Reference: High-frequency trading

Summary: The growing intersection between rogue markets that are preoccupied with capital (patents on business methods and finance, computer-generated patents) and a drift away from the scientific raison d'être of patents

THE SHEER INEPTITUDE of EPO management these days (not just Battistelli) may be a sign of the times. So is the departure of the USPTO's Michelle Lee (months after Trump was inaugurated). She was a Director who actually had background in science. There seems to be consolidation around power and money, typically at the expense of science and technology. The patent microcosm, for instance, is a perfect symptom of that. So are the following articles:

• Blockchain and Bitcoin Patents Help Demonstrate How Software Patents Get Used by Giants to Crush Emerging Technologies ('Threats')
• Blockchain Domain Infested With Software Patents, MasterCard Among the Culprits
• Financial Giants Will Attempt to Dominate or Control Bitcoin, Blockchain and Other Disruptive Free Software Using Software Patents

Blockchain, which was supposed to be a substitute to evil banking, is gradually becoming a patent trap with a gold rush for software patents. Blockstation is the latest to enter this gold rush, based on this week's statement and also published this week was "Sterling tech firm invents new currency" though it's actually about patents:

The platform can access 98 patent databases in 67 languages.

They are treating patents like a currency!

Another new article from this week is trying to convince readers that paralegals should be replaced by "robot reviews" -- akin to the stupidity of Battistelli who believes he can reliably replace examiners (not just translations) with machines. Here is what they claim:

TurboPatent Corp. on June 28 launched artificial-intelligence products that compare patent claims with past applications to make predictions about patent eligibility.

Pseudoscience or snake oil? A lot of non-technical people (like Battistelli) will believe anything they're told, provided they aren't told this by intellectually superior people like patent examiners. Do they want to just remove humans from the loop altogether and let machines generate applications, apply for patents, assess patents etc. (we wrote about this before)? It would be as catastrophic (billions of patents -- far more than any person can keep abreast of); just like those stock markets which are gamed by algorithms and notoriously manipulated by bots (about 70% of today's trading volume). ⬆