07.08.17
Gemini version available ♊︎Patents on Nature and on Thinking Promoted in the Media by the Patent ‘Industry’
And how patent ‘industry’ — especially its figureheads — continues to demonise the U.S. Supreme Court for daring to limit breadth of patents
Reference: Lockheed Martin-Funded Experts Agree: South Korea Needs More Lockheed Martin Missiles
Summary: The very latest pushes for patent maximalism — as seen in mainstream/corporate media in the wake of key decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court
he U.S. Supreme Court decision in Alice v. CLS Bank International, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), has made it more difficult to use patents to protect business intelligence,” says this new article behind a paywall. We expect it to resurface many times in the coming days, as this publication tends to bump it up (using mirrors) and bolster the illusion that software patents at the patent office are a desirable thing. But are they?
“…a lot of the media is simply dominated by the patent interests.”See, a lot of the media is simply dominated by the patent interests. In fact, more than 90% of the news articles that cover patents seem to be written either directly by law firms or those who end up just repeating what they say. They almost monopolise information on the subject.
As of days ago, Dennis Crouch was still poking fun at the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions that bring balance to the US patent system, essentially limiting patent scope, magnitude and reach to a more reasonable level.
“…more than 90% of the news articles that cover patents seem to be written either directly by law firms or those who end up just repeating what they say.”In the coming days or weeks we are going to publish many articles which counter their misleading narrative/s. It seems to have become ever more essential.
Several days ago, on July 3rd, Dr. Lindsay Moore published the article “Patents Friend or Foe?”
The article comes from a pro-cannabis magazine/site, but it was composed by the patent microcosm that “specializes in the management of intellectual property assets for companies,” by its own admission. Here is what Moore wrote:
For those companies that have patentable subject matter, obtaining legal protection or licensing rights from legitimate holders may need to become a high priority. It is so important at the beginning of an industry to stake your claim early to make sure you get it, and to recognize that many inventors may be discovering some of the same things at the same time. In regard to multiple inventors, it was once the case that whoever discovers an invention first was entitled to the rights to it; however, under recent modifications in U.S. Patent Law, we now have a “first-to-file” system, so it is important to file at least a Provisional Patent Application to gain a priority date and be first in the queue.
Moore’s bottom line is that people should come to her firm to buy some “products” (or services), but all the above alludes to nature. Why should it be patentable at all?
“It’s still deeply disappointing that almost no software professionals are writing articles on the subject of patents.”The point it is making serves to show growing motivation for dissent against the patent system — a dissent which perhaps gains legitimacy when entities that don't deserve patents actively use them to sue the public (even the public that's funding these entities).
It’s still deeply disappointing that almost no software professionals are writing articles on the subject of patents. These people are busy writing code, whereas law firms are busy writing propaganda to tell us that programmers need and want software patents. They don’t. █
ᶃ Gemini Space
This post is also available in 
Content is available under CC-BY-SA