IPKat's Annsley Merelle Ward Spreading the Same Old Lies and Shameless Propaganda to Promote Software Patents in Europe (i.e. the Usual... and She's Not Even a Coder)

posted by Roy Schestowitz on Nov 16, 2024,
updated Nov 16, 2024

People are quick to point out that the cited survey is very inherently biased and one must follow the money (almost 100% of actual software developers reject software patents, based on past surveys)

There's no "polite" way to put it and it may seem "rude" because we basically respond to an attack here - an attack waged by this person for over a decade already, including from Bristows LLP, a former employer.

Readers must be wary or be extremely cautious and sceptical of propaganda from this person.

The site chosen for relaying this latest bout of propaganda, IPKat, has been conspicuously inactive for the past few years (barely one article per day; they used to have several per day). The founder left and then, not too long afterwards, many key writers left as well. Some "moles" of Team UPC filled the vacuum. They used the site with a formerly good reputation to drive their commercial agenda.

For a little more background, going several years back:

As noted in the last link above, we're talking about a person who never wrote a single line of code and instead brown-nosed Microsoft and judges, looking to rob people who actually write code.

Not shocking...

It's not surprising to see this nonsense pushed by Annsley Merelle Ward, who promotes illegal stuff and software patents while sucking up to Microsoft. Some patent litigation people are - to put it bluntly - truly greedy to the point of being nasty; some of them borderline thieves. Those are the people who also conspired to destroy the EPO to increase their "business" (feuds) and profits at everyone else's expense. Crime at the EPO? Not a big deal! At least we're getting rich!

Readers can see the comments. Not everything got censored. To quote a few:

The only overhaul suggested in the post actually boils down to accept programs for computers as patentable inventions.
It has first to be reminded that the Diplomatic Revision Conference of 2000 decided that the patentability of computer programs would be left for a second basket to be dealt with by a future Diplomatic Revision Conference.

I would say that a new Diplomatic Revision Conference is a certain as a Conference of Ministers of the Contracting States according to Art 4a EPC2000. A conference according to Art 4a should by now have been convened twice.

It is only by a revision of the EPC that computer programs as such could become patentable.

Originally, the reason for not allowing computer programs as such as patentable inventions, was indeed to be seen in the impossibility to carry out a significant search. There are lots of computer program languages and it is not possible for an examiner to be aware of all of them and of their different syntax. In the 80ies and early 90ies, the EPO even allowed short excerpts of programs, but the nub of the invention had to be disclosed, not in the program, but in plain language in the description.

The case law developed by the boards of appeal of the EPO, going from Vicom to Comvik, just to name a few, has long accepted Computer Implemented Inventions.

As a patent is prima facie a technical solution to a technical problem, inventions in which a device is controlled by a program or when a method is implemented with the help of a program are more and more usual. It is just necessary to provide a connection with the real world or a specific technical effect inside a data processing machine. In order to be patentable, an invention need to involves a technical effect achieved with technical means. The requirement of technicality is thus anything but arbitrary.

Machine learning and quantum computing are perfectly patentable, provided there imply a technical effect on the real world. As far as machine learning is concerned, the problem lies more in sufficiency. In order to obtain a patent, it is not enough just to disclose the correlation rules and the weighing factors of a neural network, but as the same time the learning data has to be disclosed. As data are in our modern world a precious asset, I cannot see the holder of data happily disclosing learning data.

In view of the above considerations, the need for a revision of Art 52(2) in respect of computer programs as such appear simply unnecessary.

Or the latest comment:

It is difficult to get a patent attorney to understand patentability exclusions when their salary depends on them not understanding it. I am surprised that only 59% want to remove the computer program exclusion.
That patent offices might not be able to search programs was not the only reason for the exclusion - https://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/scp/en/scp_15/scp_15_3-annex2.pdf. Programs were seen as abstract, maths, and algorithms. There is the practical issue that if only the program per se was intended to be excluded, that only excludes something that no one in their right mind would actually patent since its scope would be far too narrow. The exclusion would be an exclusion in name only and have no teeth.

There is mixed evidence supporting a link between patenting and innovation, especially outside pharma. I am not aware of evidence that proves removing the exclusions would lead to increased innovation. There is hardly a shortage of it. Removing the exclusion primarily benefits patent attorneys. An applicant might very well want a patent for their computer program, but equally would be less keen on a competitor having one. The OSS lobby is not going to agree to this anything soon and has a powerful voice. The status quo is that some computer implemented inventions are patentable and others are not. The line between is very clear assuming you want to see it.

Maybe there are other comments that are so reasonable that they got censored (as many do).

"I am surprised that only 59% want to remove the computer program exclusion," it says. Ask people who actually make computer programs (not sue those who do). Pretty much 0% of them would want this. And that's all that matters. IPKat never represented the views of real practitioners, only those who "practice" law (i.e. back-and-forth paperwork). That's like asking weapons companies (manufacturers) if they want the war in Ukraine to go on and on.

Ryan says, "I'm not really big on the idea of "intellectual property", especially in the "arts and entertainment world". Because I think that you earn money for working for something, and I just don't see a lot of work going into a lot of copyrighted works anymore, or patented "inventions". You look at a Hollywood movie, and they spend a lot and wonder why they have empty theaters, or they spend a lot and people go and see it because it's non-stop "pew pew pew" shooting and effects and explosions for the whole movie, even Star Trek got this bad (the Kelvin Timeline, JJ Abrams). I would just chalk a lot of it down to the intellectual void that we now call the general public."

"But patents are another mess. Much of the time you can't tell what's being described, exactly, or it's not an important "invention". Sometimes Clorox patents a particular design of water pitcher. I mean, the thing lives in your refrigerator and holds water. I don't know how much "innovation" you can actually get in this market. We've had these for decades now." █

IPKat's Annsley Merelle Ward Spreading the Same Old Lies and Shameless Propaganda to Promote Software Patents in Europe (i.e. the Usual... and She's Not Even a Coder)

Other Recent Techrights' Posts