THE lies being disseminated with regards to software patents are hardly new. We already know, based on US courts, that software patents are generally abstract. They're therefore not valid, even if the USPTO grants some, having cherry-picked 35 U.S.C. €§ 101 cases to misinterpret caselaw. We also know that all those software patents in Europe barely stand a chance in European courts. The next batch of Daily Links will contain several more outcomes where European Patents got squashed. It's not cheap (the process takes money), but at the end we see that the European Patent Office (EPO) under António Campinos and Benoît Battistelli just issues a load of junk. Even examiners complain about it; it harms morale.
"We already know, based on US courts, that software patents are generally abstract."A few hours ago we caught up with Managing IP, a site bought by a nefarious bunch that promotes litigation and fronts for lawyers. Well, Managing IP is at it again, posting spam for private companies (for a fee!) and even for firms that viciously lie to promote software patents in Australia. So you get a rough idea where their money comes from...
They've also just published summaries and headlines which use the term "IP harvesting"; aside from "AYE PEE" (IP) being a deliberate lie (propagandistic misnomer), harvesting? Seriously? What a disgraceful site... and this one comes from an author who's a megaphone of patent trolls and Team UPC.
"A few hours ago we caught up with Managing IP, a site bought by a nefarious bunch that promotes litigation and fronts for lawyers."Days apart the site was calling software patents "CIIs" or "computer-implemented inventions," then speaking of "certainty" rather than validity. It's about Australia, under the headline "Rokt decision boosts certainty on CIIs in Australia" (no, Australia does not allow software patents, but law firms try to figure out ways around that). From the outline:
Businesses will need to think carefully about how to draft claims for computer-implemented inventions – and may need to protect them as trade secrets
"That's just Managing IP in a nutshell; like the other site founded by the same scholar (IP Kat), this one became the very opposite of honest and anything remotely scholarly."It's about finding loopholes and sneaking in patents that likely aren't eligible. So at the end they might get some fake patents that don't stand a chance in courts; but since not many parties have sufficient budgets for a challenge/day in court, they might settle or desist anyway. Managing IP is crafting propaganda pieces like these on average twice per day. Nowadays the business model also includes ghosting for law firms. That's just Managing IP in a nutshell; like the other site founded by the same scholar (IP Kat), this one became the very opposite of honest and anything remotely scholarly. ⬆