Protectionist measures taken to the extreme are self-harming and commercially-insulating

Summary: Sites that speak for patent maximalists tell us that we should envy if not fear or mimic China's self-defeating patent scope, which basically welcomes patents on just about anything under the Sun

TECHRIGHTS wrote many articles about how words like "AI" and "blockchain" get (mis)used to patent software. Some of these words are just acronyms whose expansion is a load of rubbish, e.g. "4IR" at the EPO or "IoT" at the USPTO. With words like "revolution" or "things" (yes, literally that!) in the acronym you just know you've exited the realms of science and are now grappling with a bunch of clueless marketing people.

"With words like "revolution" or "things" (yes, literally that!) in the acronym you just know you've exited the realms of science and are now grappling with a bunch of clueless marketing people."IAM, the patent trolls' lobby, has long been 'envious' of China because of its wholehearted embrace of patent maximalism -- a subject we shall revisit later this weekend in relation to Watchtroll and others (they bash the US and make China sound like a miracle which it isn't just to advance their patent agenda). Here's what IAM wrote just before the weekend:

More patents related to artificial intelligence and blockchain technology were filed in China than in any other country in 2017, it has been revealed. With much of this growth being linked to a booming start-up scene, it looks like the playing field for these technologies is slowly but surely shifting east. China’s start-up scene has rapidly caught up the US’s, according to a recently released Global Start-up Ecosystem report by Oakland-based firm Startup Genome. A comparison has found that over the last six years, the share of start-up funding into Asia-Pacific countries has grown – especially in China...

Don't actually ask IAM authors to explain artificial intelligence and blockchain. The authors there lack a background in science; all they know is, they need to keep repeating the lies from patent trolls and litigious firms that fund them. It's rather grotesque at times. For just over a year now a routine talking point was "China!" or "China is coming!" (we wrote many rebuttals to these dramatising lies).

"A lot of buzzwords have changed (or got phased in). Many things that used to be called servers now get labeled "cloud" and many things with databases in them (that's a lot!) get called "blockchain". Algorithms are becoming something like "AI"."A few days ago James G. Gatto (Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton) wrote about framing software parents as "blockchain" patents (just to get patents on software, never mind if courts reject these anyway; courts would be harder to fool than examiners). Under "Recent Blockchain Patents Of Note" he wrote: "As we have previously reported, the number of blockchain patents being filed and granted is continuing to increase. According to a Thomson Reuters report, 225 out of the 406 blockchain patents (55.4%) filed in 2017 came from China, followed by 91 (22.4%) from the U.S. and 13 (3.2%) from Australia. The following is a brief summary of a few such patents that have been recently filed or granted in the U.S."

This is utter rubbish. A lot of buzzwords have changed (or got phased in). Many things that used to be called servers now get labeled "cloud" and many things with databases in them (that's a lot!) get called "blockchain". Algorithms are becoming something like "AI".

"...we may continue to see software patents landing inside the belly of the Patent Office, peppered and seasoned with buzzwords and acronyms like "AI" and "IoT"."Notice the obligatory mention of "China" again. This is their method of choice. Maybe if they keep expounding and insisting with "China China China China!" the officials/lawmakers will panic enough to make patent laws more lenient. We shall write about that later this weekend. We shall also write about software patents in the US in light of news or press releases like this new one. "The technology could be used to enable devices without specific authentication hardware or software to leverage the capabilities of nearby devices, or send data to an authentication service," it says. Classic software patent? Why was it granted? Will the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) even give it a closer look and the Federal Circuit reaffirm the judgment? Not likely. At this current pace of patent grants (in the US at least) and the far lower pace of IPRs (maybe about 1% apply to applications rather than granted patents, i.e. only 1 in 100 examiners' decisions reach PTAB) we may continue to see software patents landing inside the belly of the Patent Office, peppered and seasoned with buzzwords and acronyms like "AI" and "IoT". That's a problem. ⬆