07.26.17
Posted in Apple, Courtroom, Patents at 6:44 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: A look at the latest patent news and developments surrounding Apple products (and the possible ramifications for OEMs that directly compete against Apple)
EARLIER today Reuters reported that “Apple [is] ordered to pay $506 million to university in patent dispute”, alluding to a decision that’s two days old:
A U.S. judge on Monday ordered Apple Inc to pay $506 million for infringing on a patent owned by the University of Wisconsin-Madison’s patent licensing arm, more than doubling the damages initially imposed on Apple by a jury.
U.S. District Judge William Conley in Madison added $272 million to a $234 million jury verdict the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation won against Apple in October 2015. Conley said WARF is owed additional damages plus interest because Apple continued to infringe the patent, which relates to computer processor technology, until it expired in December 2016.
This was referenced by few news sites other than Apple-connected or Apple-leaning sites. We wrote about this case several times before; it’s not about software patents, but the penalty seems to be huge and it’s rather obscene that institutions funded by public money use that money to pursue patents and then increase the prices of products through litigation (often privatised for private gain/profit).
Nokia Still Passive-Aggressive
Microsoft has turned Nokia into a reckless, merciless patent troll which preys on Microsoft’s competitors (not just Apple; this has been dangerous to Android OEMs too). See the new Reuters report titled “Patents boost to offset weak networks for Nokia” (via Tom Hochstatter, who remarked: “Patents boost to offset weak networks for Nokia – as well they (and other large corporations) should.”).
Nokia seems to be using patents as a sort of ‘insurance policy’ and is suing companies, not just passing patents to trolls (at Microsoft’s instruction). As the article put it:
Telecoms gear maker Nokia is likely to see a boost to quarterly earnings on Thursday from a recent patent licensing deal with Apple that offsets weak demand in its main equipment business from network operators.
However, investors have grown more nervous on the stock since loss-making Swedish rival Ericsson slashed its forecast on the global network market last week.
In a Reuters poll of analysts, Nokia’s networks sales are seen falling 3 percent in the second quarter from a year ago, while revenues from its technologies unit, including patent royalties, are seen up 40 percent following the deal with Apple.
It doesn’t mention what Nokia is doing to Android OEMs now.
Qualcomm in the Corner
Then there’s Qualcomm, whose situation we wrote about a few days ago. As CCIA put it yesterday:
Last week, CCIA filed a statement on the public interest in Qualcomm v. Apple at the International Trade Commission (ITC), Qualcomm’s newest attempt to use patent law to reinforce their monopoly power over the baseband processor market.
In a response filed yesterday, Qualcomm accused CCIA of partaking in a “coordinated effort aimed at misdirecting the [ITC], all but ignoring the statutory public interest factors.”1 Unfortunately, Qualcomm’s response fails to actually address the filing’s criticisms. Qualcomm’s engaging in some misdirection of their own.
CCIA’s complaint was mentioned prior to this by Florian Müller, who stated:
Earlier this month, Qualcomm filed an ITC complaint in pursuit of a U.S. import ban against Apple’s iPhones (except for iPhones coming with a Qualcomm baseband chipset). Last week, Apple, Intel and two industries groups (CCIA and ACT) filed public-interest statements seeking to dissuade the U.S. trade agency from granting Qualcomm its requested relief and proposing, at a minimum, that the public-interest aspects of this case be referred to an Administrative Law Judge.
An outright decision by the ITC not to investigate Qualcomm’s complaint would be unusual and I wouldn’t bet on this happening, but in this particular case there are reasons for which Qualcomm would probably be denied an import ban at the end of the proceedings even if it prevailed on the merits (if it came to worst, by a presidential veto).
As we stated earlier this year, if Apple succeeds in this battle, it would actually be beneficial to Android (and Tizen, Sailfish OS etc.) OEMs. They too are suffering from Qualcomm.
ACT is a Microsoft front group, but this stance (as elucidated above) isn’t too surprising because Qualcomm has patent disputes with Microsoft as well. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in America, Asia, Courtroom, Patents at 6:16 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Also: Software Patents a Dying Breed, But Patent Lawyers in Denial Over it and Notorious Judge Rodney Gilstrap Ignores Alice (Supreme Court)
What can the state do when low courts’ (district) judges simply disregard the highest court in the country?
Summary: Some of the latest news about patent trolls in the United States and China (where they tend to prey on US companies)
WE recently wrote a bunch of articles about the STRONGER Patents Act — a bill which seeks to actually weaken patents by reducing their quality.
The patent microcosm, posting with the hat of “guests” (or so-called “international reports”) at IAM, is trying hard to push this extremist legislation that would help patent trolls. Watch what they published earlier today.
“The patent microcosm, posting with the hat of “guests” (or so-called “international reports”) at IAM, is trying hard to push this extremist legislation that would help patent trolls.”As we noted in the afternoon, these people are also lobbying the USPTO as they cannot influence the courts. Managing IP wrote about it earlier today. To quote: “The USPTO has released a report providing an overview of patent eligibility law and feedback it has received on the issue. A majority of commenters recommended legislative change…”
Well, these comments are from the patent microcosm and its front groups. Hardly a balanced debate, but that’s just more of the same. It’s always the same when they establish panels and debates, as we demonstrated several times last year.
Do SCOTUS decisions matter to these people? How about to notorious judges in Texas?
The “Supreme Court fails to close key avenue for patent trolls,” said this latest headline on the matter (from The Hill) and here is the ‘beef’ of it: [via]
in several recent cases. But with some improvements there are unintended consequences. Case in point: The court’s recent decision curtailing forum shopping in the federal courts may unfortunately cause more abusive patent cases to be filed at the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC).
In May, the Supreme Court issued a landmark opinion in TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods, restoring rational venue rules for patent cases in U.S. district courts. The ruling will limit cases brought in magnet districts, such as the U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Texas, which is a very good outcome that had been sought in the courts and in Congress by reform supporters.
Gilstrap, on the face of it, continues to serve/act more like a front group of patent trolls, not a courier/deliverer of justice. His decisions are typically overturned by courts above him. We wrote about his snubbing of TC Heartland some days ago. Here is today’s Managing IP report titled “Will the Federal Circuit weigh in on Judge Gilstrap’s patent venue test? (mostly behind paywall)
Consensus is growing that TC Heartland was not a change in the law, while a mandamus appeal of the case in which Judge Gilstrap outlined a four-factor test for “regular and established place of business” is being closely watched by patent practitioners
The Federal Circuit will soon have a chance to weigh in on the appropriateness of the four-factor test for venue outlined by an Eastern District of Texas judge, and which was called “reprehensible” by a US Congressman last week.
So what we have here is sheer snobbery and possible abuse by patent trolls and their facilitators. Even judges. Like Rader.
This is pretty bad.
“So what we have here is sheer snobbery and possible abuse by patent trolls and their facilitators. Even judges.”Does the rule of law not matter anymore?
Incidentally, IAM continues to promote patent trolls as well. Hours ago it invited people to this upcoming event which gives a platform to patent trolls like Intellectual Ventures and RPX. Suffice to say, this latest IAM event is sponsored by a lot of notorious patent trolls. IAM had done this before, but what it wrote earlier today reaffirms what we said in the past.
“It’s just a patent troll — something we’re seeing more and more of in China.”More encouragement of patent litigation in China? Sure, you got that in IAM some days ago. It’s destructive to China itself, but IAM gives a platform only to trolls like GPNE. In another new IAM article the chief troll alludes to other trolls as if he himself is not a patent troll. To quote a portion: “A few weeks ago, GPNE CEO Edwin Wong recounted some experiences of how the Chinese trial had gone so far. He confirmed that as in the previous US jury trial, Apple had attempted to raise the issue of GPNE’s status as a company that does not make or sell products. But with no jury in China’s system and judges’ reliance on technical experts this strategy is not necessarily as effective as it might be in the US. Similarly, a key issue in the American litigation was the fact that the specification for the patent-in-suit mentioned pagers. Wong says that the Chinese court has not been hung up on that word, placing substance above label.”
“…ex-Rockstar head John Veschi (chief troll in a notorious patent troll) has changed jobs.”It’s just a patent troll — something we’re seeing more and more of in China. Managing IP wrote earlier this week that “China proposes pharmaceutical patent linkage scheme,” stating that the “China Food and Drug Administration (CFDA) is planning to introduce a patent linkage scheme that will require a generic applicant to make a non-infringement declaration against an innovator’s patent portfolio…”
So much for helping the poor, eh?
Incidentally, another quick writeup from IAM reveals that ex-Rockstar head John Veschi (chief troll in a notorious patent troll) has changed jobs. Quite a few trolls seem to be moving to Asia these days. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 5:33 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Another quick look at today’s output from IP Kat, which turned from a proponent of EPO staff into a proponent of Battistelli’s oppressive agenda
THERE is a lot to be criticised/said about what happened to IP Kat, a site or blog that covers various issues/themes/topics including trademarks and copyrights. As far as patents go, it’s no longer what it used to be. Coverage of EPO scandals is now suppressed as a matter of principle, since the EPO sanctioned the site about a year ago. Over 10,000 articles were blocked with the flip of a switch at the EPO, leveraging great power over the site’s operator and perhaps sending a warning sign (threats of lawsuits, like those we received from the EPO's lawyers after identical sanctions).
As a media critic myself (in areas other than patents too), I come across lots of manipulation in the media (I worked as a journalist a decade ago and saw the censorship from the inside). Today alone, for example, one can find this puff piece (borderline press release about US patents) and here is today’s example of ‘articles’ that are not. They’re just ads/spam, this time for the patent ‘industry’. It’s incredible that stuff like this even gets published, let alone in official media. Here is local media in the US turning a ‘shopping list’ of patents into a puff piece; pointless ‘article’.
“Coverage of EPO scandals is now suppressed as a matter of principle, since the EPO sanctioned the site about a year ago.”Former IP Kat insiders have expressed similar concerns about IP Kat. It’s just not what it used to be; it’s “marketing” (their word, not mine).
As an example of this, consider what was published there only hours ago. Very belatedly (almost a month too late) proponents of patent trolls and the UPC write about EPO changes. Yes, it’s one Bristows employee quoting another (Gemma Barrett and Annsley Merelle Ward) and it’s just the latest reminder that IP Kat has in many ways (especially when it comes to patent coverage) been taken over by Bristows. Comments too are being deleted (if deemed “unwanted” by Bristows) and they do the same thing in other blogs.
Among the comments on the dysfunctional patent office we have this: “In its decision Art 23 1/16 the EBA explicitely stated that it felt threatened by the President of the Office, and not protected by the Administrative Council, in a disciplinary case which a few weeks ago culminated in the dismissal by the AC of a member of the boards of appeal, in violation of Art 23 EPC. Can anybody in these circumstances reasonably expect the boards to question the new rule?”
“Comments too are being deleted (if deemed “unwanted” by Bristows) and they do the same thing in other blogs.”Then comes CIPA lobbying promotion (it lobbied for patent maximalism, before the announcement on the above came out). The next comment says: “The new rule is illegitimate. CIPA have produced an excellent position paper on this: http://www.cipa.org.uk/policy-and-news/latest-news/observations-of-cipa-on-proposals-to-exclude-organisms-produced-by-biological-processes-from-patentability/”
The next comment says: “If I understand those smart folks at CIPA correctly – its not just odd, but cat-on-hot-tin roof odd!!”
“Not the same people are writing the blog (quite a few writers left).”To make matters worse, IP Kat is now literally occupied by a top official from CIPA. It’s occupied by the patent microcosm and was even upfront about it. There are posts from CIPA on matters pertaining to patents and a lot of this invites commentary about the EPO. The latest, for example, says “that “solution” is not an option for EP patents, I’m afraid. The EPO forces applicants to delete any passages in the description that cast doubt upon the scope of the claims. See, for example, the Guidelines at F.IV, 4.4 (https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines/e/f_iv_4_4.htm). To me, this kind of suggests that the SC and the EPO do not fully agree on the interpretation of Article 69 EPC… but then what do I know?”
It’s sad to think that just about a year ago IP Kat was still fighting for justice at the EPO. Now it does the very opposite (injustice) by pushing for the UPC, essentially helping Battistelli [1, 2]. Not the same people are writing the blog (quite a few writers left). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 5:00 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Lies are being intentionally spread inside the EPO (from the management downwards) and sobering reality about the UPC gradually sets in
THE chaotic state of the EPO is less visible throughout the summer when most people are on holiday, but the ugliness and the manipulation persist. Earlier today someone said anonymously but in public: “There is a new article on the EPO intranet about the quality of searches and examination. Curiously, in the era of windowless hairdresser salons, the department responsible for quality control reports that quality of the EPO has never been higher. But one has to read a bit further to understand: TIMELINESS is a big part of quality and the EPO is issuing search reports and examination faster than ever. Apparently, the content of the search or examination is of little interest to the department responsible for quality control, important is that they are out fast!”
Can anyone please leak this to us?
“There’s a true danger that’s already materialising, namely low-quality patents for trolls to go crazy (or run amok) with.”EPO management lies, internally, to all the staff; yet again! How long can this go on for? The EPO’s examiners are clever people. They’re not this gullible and they know the impact of mounting pressure on their work.
There’s a true danger that’s already materialising, namely low-quality patents for trolls to go crazy (or run amok) with. They are soaring (double-digit growth) in Germany, for instance, and some have come to the UK. This is good for nobody except patent law firms and their aggressive clients. The UPC would only exacerbate such problems (if it ever became a reality), yet the patent microcosm’s front group in France, together with Benoît Battistelli, seems very eager to push forth this menace. They don’t care about European industry, only about themselves (the litigation ‘industry’).
“The UPC looks more and more like it is dead because the British government refuses to discuss it…”Incidentally, a reader informed us today regarding “JUVE Patent – UPC Special 2017″ — yet another one of those pushes from the patent microcosm or Team UPC.
“I thought this new law firm sponsored 24-pager on the UPC was something you might be interested in,” our reader said regarding this finding (link to JUVE Patent). “You will be navigated to the JUVE web app and the JUVE Patent publication will be displayed. For further instructions please read here” [PDF]
And indeed, that’s just what it is: UPC marketing. We followed the links and got it.
The UPC looks more and more like it is dead because the British government refuses to discuss it (the patent microcosm calls it a “delay” as if it’s inevitable) and even a German UPC booster (self interest, knowing that patent trolls are quickly becoming a headache to German companies) has just said: “„Member state“ is mentioned how often in the text? >100 times? Yes, you could say that amendments might be necessary #UPC” (because the UK won’t be a member state anymore).
“Considering the stance on the UPC from German Justice Minister Heiko Maas, this might be indirectly connected to them turning a blind eye to EPO scandals.”Then there’s the German barrier to the UPC. SUEPO has just published a translation of this article (published a fortnight ago) and it blames, in part, Battistelli’s attack on the structure of the EPO — a subject we’ll deal with also in our next post.
Here is the full translation as HTML:
Unified Patent Court: Unknown complainant puts the brakes on ratification
Published on: 13 July, 2017
Worst Case Scenario: The people involved actually wanted the Unified Patent Court (UPC) to come into being before Brexit, but ratification by Great Britain and Germany was still not forthcoming, and the laws needed had still not been passed. Now that Great Britain has agreed, and the Bundestag has given the go-ahead (which effectively paves the way for the UPC), an unknown complainant has lodged opposition before the German Constitutional Court – and that puts the ratification process back on ice.
An unknown complainant has lodged opposition before the German Constitutional Court to put a stop to the ratification of the Unified European Patent Court, which has been years in the planning. What grounds have been put forward by the complainant are, up to now (07.07.2017), also unknown. The complaint before Germany’s highest court is a kick in the teeth for the creation of a unified patent legislation in the European Union. Brexit set back the test phase by several months, which was due to start this year, and the constitutional complaint has thrown an even bigger spanner in the workings of the timetable.
Federal Constitutional Court asks Federal President Steinmeier not to sign off on ratification
The last of the three national laws needed were passed just recently by the Bundesrat and Bundestag. That meant the national legislative process had almost been completed. The last step would have been the implementation law coming into effect with the signature of Federal President Frank-Walter Steinmeier. But at the behest of the Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG), so far he has still not signed. This gives the Court the time to look into an emergency plea pending against the implementation law. It now turns out that as far back as 31 March an unknown private individual lodged a constitutional opposition. And not only against the national law, but also the agreement itself (File Ref. 2 BvR 739/17). The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) carried the story in an article on 12 June.
Unified Patent Court: The reason for the move?
The fact that the reasons for the move have not yet been officially made known means that there is a lot of speculation about what has gone awry with the workings of the law and the agreement. One of the reasons could be the reservations about the constitutional legitimacy of proceedings held before the European Patent Court, which sits in Munich. The problem is that the Executive (implementing the law) and the Judiciary (creating the law) were at one location and, in particular, had one and the same presiding person – EPO President Benoît Battistelli. Battistelli, who stands at the head of the administration and of the court division of the EPO, is said to have a personal and factual influence on the Executive and the Judiciary. And that means the investigation of EPO decisions by an independent court is not possible, or only with great difficulty.
The EPO has already had to field a lot of criticism on that count. Last year it was announced that one of the divisions was going to be relocated, so as to achieve at least a spatial separation. Among other things, the press release revealed that “The move to another service building is therefore an important step in the efforts in safeguarding the EPO opposition system in the long term, and sustaining its strength”, and “Up to now, the Boards of Appeal have been accommodated in the main EPO building on the River Isar. The expansion of their organizational independence has always been an object of discussion. Administrative autonomy of the Boards has repeatedly come up for debate at the Administrative Council.”
The putative move, which is supposed to take place within the next few months, could however also be interpreted to mean that the President is giving his critics less room for attack and at least wants to provide a sign of this by way of the separation. With regard to the institutional constitution of the Office, it will make no difference at all. Putting it bluntly: New location, same old hierarchy, same old way of working.
“Request” from the Federal Constitutional Court implies good chances of the complaint succeeding
The Federal President’s Office has confirmed that the President, “at the request of the Federal Constitutional Court of 3 April 2017, has postponed the scrutiny procedure of the approval law”. The “request” is said to have been made first orally and then in writing.
(Text quotation from FAZ article)
It is a rare event for the Federal Constitutional Court to make a request directly to the Federal President. But it gives the Court one thing above all else – time. Not only has a complaint been lodged, but in parallel also a plea for urgency, which on the one hand directly affects the future law for the Patent Court, but also the patent law reform itself.
And anyone can see that a massive project like this won’t be decided in just a couple of days.
We are reckoning on a decision in late summer at the earliest. Until then, the efforts to establish the UPC and have it ratified remain where they are – on ice.
We wrote about that a week ago. We’ll revisit the subject as soon as we are done with the next batch of Lufthansa-EPO exposés. Considering the stance on the UPC from German Justice Minister Heiko Maas, this might be indirectly connected to them turning a blind eye to EPO scandals. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 4:15 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Older: Leaked: EPO Prioritises Work for Large Foreign Corporations, Discrimination Not Accidental But Centrally Planned (priority/fast lane/bypasses for large corporations)
Summary: Techrights to explore — as a matter of priority — corruption that is connected to the EPO and involves governments and corporations
THERE is no lack of stuff about the EPO for us to cover, only lack of time. Recently, in light of events in Croatia and Germany (implicating Željko Topić from the EPO), we revisited some truly serious matters, having broken some news in English and in German.
“We contacted some German publications about this, but they systematically ignore or stonewall (which says quite a lot in its own right). How long can this affair be suppressed?”It’s in the media in Croatia today, citing our reports about this EPO scandal. “Croatian media covers TechRights article about Lufthansa / Airplus affair,” one reader alerted us. There might be more on the way. “In case you haven’t seen this already,” our reader said, the matter attracts some attention, but not in Germany. We contacted some German publications about this, but they systematically ignore or stonewall (which says quite a lot in its own right). How long can this affair be suppressed? Or coverage thereof be silenced (self-censorship)? An article was published today titled “The dishonest Germans” and it was summarised by “Scandal has struck Germany’s automobile industry — and there’s a suspicion that Berlin has long turned a blind eye…”
We have actually heard from people inside large European companies — people who are typically too hesitant to pass documents for fear of identification and retribution (some of the people reading this probably know who they are). We don’t want to name these companies, but one thing we can safely reveal is that there will soon be some Lufthansa documents published here. Big scandals. Another Dieselgate? Probably nothing of that scale, but nevertheless, as a matter of priority we prepare more explosive articles about Lufthansa and the EPO. These are coming soon, possibly even before the weekend.
As a side note, we still intend to write about the ILO suppressing justice, but it’s less urgent a matter at the moment. We’ll get around to covering everything, eventually… █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in America, Patents at 8:16 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: In another effort to bring software patents back to the US (they are currently being swatted like flies in the courts), the lobby of the patent ‘industry’ gangs up with former officials of the USPTO — now in lobbying capacity — and a new report is issued regarding Section 101
THE lobby for software patents has not grown tired, even though (or because) patents on software are pretty much worthless now. Courts and boards trash them one by one (when these are actually scrutinised by people who are not USPTO examiners).
We keep a close eye on this lobby and report on its nefarious modus operandi. They don’t want their actions to be so visible.
“We keep a close eye on this lobby and report on its nefarious modus operandi.”After constantly attacking and maybe even defaming Michelle Lee, Watchtroll publishes “The next PTO Director must grasp the fundamental fact that a patent secures a property right” (lobbying disguised as news, even entering Google News). It would be a rather benign opinion piece if Watchtroll hadn’t engaged in a nasty smear campaign to leave the USPTO void of leadership (except interim).
This same nasty site has just published “The Myth of Patent Quality” as if the notion of patent quality (like level of triviality) is simply mythology. “First,” it says, “the Patent Office was issuing bad software patents that were overly vague and impinged on big tech operations.”
They play the “rotten apple” card. It’s a classic old trick.
“It would be a rather benign opinion piece if Watchtroll hadn’t engaged in a nasty smear campaign to leave the USPTO void of leadership (except interim).”On the other side, or the opposition lobby, we have groups such as United for Patent Reform.
“86 biz from retailers to automakers urge Congress to preserve #USPTO’s #IPR program that helps fight #patenttrolls,” it wrote yesterday. It’s about PTAB reviews (petitions to reconsider granted patents). “Small & large businesses from automakers to printers tell Congress,” it added, that “#IPR is vital to fight abusive #patenttrolls.”
What we have here is basically a battle between practicing companies (that make things) and the patent microcosm which makes nothing and merely profits from lawsuits. This sort of chasm is not new.
“What we have here is basically a battle between practicing companies (that make things) and the patent microcosm which makes nothing and merely profits from lawsuits.”A Section 101 report [PDF] has just been issued by the USPTO, which also published a blog post about it. “New Report Presents Viewpoints on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility,” Joe Matal wrote, describing himself as “Performing the Functions and Duties of the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO” (after Michelle Lee left).
Matal writes this:”Between 2010 and 2014, four opinions issued by the U.S. Supreme Court—Bilski, Mayo, Myriad, and Alice—significantly affected patent eligibility law. Following these rulings, the USPTO provided updated guidance to patent examiners, initiated a nationwide conversation on patent subject matter eligibility through a series of events and roundtables, and has now published a report presenting what we have learned from the public on this important issue. Some have raised concerns that the heightened bar for patent subject matter eligibility that resulted from these decisions has undermined the ability of intellectual property (IP) intensive industries to secure rights and investments in their innovations. Others have applauded the rulings for providing a useful tool in flushing out patents on technologies that they feel should not be patentable.”
“We are not sure where this is going; but we know for sure is that the likes of Watchtroll and corruptible former officials like Kappos (taking corporate money to lobby the former employer) will meddle and attempt to leverage their connections to bring software patents back, even in defiance of the US Supreme Court.”“When you only invite the patent industry, this is the kind of conclusions you get,” Henrion wrote about this report. We haven’t had time to examine it yet. Patent Buddy (pro software patents) linked to that and some people have gotten somewhat excited about it, perhaps thinking that the USPTO will magically undo Alice.
IBM’s Manny Schecter is among those who mentioned it and he promotes Watchtroll again, namely an article Robert Stoll wrote there. He “retired from the USPTO as Commissioner for Patents at the end of 2011,” by his own description/biography, but he is still meddling a lot, just like David Kappos (even while under IBM’s and Microsoft’s payroll).
We are not sure where this is going; but we know for sure is that the likes of Watchtroll and corruptible former officials like Kappos (taking corporate money to lobby the former employer) will meddle and attempt to leverage their connections to bring software patents back, even in defiance of the US Supreme Court. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Content is available under CC-BY-SA