09.05.19

Gemini version available ♊︎

Fake Software Patents in Europe (Invalid Patents) Would Only Discourage or Drive Away the European Software Industry, But Lawyers Don’t Care

Posted in Europe, Patents at 8:27 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

When one litigates for a living computer code looks like something to be taxed, nothing else

Louvre at night

Summary: Patent maximalists are running the largest patent office in Europe and despite the law clearly disallowing abstract patents these continue to be enshrined as European Patents; the EPO’s management wants judges that it controls (already besieged in Haar) to say “OK” to this illegal practice

THE Campinos/Battistelli-led European Patent Office (EPO) is an utter embarrassment to Europe. It disproves perceptions about Rule of Law in Europe and it harms the European industry. In that respect, today’s EPO also discredits the world’s patent systems. It makes them look anarchic and uncaring about underlying laws, constitutions etc.

“It’s a ‘fixed’ game that gives an illusion of so-called “growth” in “productivity” (as measured using ludicrous yardsticks).”Back in 2007 and maybe before that we wrote about software patents in Europe, a year or two after the subject had been hotly debated in European and international media. We wrongly assumed that the European Parliament put an end to these ridiculous patents once and for all. The EPO’s management pretends that it’s still an unanswered question and in the meantime it instructs examiners to grant such patents; it just throws loads of ridiculous buzzwords at them while encouraging applicants to leverage these buzzwords. It’s a ‘fixed’ game that gives an illusion of so-called “growth” in “productivity” (as measured using ludicrous yardsticks).

Earlier this week we saw promotion of an article about “stay of national proceedings pending outcome of opposition,” citing Coloplast v Salts Healthcare. To quote: “With the parallel systems of patent revocation in Europe (opposition before the European Patent Office (EPO) and revocation/nullity before the national courts), where the opposition runs slower than the national courts, there is a risk that a patent found to be valid and infringed by the national courts is subsequently found to be invalid by the EPO.”

Only the lawyers benefit and many parties would choose to settle without actual justice. Fake patents, unfounded and unsound as per the EPC, can result in payments and it’s no secret that patents are an extreme injustice when monopoly is given for unoriginal ideas, trivial ideas, or abstract ideas. Sadly, however, it happens far too often nowadays and the public rarely talks about it. Lawyers lie to the public to keep the public uninvolved. Jargon and lingo contribute to that (e.g. FRAND and other intentionally misleading terms).

“Only the lawyers benefit and many parties would choose to settle without actual justice.”SUEPO, the staff union of the EPO, openly speaks about bad quality of European Patents. It says it has gotten far worse very fast. It repeatedly warns that, according to the EPO itself, not many European Patents even comply with the EPC!

Patent maximalists obviously aren’t bothered. Fake patents too are business to them (applications, litigation/lawsuits and so on). Serial litigants couldn’t ask for more!

Rose Hughes has just mentioned T 0703/19, a decision before the EPO’s boards; she very well knows these boards are 10,000 cases behind and won't deal with questions of EPO breaking the law (the blog where she wrote this used to write about this subject regularly before it self-censored and she joined the monopolists). To quote her blog post:

The Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) recently dealt thoroughly with the thorny issue of the consequences of appeal fee payment after the deadline for filing an appeal (G 1/18, IPKat post here). Readers with an enthusiasm for the legal intricacies surrounding appeal filings, may also be interested in a recent Technical Boards of Appeal (TBA) decision (T 0703/19). In this decision, the TBA considered another issue arising from appeal fee payment: when may a user of the EPO have legitimate expectations to be informed of an underpayment of an appeal fee?

[...]

The patent in question, EP11700179, was a Swiss originating patent related to a dental implant. Following a negative decision by the Opposition Division, the patentee filed a notice of appeal by online filing by the deadline for filing an appeal. The notice of appeal included a completed form and accompanying letter. The letter included the statement (in German) that the appeal fee was thereby paid via online fee payment. The form stated the amount of the appeal fee, but not the method of payment. The method of payment was indicated as “not specified” (“nicht angegeben”). An account number for debit of the amount was not provided, and payment was thus not taken.

TBA’s upcoming decision that many people look forward to actually concerns software patents; it has the potential to become ‘European Alice‘, albeit it’s unlikely to happen because of rigging by EPO (Office) management. We saw that before. At the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) the impact of Alice is still being felt; over at Watchtroll this week litigation zealot Robert Sachs calls the demise of software patents (Alice) “Benevolent Despot or Tyrant,” which is a false choice, two negatives. These are greedy litigation ‘activists’ (working for their pockets, for patent trolls etc.) and they are attacking the law itself. It’s not just this one article (“Alice: Benevolent Despot or Tyrant? Analyzing Five Years of Case Law Since Alice v. CLS Bank”) but also another one by Mark Nowotarski at Watchtroll: “If You Want to Protect Your Business Method, Reframe It as a Technical Invention”

They give ‘tricks’ for getting patents that are bogus, in effect invalid (as judged by courts).

“They give ‘tricks’ for getting patents that are bogus, in effect invalid (as judged by courts).”Watchtroll now has a ‘Webinar’ for patents at the EPO (“IPW Webinar: Getting to Grant: How to get your patent approved by the EPO”).

It says: “What are the necessary steps for obtaining a Notice of Allowance at the European Patent Office (EPO)?”

Notice how patent extremists in the US ‘interfere’ with EPO affairs? And the EPO works closely with Watchtroll. Today’s EPO is in bed with people who habitually attack judges, just like EPO management does.

Here in the UK, according to Cambridge Network’s new announcement, the EPO will participate in some patent propaganda very soon. To quote: “The event will feature an impressive array of speakers including a keynote address from Professor Christopher R Lowe (University of Cambridge), and speakers from companies including AstraZeneca, Tokomak Energy and the EPO.”

Notice who the EPO speaks alongside; AstraZeneca et al. (the firms that nowadays have key positions at IP Kat as well).

“Today’s EPO is in bed with people who habitually attack judges, just like EPO management does.”Earlier this week the EPO invited feedback on its software patent policy, G 1/19 (“Patentability of computer-implemented simulations”).

Hardly to our surprise, Hans Wegner and Tobias Kaufmann, two patent zealots from Bardehle Pagenberg (i.e. the usual), are already lobbying the EPO for these illegal software patents. Why? Simply because they profit from frivolous lawsuits over bogus, abstract patents.

Bastian Best, their colleague, wrote in Twitter: “Should computer-implemented simulations be patentable? This is a very important question for the future of the digital economy in Europe. I hope the @EPOorg Enlarged Board of Appeal follows our position.”

Why? So you can destroy yet more European software companies, Bastian?

What he says there is akin to, “I hope EPO breaks the law (as it already does every day)…”

Benjamin Henrion has already noticed this and said: “For those with a brain: “These inventions cannot be classified as merely mental or abstract ideas” Like software is not abstract, nor the other items excluded in the EPC [] Red Dove software patent decision is 50 years old https://www.bardehle.com/de/ip-news-wissen/ip-news/news-detail/amicus-curiae-brief-concerning-g-119-patentability-of-computer-implemented-simulation-methods.html”

“Earlier this week the EPO invited feedback on its software patent policy, G 1/19 (“Patentability of computer-implemented simulations”).”A longterm activist against software patents (hired since then by Red Hat and thus working for IBM now) said: “It’s still called „software“, no matter how much EPO er al try to push „computer implemented X“. We are talking about patents on software. It’s that simple.”

The EPO “breaks the law,” I told him, “and hopes to disguise that using semantics.”

Here’s what the EPO wrote (warning: epo.org link): (“EPO technical tautologism at its paroxism,” as the above puts it): “can the simulation of a technical system solve a technical problem by producing a technical effect which goes beyond the simulation’s implementation on a computer, if the simulation is claimed as such?”

What baloney; I’d gladly submit another letter to the boards as I did a decade ago (to the Enlarged Board); but this time, under the new and profoundly rogue administration (not Brimelow), it doesn’t look like these boards are liberated/permitted to rule as they see fit, i.e. based on the EPC.

“it doesn’t look like these boards are liberated/permitted to rule as they see fit, i.e. based on the EPC.”Buzzwords, buzzwords, buzzwords, buzzwords…

Just stick one in: “AI”? “CII”? What next?

Here come ENSafrica’s Hugo Biermann and Rowan Forster with another promoted pile of literary nonsense entitled “When intelligence is artificial” (just more of the “hey hi” hype in the context of patents, quoting the EPO which exploits the buzzword to grant illegal patent monopolies).

This is what they wrote:

The abovementioned article in The Patent Lawyer discusses the fact that a team led by a university professor has successfully filed the first patent applications for inventions created by AI, with the inventor having been named as DABUS. DABUS is the name given to the machine in question and stands for “device for the autonomous bootstrapping of unified sentience”. Both the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) and the European Patent Office (EPO) have apparently indicated that there are no issues with novelty, inventive step or industrial applicability in respect of these inventions.

But what about the fact that the inventor is not human, but rather an AI machine or program? That’s the tricky part. According to the article there “have been claims of AI generating inventions for decades, but an AI inventor has never been disclosed in a patent application.” However, that is likely to change. “Modern AI may fundamentally change how research and development takes place. In some cases AI is no longer a tool, even a very sophisticated tool; in some cases, AI is automating innovation.”

The article explains that no country’s law specifically deals with the issue of whether or not AI inventions can be patented. However, most jurisdictions have restricted inventorship to natural persons, in order to prevent corporate inventorship. The article suggests that the right approach is for the AI to be listed as the inventor and for the AI’s owner to be recorded as the owner or assignee of the patent.

In another article dealing with the DABUS applications, a spokesman for the EPO is quoted as follows: “The current state of technological development suggests that, for the foreseeable future, AI is… a tool used by a human inventor.” We’re told that a UKIPO spokesman has also confirmed that an inventor must be a natural person. Whilst conceding that, change may well be required: “The government believes that AI technology could increase the UK’s GDP by 10% in the next decade, and the IPO is focussed on responding to the challenges that come with this growth”.

There are two aspects to this “hey hi” hype; one is about automating applications (or drafting thereof) and another regards patenting of such processes. The EPO often conflates the two aspects, probably by intention.

“Today’s EPO is a highly dysfunctional patent office which often seems to be run by litigation firms, for litigation firms.”Yesterday we spotted OSE Immunotherapeutics celebrating a new EPO-granted monopoly on cancer treatment. This is nothing to be celebrated, but they issued a paid-for press release [1, 2]; imagine what would happen if the boards weren’t 10,000 cases (appeals) behind and were able to actually decide on the legality of such controversial patents.

Today’s EPO is a highly dysfunctional patent office which often seems to be run by litigation firms, for litigation firms.

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. [Meme] EPO Legal Sophistry and Double Dipping

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



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

    Links for the day



  3. [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



  4. '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



  5. 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



  6. [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)



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

    Links for the day



  8. IRC Proceedings: Tuesday, October 19, 2021

    IRC logs for Tuesday, October 19, 2021



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

    Links for the day



  10. [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)



  11. 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



  12. [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)



  13. 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)



  14. 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



  15. Proof That Windows “11” is a Hoax

    Guest post by Ryan, reprinted with permission



  16. Firefox Becomes as Morally Reprehensible as Apple, Facebook, or Uber

    Guest post by Ryan, reprinted with permission



  17. Links 19/10/2021: GNU dbm 1.22 and Godot 3.4 RC 1

    Links for the day



  18. [Meme] [Teaser] GitHub an Expensive and Dangerous Trap (Also: Misogyny Hub)

    The ongoing Microsoft GitHub exposé will give people compelling reasons to avoid GitHub, which is basically just a subsidised (at a loss) trap



  19. Norway Should Have Voted Against Benoît Battistelli's Illegal (Anti-)'Strike Regulations' at the European Patent Office

    Benoît Battistelli‘s EPO faced no real and potent opposition from Norwegian delegates, who chose to abstain from the vote on the notorious and illegal so-called ‘Strike Regulations’ (they’re just an attack on strikes, an assault on basic rights of labourers)



  20. Links 19/10/2021: Sequoia PGP LGPL 2.0+, Open RAN Adoption

    Links for the day



  21. [Meme] [Teaser] Benoît Battistelli, King of Iceland

    Later today we shall see how the current deputy of the head of the EPO‘s overseeing body was in fact likely rewarded for her complicity in Benoît Battistelli‘s abuses against EPO staff, including staff from Iceland



  22. IRC Proceedings: Monday, October 18, 2021

    IRC logs for Monday, October 18, 2021



  23. Links 19/10/2021: MyGNUHealth 1.0.5 and Ubuntu 22.04 Now Developed

    Links for the day



  24. [Meme] [Teaser] Thrown Under the Bus

    Tomorrow we shall look at Danish enablers of unlawful EPO regulations, Jesper Kongstad and Anne Rejnhold Jørgensen



  25. The World Needs to Know What Many Austrians Already Know About Rude Liar, the Notorious 'Double-Dipper'

    Today we publish many translations (from German) about the Austrian double-dipper, who already became the subject of unfavourable press coverage in his home country; he’s partly responsible for crushing fundamental rights at the EPO under Benoît Battistelli‘s regime



  26. The EPO’s Overseer/Overseen Collusion — Part XVI: The Demise of the Austrian Double-Dipper

    Friedrich ‘Rude Liar’ Rödler is notorious in the eyes of EPO staff, whom he was slandering and scandalising for ages while he himself was the real scandal



  27. Links 18/10/2021: Porteus Kiosk 5.3 and Ventoy 1.0.55

    Links for the day



  28. [Meme] [Teaser] More to Life Than Patents

    Greedy sociopaths oughtn’t be put in charge of patent offices; this is what’s dooming the EPO in recent years (all they think about is money



  29. Microsoft GitHub Exposé — Part II — The Campaign Against GPL Compliance and War on Copyleft Enforcement

    Microsoft contemplated buying GitHub 7.5 years ago; the goal wasn’t to actually support “Open Source” but to crush it from the inside and that’s what Microsoft has been doing over the past 2.5 years (we have some details from the inside)



  30. Links 18/10/2021: Linux 5.15 RC6 and 7 New Stable Kernels

    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