European Patent Office (EPO) President António Campinos and his predecessor Battistelli have both promoted illegal software patents in Europe. They know those patents cannot be legally granted, so they make up new words, buzzwords, acronyms, misleading terms and sometimes they ride hype waves -- the same ones Iancu at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is riding as well because 35 U.S.C. €§ 101 otherwise stands in the way.
"This is of course most devastating to those who cannot afford legal battles -- those who can be abused -- threatened with litigation or actually sued -- and be compelled to shell out 'protection money' (for patents that are not valid)."We've entered a new kind of 'era' in the patent system; many patents can now be presumed invalid. It just takes money (petitions or court time) to prove the invalidity. This is of course most devastating to those who cannot afford legal battles -- those who can be abused -- threatened with litigation or actually sued -- and be compelled to shell out 'protection money' (for patents that are not valid). In last night's daily links we provided about a dozen new examples of software patents perishing in the US; we stopped covering such pertinent cases last year because priorities have changed. What hasn't changed is this reality of software patents being worthless garbage.
Over in IRC, oiaohm pointed out this paper that says: "In German bifurcated litigation system, in 12% of infringement cases where infringement was found by the courts, the infringed patent was eventually invalidated."
Got that? We've heard similar stories from the US lately. But nowadays Europe becomes more of the same. Caselaw centered around SCOTUS and the Federal Circuit (CAFC) is used, sometimes in Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) inter partes reviews (IPRs) and sometimes in court cases, to throw out patents which were deemed "infringed". Well, if "1+1=2" is a patent, then everything and everyone is infringing, but the patent itself is a joke.
This past weekend Benjamin Henrion said that "CAFC belongs to the patent industry, fully captured court. SCOTUS vs CAFC is a 10:0 score at the moment."
"CAFC actually improved in recent years," I responded, as "SCOTUS has overturned CAFC decisions from the Rader -- not Sharon Prost -- era."
Over the weekend Henrion did some research into Openwashing Institutionalised NPEs (OIN) -- a subject that we covered here in relation to that awful EU paper. We nowadays find ourselves having to rely on our own research because investigative reporting in the area of patents barely exists. Henrion's tweets contain more information in them than this 'shopping list' journalism (a data dump of no value, entitled generically "Patents were assigned in New Hampshire from Nov. 3 to Nov. 10" as if it's machine-generated). We've also just seen this 'article' from the patent maximalists of "Bloomberg Law" -- a site that constantly pushes for litigation and for abstract patents under the guise of the "hey hi" (AI) hype, a buzzword resurrected for some corporate agenda. The site is composed almost purely by the litigation industry and for the litigation industry; but it's presented as "news". Billionaire Michael Bloomberg has no money for journalists. Instead he lets 'news' (self-promotional corporate propaganda) be written by lawyers, such as Yohan Liyanage and Kathy Berry of Linklaters LLP in this case. They say that "[t]he software code underlying the AI system may be protected by literary copyright, although its functionality and underlying algorithms may not (as copyright protects the expression of ideas and not the ideas themselves). Training datasets may also be protected by literary copyright if they are sufficiently creative and, in the European Union, potentially also by the separate “sui generis” database right if they have been subject to sufficient investment. All elements of an AI system (code, algorithms, data etc.) may comprise trade secrets if they are kept confidential."
Then it proceeds to the usual suggestion that such code should also have patents on it. Because hey, why the heck not? More litigation! More money for lawyers like them.
But getting back to the point, Henrion took note of this new agenda of an EU conference. "Open Source Beyond 2020" is the title of this conference and it "does not even mention the threat of software patents, especially with Unitary software Patents and patent trolls, one of the top worries for software companies and developers..."
Well, take a quick look at who's in this conference. These people do not represent FOSS, but the EU tells us that they do. The likes of OIN, i.e. front groups for the interests of IBM et al. Henrion also wrote: "The GNOME Foundation now wants 1M USD. They have also failed to answer FFII's demand. Time for an open letter #gnome #troll #oin"
As an associate of ours put it this morning: "Any word on how GNOME will deal with the patent troll? Better for them to fight software patents in general but it looks like they will make the mistake of aiming for the individual troll instead."
They're being led by OIN, which clearly uses the wrong approach -- the software patents-friendly approach. Henrion was rightly upset to see OIN working and co-authoring papers with Fraunhofer. "We suffered for 20 years with the Fraunhofer MP3 patents," he said. "People have short memories."
OIN calls them "charitable"...
Then again, look who runs OIN.
IAM is meanwhile preparing another software patents lobbying 'event'. It's coming up this week (2 days from now) and hype waves will be used to promote software patents, with front groups such as CIPU in the shadows, based on this page. Looking through the list of speakers, it's very much as revealing as it gets; Grant Philpott (EPO), Microsoft and others in this IAM event. Philpott threatened me for showing his E-mail about Microsoft et al. EPO is deeply corrupt and it threatens those who produce evidence of it. The EPO is a bullying organisation, but that's "small potatoes" for the likes of Philpott; he used to work in the Army, which literally kills people. Is it Philpott or Pol Pot?
Henrion took note of the next EPO phase: "EPO now uses software patents instead of CII: "Previously, Philpott was Chief Operating Officer in the information communication technology sector, where he was at the forefront of ensuring the EPO’s stable and predictable approach to software patenting." http://www.iam-events.com/events/iot-ip-2019/speakers-6e588d27158140d98ee1f35b75c3e976.aspx …"
They're so shameless about it. They're doing illegal things. And going back to OIN, watch how it not only participates in the EPO's software patents advocacy events but also IAM's (the patent trolls' lobby):
Mirko Boehm, our Linux System Definition Director, will join senior executives from Bosch, Telefonica, and Siemens in a panel discussion to address the “New Protection Paradigms” during the IoT IP conference November 20 in Munich, Germany. Experts estimate there will be 22.5 billion IoT devices globally by 2025. IAM’s IoT Intellectual Property (IP) conference provides a platform for senior IP decision makers across industries to discuss the opportunities, challenges and strategies which are rapidly changing in a world that depends on interoperability and security, increasingly through the use of Open Source Software (OSS). Register here: http://www.iam-events.com/…/event-summary-6e588d27158140d98…
As Open Source Software (OSS) continues to transform software development — from start-up companies to worldwide enterprises — the conversations are shifting towards new business models, technology’s impact on all industries, and the intersection of open source and standards. Our Director for the Linux System Definition, Mirko Boehm, has co-authored “The Relationship Between Open Source Software and Standard Setting,” a Joint Research Centre (JRC) Policy Report for the European Commission (EC). It will be presented during its “Open Source Beyond 2020 – Powering a Digital Europe” workshop in Belgium Nov 14-15. https://ec.europa.eu/…/workshop-about-future-open-source-so…
#opensource #linux #patent #openinventionnetwork