07.10.17

Gemini version available ♊︎

Lobbying Against the US Supreme Court’s Landmark Decision (Alice) by Bristows, IBM, David Kappos, IPO, ABA, AIPLA, Adam Mossoff and Kevin Madigan

Posted in America, Deception, Patents at 1:50 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

They want software patents back and they work hard to mislead politicians on it, sometimes under the guise/pretense of “academia”

A stacked panel
Echo chamber-like panels (“stacked” by their own admission) designed to talk about how wonderful software patents are

Summary: Using paid-for lobbyists and influence that’s up for sale, companies such as IBM set up events and initiatives to compel politicians to change Section 101, gut patent progress, and basically give patent aggressors a free rein

THE one article we were extremely eager to publish (for over a month now) pertains to the efforts to overturn Alice or at least compel the US patent office to ignore it.

A lot has happened since we intended to publish this (pending some more fact-checking and research), including the pushing forth of a bill. Watchtroll, for example, has moved on to other matters and it’s almost as though the lobbying effort completely lost steam by now. Nevertheless, we want to keep documented what happened around the month of May (and to a lesser degree June). There are malicious forces at play and they desperately try to undo all the patent progress, having already chased away the Director of the USPTO. Will they be back at it? We certainly think so.

“There are malicious forces at play and they desperately try to undo all the patent progress, having already chased away the Director of the USPTO.”IP Kat used to be a good blog, but we hardly cite it anymore. It has become terrible. It’s used for marketing and agenda-pushing. It plays a role in some of the most regressive activities. A longtime proponent of software patents (not that she ever wrote any software), Annsley Merelle Ward from Bristows, attacked the US patent system over Section 101 — essentially the means for invalidating software patents these days. She piggybacked a bunch of people who lobby against Section 101 (or lobby to water it down). “His heightened sense of alarm stems from a concern that America’s patent system has been going in the wrong direction while other patent systems have been improving,” she wrote. Pure nonsense. If anything, the US patent system is improving! Quality is up, lawsuits are down.

IP Kat, now effectively run by Bristows’ liars as far as patent coverage is concerned, goes further by calling AIPLA (pressure group of the patent microcosm) something that it’s not, in order to give its ‘views’ (financial agenda) legitimacy. There were many examples of this back in June, e.g. [1, 2, 3]. Is this what IP Kat boils down to now? A mouthpiece for AIPPI/AIPLA? Thrice in June alone (so far, based on a quick ‘literature’ survey) Bristows exploited the blog for marketing or lobbying by patent maximalists. This may sound benign, but considering what AIPLA has been up to recently, it’s anything but benign. The US Supreme Court is under attacks from these think tanks and pressure groups (like AIPLA), primarily for stopping software patents with Alice (2014). See this article titled “AIPLA releases Section 101 legislative proposal” (one among several such reports). AIPLA, a pressure group, along with IBM and some other patent vultures, try to undermine the law itself. As United for Patent Reform put it at the time, “Steven Anderson of @culvers tells @HouseJudiciary that to lose #Alice “would be extremely disappointing and costly” to #smallbiz” (obviously).

IP Kat, now effectively run by Bristows’ liars as far as patent coverage is concerned, goes further by calling AIPLA (pressure group of the patent microcosm) something that it’s not, in order to give its ‘views’ (financial agenda) legitimacy.”People start to worry that the lobbying might actually work and Section 101 (in its current form) will be thwarted. Under Trump it will probably be easier to bribe politicians to ‘buy’ USPTO policies in defiance of SCOTUS. As The National Law Journal put it at the time (in its headline), “After SCOTUS Shake-Up, Lawmakers Plot Next Steps on Patent Reform” (we now know the resultant bill, which seeks to gut PTAB as well).

As is usual from IP Kat these days, comments are a lot better than the ‘articles’ (lobbying/advertising). Someone pointed out that Annsley Merelle Ward “lacks a grasp of what the subject matter in each STILL means.” Well, exactly the opposite of what she said (AIPPI/AIPLA propaganda) is true. To quote the comment:

I must take issue with the statement of:

“The incredible developments in technology – how information is created, by what technological process, how information is accessed and where it is used – means the subject matter once the purvey of the patent world has crossed into the copyright realm.”

It is not only incorrect, but troubling so, to think that that a person charted with writing on the subject does not understand that the subject matter of what patents protect and what copyright protects has “crossed into.”

The subject matter remains clearly different between the different areas of Intellectual Property protection.

What perhaps has “crossed into” (and certainly, this crossing has been going on now for many decades) is that a particular manufacture of the hand of man (as those terms are understood in the various Intellectual Property legal terrains), has multiple aspects, each of which may earn protections in the different IP areas.

This is most definitely NOT a matter of “subject matter” crossing from one IP terrain into another.

Patents still protect that which patents protect.
Copyrights still protects that which copyrights protect.

It is decidedly unhelpful to contribute to the view that somehow “subject matter” is “crossing into” one IP arena from another IP arena – and shows that the author lacks a grasp of what the subject matter in each STILL means.

Watch how Annsley Merelle Ward gets completely skewered in the comments in another one of her posts (again for distorting facts):

Terrible proposal. Assessing patent eligibilty without regard to sections 102, 103, and 112 is absurd. This allows completely ineligible subject-matter to become patentable simply by including a conventional and known piece of apparatus e.g. a computer doing something that can be performed solely in the human mind. It should be the new and non-obvious subject-matter that is assessed for patent eligibility.

And here is another:

Your post contains so many legal (and factual) errors that I scarcely know where to begin.

First, subject matter eligibility and patentability are separate concepts.

Second, the US law – as established by the Act of 1952 broke apart 101 and the other sections of law (102/103/112) for a reason. That reason is exactly the same reason that the current legislative suggestions are coming forth.

Third, eligibility remains something determined for a claim as a whole, so the notion that ineligible subject-matter now “becomes eligible” has nothing to do with the legislative changes – your “concern” already IS the law in the US. The easiest example of this is the Diehr case, where everything in that case was old, except for the use of a computerized math equation. The important aspect was that the math equation was there in the sense of applied math. Your over-stated concern of “a computer doing something” is exactly the type of thing that patent law was meant to protect. It was, is, and will remain a question (for eligiblity) as to WHAT the “doing” is, and whether that “doing” falls into the realm of patent protection of the Useful Arts.

Fourth, your position denigrates the factual situation that the known and conventional piece of apparatus is in fact improved. US patent law allows for improvement patents. In fact, a very large percentage of patents are of the improvement patent type. Your view exhibits the fallacy known in the US as the House/Morse fallacy. A television show called House has a protagonist that believed that only the first computer should have been patentable and that all improvements (via software) belonged to that first inventor. This though is the opposite of the US case of Morse which held that all future improvements were NOT captured by a first (grand) invention.

Fifth, your view ignores the actual factual state of what software is. Software is a manufacture (in the legal sense, as it is a fabrication by the hand of man intended to be a machine component). That is the nature of what software is, and always has been. It is a “ware” that is soft, or easily modified, changed, reconfigured, and the like. In the patent sense, this “ware” is every bit a patent-equivalent to other “wares” i.e., hard and firm “wares.” There is nothing that can be claimed as a software invention that also could not be set completely in hardware.

Sixth, you conflate 102/103 with 101, and this conflation evidences an attempt to apply 101 on some per element basis. This gets each and every section of US law wrong.

I could continue, but I hope that you see the error in your views by now.

This would probably be excusable as gullibility if the author hadn’t spent years gleefully promoting software patents. The matter of fact is, all the above is pure lobbying and it’s happening right here in the UK.

Over in the US, things are just as bad because the patent microcosm (Jeff Lindsay‏ in this case) resorts to alarmist tone: “Many patents being allowed in Europe &China are rejected as ineligible in US, a sign of trouble in USPTO & SCOTUS.…”

So?

That’s a good thing, no?

“This would probably be excusable as gullibility if the author hadn’t spent years gleefully promoting software patents.”Well, not for a “patent agent” like Mr. Lindsay‏. High patent quality is not “trouble” and Watchtroll promoting a right wing corporate think tank is hardly shocking (that’s what Mr. Lindsay links to). The latest among all those think tanks involves Adam Mossoff, a pro-trolls academic who spoke of “Dave Kappos @ IIPCC conf on patents & innovation: the 101 situation is not improving, it has at best only stabilized in a terrible space” (yes, he calls David Kappos “Dave” as if this lobbyist is a buddy of his).

As can be expected, the company that hires these lobbyists, IBM, was there too. Mossoff wrote that “@MannySchecter @ IIPCC conf on patents & innovation: legal uncertainty is enemy of R&D & #innovation, & massive legal uncertainty today” (Schecter is IBM’s patent chief). Nice lobbying platform you got there. IAM helped with this article:

US businesses deal with devastating effects of SCOTUS decisions; support grows for subject matter reform bill

[...]

In March, a paper by Adam Mossoff and Kevin Madigan from George Mason law school analysed a dataset of 1,400 patent applications, finding marked differences between patent eligibility in the US compared with Europe and China.

By their own admission, this is a “stacked” panel (lacking anyone from the other side of the argument). To quote, “@JackBarufka of @pillsburylaw moderating the stacked Section 101 panel #GWIP pic.twitter.com/kt1hAO65IM”

“Watchtroll and IP Kat are symptoms of a problem. They are figureheads in the fight against Section 101.”As a reminder, the Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO), the American Bar Association’s (ABA) IP section and the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) play a big role in this, aided by Adam Mossoff and Kevin Madigan in “scholar” clothing. IPO and IBM even created a “task force” for this. They actively support sites like Watchtroll.

Watchtroll and IP Kat are symptoms of a problem. They are figureheads in the fight against Section 101. They are not only smearing SCOTUS (Watchtroll and his sidekicks) but are also insulting their own country. “America’s patent system favors low tech, not groundbreaking innovation,” said one recent headline from Watchtroll. So says a man who doesn’t invent anything and just attacks anyone (even judges) who applies patent law and issues a judgment based on the rules. Here is another example of Watchtroll posts. It says that “patent analytics software can be utilized to assess the corporate patent portfolio on an asset-by-asset basis, by technology or product focus, and within the context of a broader IP landscape.” Seriously? Letting some machine do an in-depth analysis of the underlying concepts? Pure science fiction. Like that stuff Battistelli tends to fall for…

“It’s not clear if all that lobbying will lead them anywhere, but unless their actions are properly scrutinised and the culprits get named and shamed, they might actually make headway for their own selfish interests (disguised as “innovation” or whatever).”Here is Watchtroll using terms like “piracy” and “patent owner” to further perturb the debate.

It’s not clear if all that lobbying will lead them anywhere, but unless their actions are properly scrutinised and the culprits get named and shamed, they might actually make headway for their own selfish interests (disguised as “innovation” or whatever).

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 22/10/2021: Global Encryption Day

    Links for the day



  2. [Meme] Speaking the Same Language

    Language inside the EPO is misleading. Francophones Benoît Battistelli and António Campinos casually misuse the word “social”.



  3. António Campinos Thinks Salary Reductions Months Before He Leaves is “Exceptional Social Gesture”

    Just as Benoît Battistelli had a profound misunderstanding of the concept of “social democracy” his mate seems to completely misunderstand what a “social gesture” is (should have asked his father)



  4. IRC Proceedings: Thursday, October 21, 2021

    IRC logs for Thursday, October 21, 2021



  5. Links 21/10/2021: MX Linux 21 and Git Contributors’ Summit in a Nutshell

    Links for the day



  6. [Meme] [Teaser] Miguel de Icaza on CEO of Microsoft GitHub

    Our ongoing series, which is very long, will shed much-needed light on GitHub and its goals (the dark side is a lot darker than people care to realise)



  7. Gemini Protocol and Gemini Space Are Not a Niche; for Techrights, Gemini Means Half a Million Page Requests a Month

    Techrights on gemini:// has become very big and we’ll soon regenerate all the pages (about 37,500 of them) to improve clarity, consistency, and general integrity



  8. 'Satellite States' of EPO Autocrats

    Today we look more closely at how Baltic states were rendered 'voting fodder' by large European states, looking to rubber-stamp new and oppressive measures which disempower the masses



  9. [Meme] Don't Mention 'Brexit' to Team UPC

    It seems perfectly clear that UPC cannot start, contrary to what the EPO‘s António Campinos told the Council last week (lying, as usual) and what the EPO insinuates in Twitter; in fact, a legal challenge to this should be almost trivial



  10. The EPO’s Overseer/Overseen Collusion — Part IXX: The Baltic States

    How unlawful EPO rules were unsurprisingly supported by Benoît Battistelli‘s friends in Baltic states; António Campinos maintained those same unlawful rules and Baltic connections, in effect liaising with offices known for their corruption (convicted officials, too; they did not have diplomatic immunity, unlike Battistelli and Campinos)



  11. Links 21/10/2021: GIMP 2.99.8 Released, Hardware Shortages, Mozilla Crisis

    Links for the day



  12. How Oppressive Governments and Web Monopolists Might Try to Discourage Adoption of Internet Protocols Like Gemini

    Popular movements and even some courageous publications have long been subverted by demonisation tactics, splits along unrelated grounds (such as controversial politics) and — failing that — technical sabotage and censorship; one must familiarise oneself with commonly-recurring themes of social control by altercation



  13. [Meme] Strike Triangulations, Reception Issues

    Financial strangulations for Benoît Battistelli‘s unlawful “Strike Regulations”? The EPO will come to regret 2013…



  14. [Meme] Is Saying “No!” to Unlawful Proposals Considered “Impolite”?

    A ‘toxic mix’ of enablers and cowards (who won’t vote negatively on EPO proposals which they know to be unlawful) can serve to show that the EPO isn’t a “social democracy” as Benoît Battistelli liked to call it; it’s just a dictatorship, currently run by the son of a person who actually fought dictatorship



  15. IRC Proceedings: Wednesday, October 20, 2021

    IRC logs for Wednesday, October 20, 2021



  16. [Meme] EPO Legal Sophistry and Double Dipping

    An imaginary EPO intercept of Administrative Council discussions in June 2013...



  17. Links 21/10/2021: PostgreSQL JDBC 42.3.0 and Maui Report

    Links for the day



  18. [Meme] [Teaser] “Judge a Person Both by His Friends and Enemies”

    Fervent supporters of Team Battistelli or Team Campinos (a dark EPO era) are showing their allegiances; WIPO and EPO have abused staff similarly over the past decade or so



  19. 'Cluster-Voting' in the European Patent Office/Organisation (When a Country With 1.9 Million Citizens Has the Same Voting Power as a Country With 83.1 Million Citizens)

    Today we examine who has been running the Finnish patent office and has moreover voted in the EPO during the ballot on unlawful "Strike Regulations"; they voted in favour of manifestly illegal rules and for 8.5 years after that (including last Wednesday) they continued to back a shady regime which undermines the EPO's mission statement



  20. The EPO’s Overseer/Overseen Collusion — Part XVIII: Helsinki's Accord

    The Finnish outpost has long been strategic to the EPO because it can help control the vote of four or more nations; evidence suggests this has not changed



  21. [Meme] Living as a Human Resource, Working for Despots

    The EPO has become a truly awful place/employer to work for; salary is 2,000 euros for some (despite workplace stress, sometimes relocation to a foreign country)



  22. Links 20/10/2021: New Redcore Linux and Hospital Adoption of GNU Health

    Links for the day



  23. IRC Proceedings: Tuesday, October 19, 2021

    IRC logs for Tuesday, October 19, 2021



  24. Links 19/10/2021: Karanbir Singh Leaves CentOS Board, GPL Violations at Vizio

    Links for the day



  25. [Meme] Giving the Knee

    The 'knee' champion Kratochvìl and 'kneel' champion Erlingsdóttir are simply crushing the law; they’re ignoring the trouble of EPO staff and abuses of the Office, facilitated by the Council itself (i.e. facilitated by themselves)



  26. Josef Kratochvìl Rewarded Again for Covering Up EPO Corruption and the EPO Bribes the Press for Lies Whilst Also Lying About Its Colossal Privacy Violations

    Corrupt officials and officials who actively enable the crimes still control the Office and also the body which was supposed to oversee it; it's pretty evident and clear judging by this week's press statements at the EPO's official Web site



  27. [Meme] Sorry, Wrong Country (Or: Slovenia isn't Great Britain)

    Team UPC is trying to go ahead with a total hoax which a high-level European court would certainly put an end to (if or when a referral is initiated)



  28. How Denmark, Iceland, Finland, Norway and Sweden Voted on Patently Unlawful Regulations at the EPO

    We look back and examine what happened 8 years ago when oppressed staff was subjected to unlawful new “regulations” (long enjoyed by António Campinos, the current EPO autocrat)



  29. The EPO’s Overseer/Overseen Collusion — Part XVII: The Non-Monolithic Nordic Bloc

    We start our investigation of how countries in northern Europe ended up voting on the unlawful “Strike Regulations” at the EPO and why



  30. Proof That Windows “11” is a Hoax

    Guest post by Ryan, reprinted with permission


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