Deception, Patents at 8:51 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
An inversion of narratives in patent reform
Summary: Tackling the misconception that it’s somehow the billionaires and oligarchs/megacorporations who are pursuing patent reform in the United States, rather than many small companies that are suffering from patent trolls (whom they cannot afford to defend against in a court of law)
THE US COURTS, unlike the USPTO, are eager to be tough on patents. They demand proof that patents granted by the USPTO are in fact eligible and they put the burden of proof increasingly on plaintiffs (or petitioners in the case of PTAB).
“A lot of that boils down to pure nonsense and gossip, not facts.”The above tweet matches a pattern that we’ve observed for a number of months. Patent maximalists try to paint their side as the “small guy” and in doing so they create conspiracy theories about Michelle Lee and Google, about corporate ties to reform, and so much more. A lot of that boils down to pure nonsense and gossip, not facts. The above person, who obviously does not want his/her (sur)name known, seemingly pretends that only those 5 companies call for patent reform (they don’t). That’s pure nonsense. The text of the above is reproduced as follows (in case the original tweet gets deleted): “I’m going to keep tweeting this table to remind people how untrue these 5 sound when they cry injury and the need for more patent reform”
I’ve already argued with him/her about it, but it seems pointless. S/He maintains his/her position on this and so do sites like Watchtroll. They pretend they stand for inventors — the very thing their stance keeps harming the most.
“They pretend they stand for inventors — the very thing their stance keeps harming the most.”The account above is called “patentsales” — the very same thing that large corporations like doing. Recall IP3 for example [1, 2]; IAM blogged yesterday that “[t]he news, which was announced today, follows last year’s original IP3, which saw a group of companies from diverse industries come together to build on an initiative that Google had originally undertaken in 2015. This year’s version of the platform will only be available to AST’s 30 members, who include Ford, Google, IBM, Microsoft and recent joiner Uber.”
IAM’s report/blog is titled “Fixed-time patent-buying programme IP3 back again for 2017; but this time it’s different” (remember who’s behind IP3).
Meanwhile, over at Watchtroll, they promote the notion of “intellectual property as a driver of innovation” (that’s the headline) while leaving critical bits aside until late in the report. To quote:
In questioning, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) decided to advance the patent troll narrative and found a perfect sounding box in Eron to do so. “Patent trolls can use weak patents to extract monies,” Klobuchar said. Eron assented, noting that, while she was not an expert in IP laws, her understanding was that low-quality patents hurt Intel’s resources, diverting them from innovative R&D and towards litigation defense. “We do have a problem with patent trolls,” Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) would later add. “I don’t buy this idea that big guys are trying to squeeze out the small guys, a lot of times they’re looking for those smaller guys to scale up,” Tillis said, noting that app stores are filled with services being brought to the market on platforms provided by larger developers like Google and Apple.
What do they mean by “larger developers like Google and Apple”? Or “those smaller guys”?
There is one main difference between those “larger developers” and “those smaller guys”; one group can afford taking the trolls all the way to the court and invalidate the patent/s in question, whereas the other group cannot.
“For those who allege that United for Patent Reform is some kind of front for Google, Apple etc. watch the complete list of companies they stand for.”United for Patent Reform, which recently defended Michelle Lee for her tough stance on trolls, is quoting Mytheos Holt as saying that “[p]atent trolls “exist purely to register patents and then accuse actual inventors of violating them”” (links to an article we mentioned 2 days ago). It later tweets (with photo) “I stopped innovating. I stopped creating.” –Small business owner Eric Rosebrock on the result of his fight with a patent troll” and also tweets: “Thanks to Darrell Issa for coming to the screening of The Patent Scam today, and for being a champion in the fight to fix patents every day” (we also mentioned “The Patent Scam” 2 days ago).
For those who allege that United for Patent Reform is some kind of front for Google, Apple etc. (that’s the new talking point), watch the complete list of companies they stand for. Here is a current screenshot from the front page (list of backers).
Yeah, those few massive companies… it’s only them behind patent reform. If anything, some of them are behind patent trolls (Microsoft for sure, in a big way) — the very opposite of patent reform. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Content is available under CC-BY-SA