THE U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), taking 35 U.S.C. €§ 101 into account, either does not grant software patents or barely grants these (only for patent courts and judges to throw them out later). Here in Europe, however, software patents are being granted more than ever, owing to European Patent Office (EPO) presidents like António Campinos and Battistelli, who proudly break the law. Then they even look to reward those who amass many of these illegal patents. It is really as bad as that sounds; patents on mathematics are being granted by the EPO in spite of EPO management being well aware those are illegal.
The EPO will be at the #WebSummit2019 for the first time! Stay tuned as we reveal what we will be up to in Lisbon! Who’s joining? https://bit.ly/2Js5SzE #WebSummit pic.twitter.com/2kR7eV2eXL
"It is really as bad as that sounds; patents on mathematics are being granted by the EPO in spite of EPO management being well aware those are illegal."From the page in question (warning: epo.org link): "The 2019 EIA Lifetime achievement finalist dedicated her career to inventions that enable fast, high quality streaming. Named as inventor in almost 130 granted European patents, Karczewicz's technologies have transformed the video entertainment industry and made video streaming on laptops and mobile devices available to a wider audience."
Those patents are fake patents; they cover mathematics and they're used to actively harm the computer industry. The EPO is promoting lies of Qualcomm instead of actually assessing the impact of these patents. This is the first entry in the list and there's another one for Microsoft (Alex Kipman), a big booster of software patents all around the world
The EPO later added: "We’re happy to announce that EPO President António Campinos will join a panel discussion at #WebSummit on “ #Patenting the future: The next big invention” on 6 November!"
"Those patents are fake patents; they cover mathematics and they're used to actively harm the computer industry."He does not even have technical qualifications for this. "Web Summit is a meeting point for people and companies that are redefining technology," they say about this event. Campinos has nothing to do with technology. So "Web Summit" has been compromised in the sense that now it is a platform for patent zealots without any common sense. They don't value the Web, they value patent mazes.
We have meanwhile found fresh criticism of these illegal patents that the EPO keeps granting, recently under the guise of "AI" (a buzzword/vague acronym). Benjamin Henrion noted that by "[e]nd of this week, the EPO will extend software patents to AI without a public debate. This is how broken this institution is..."
"The EPO is making up these guidelines while knowingly and consciously breaking the law that gave it its very existence," I responded. Albert Cohen ("Research on compilers, programming languages, code generators, performance and correctness. Free software advocate," by his own description, as per his profile at Twitter) also responded to Henrion by stating: "The last paragraph is very problematic: training a neutral net, or other AI algorithm, is patentable if part of a larger design with "technical" effect. This could go extremely wrong."
"We have meanwhile found fresh criticism of these illegal patents that the EPO keeps granting, recently under the guise of "AI" (a buzzword/vague acronym).""Worse," I said, "it's illegal. But the EPO illegally grants software patents using false, bogus justifications that are in essence facilitating violations of the EPC every day. Nobody holds them accountable."
Is the EPC just a dead and obsolete document now? It's violated in various other ways, e.g. judges being punished by exile to Haar.
If the EPO refuses to obey the EPC, then immunity must be withdrawn and the whole institution 'rebooted' (all management removed and replaced, maybe punished as well). On Monday morning Daniela Ampollini showed that courts in Italy recognise the EPC (lots about this in the second paragraph, included previously in our Daily Links), unlike the EPO which violates it every day. Why are courts across Europe following the EPC, whereas the EPO is allowed to flagrantly violate it? Because of immunity? Then remove it. Put an end to this corruption.
Yesterday the EPO spoke -- in a new tweet -- of "computer programs" followed by "AI" (that in itself is "computer programs"). This means that either EPO tweets are written by chronic liars or the people who write this are endlessly clueless and unfit for the job. Choose one.
"If the EPO refuses to obey the EPC, then immunity must be withdrawn and the whole institution 'rebooted' (all management removed and replaced, maybe punished as well)."The tweet said: "Can you patent computer programs, GUIs and artificial intelligence at the EPO? This recorded #webinar will shed some light on the topic: https://bit.ly/2mCzO3X"
"You can," I responded, "but those would be fake patents courts would invalidate because EPO is a rogue, corrupt institution that breaks the EPC, its governing law."
The EPO also wrote: "European patent applications related to autonomous driving have grown 20 times faster than those across all technologies. View the figures in this report: http://bit.ly/SDVstudy #SelfDriving #FutureOfCars pic.twitter.com/96CamDck9d"
"You just make up categories, buzzwords and acronyms," I told them, "that 'justify' you granting illegal, fake, bogus, bunk software patents and other patents..."
See this new article from Managing IP. Do they recognise already that software patents "on a car" aren't legally valid and therefore resort to secrecy (while criminalising knowledge of their employees)? Anything for monopoly/protectionism?
"The EPO gets to break the law every single day and nobody gets punished. Illegal orders must be obeyed because of diplomatic immunity."This has become so banal and typical that it's almost depressing. The EPO gets to break the law every single day and nobody gets punished. Illegal orders must be obeyed because of diplomatic immunity. We've meanwhile taken note of this upcoming 'webinar' in which an IBM-connected front group (IPO) has some real nerve promoting software patents alongside "Open Source" (there's a part there about "Open Source, Software Related Inventions"). It's just IBM's usual promotion of software patents -- even by lying about Open Source and saying it was possible owing to such patents.
Henrion has meanwhile blasted OIN, arguing that "OIN [is] lobbying the Gnome Foundation to use prior art instead of Alice to avoid the subject matter eligibility #oin #ibm #swpat"
I told him that "this is so that IBM can keep lobbying for software patents all around the world and that lobbying won’t be disrupted by the troll that got its patents from a Microsoft troll (nobody talks about it!)..."
We covered this subject numerous times in the past. Here's all the coverage we've found about it so far. As oiaohm put it moments ago in our IRC channels, Alice "can take out complete classes of patents in a single pen stroke." This is what IBM is hoping to avoid, or at least front groups such as OIN. ⬆