Marketing overload and wasted effort
Summary: Examples from the past week of patents whose sole purpose seems to be promotion of some software rather than prospects of successful litigation
UNOFFICIALLY, software patents are a thing of the past in the United States. The USPTO continues to grant them (not for long perhaps), but courts repeatedly reject them and PTAB does too.
We are watching software patents closely. We try to gain insights into how they get granted and where/when.
Days ago we saw this article about R3. The whole article is about a potential patent or two and it certainly seems like a misguided move from the startup. R3 seems not to know that such patents have no validity/weight in a court of law. These are a waste of time and money, but R3 is pursuing these anyway. To quote the article: "Consortium startup R3 has filed two patent applications detailing its work on applying distributed ledger tech to "dynamic" agreements between financial institutions.
"The two applications – submitted last year and published by the the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on Oct. 19 – detail the use of a system for tracking, maintaining and updating agreements via a shared ledger."
These are applications for software patents; the USPTO ought to reject these on grounds like Section 101 (abstract ideas).
Another new example we stumbled upon was Tangoe, which is trying to disguise or 'dress up' software patents using buzzwords like IoT. Based onthis press release, it's another timely example of software patents that should not be granted by the Office.
Another new example comes from ProofPlus. It speaks of an "additional patent for the software engine that drives the ProofPlus electronic document system," but the abstract nature of this is almost self explanatory within the sentence.
Accompanying this puff piece we have this press release [1, 2] titled "Chinese Government Allows Patenting of US Company's Compliance Software for Financial Documents" (very similar to the headline above). Well, China has a patent bubble/gold rush going on right now; SIPO still grants the most hilarious and dumbest of patents, so there's nothing to be proud of here. They are clearly pursuing self-legitimacy in the wrong places.
A few days ago we saw this announcement from VerifyMe, an obscure (to us) firm which describes itself as "a pioneer in patented physical, cyber and biometric technologies" (as if the patents matter).
Here is another new press release which boasts/brags about software patents by stating: "Intensity Analytics, a specialized software company with patented identity and cybersecurity products…"
FICO too has just wasted money pursuing software patents and then issuing a press release about them [1, 2]. Not enforceable post-Alice, but hey, at least they can use the "p" word to impress potential shareholders.
Here is another days-old press release that says "Enterprise IP management software is an automation system for modern corporate that supports in the tracking of patents, trademarks, copyrights and IP."
These things barely work, but there's plenty of marketing for them. Now, here's a funny claim from British media a few days ago:
Crowdfunding in August 2015 led to industrial design, hardware, software, packaging and a patent.
Paul added: "Just two per cent of patents become products. But with passion you can do it."
Where does that figure come from? Is it made up?
In conclusion, a lot of the media and especially press releases tend do market software around the idea that there's a patent (or several patents) on it. Classic example of patents as means of marketing rather than any practical value. █
Share this post: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.Permalink 
In spite of misguided campaigns to accumulate/hoard tens of thousands of patents and then cross-license these, courts do not see the legitimacy of most of these patents
Examples from the past week of patents whose sole purpose seems to be promotion of some software rather than prospects of successful litigation
A roundup of recent takes and spin surrounding the decision of the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS), in which is was ruled that lawsuits in the Eastern District of Texas can be shifted to other venues (closer to the alleged infringements, typically involving dubious software patents)
Links for the day
PTAB, which invalidates a lot of software patents, receives broad support from everyone but those who profit from patent litigation; we present a roundup
The American Intellectual Property Lawyers Association (AIPLA), a front group of people who profit from mass litigation, is pressuring politicians and USPTO officials to reduce the quality of patents, remove barriers to frivolous lawsuits, and generally put the interests of prosecutors/trolls ahead of the interests of technologists
Belgium's representatives might need further scrutiny, say inside sources, for they have been enabling some rather dubious activity which merits inconvenient questions
Billions of euros from EPO stakeholders are mishandled and Battisteli even builds himself a bar using that money
Amgen's aggressive patent strategy, culminating even in embargoes, leaves Amgen executives with blood on their hands (but also a lot of patent fees from serial litigation)
The company which has been reduced to just a patent troll that uses software patents to demand many millions of dollars finally hits a wall (against Sega)
As virtually every court ruling in the US is against software patents (more so at higher courts) the US patent office accepts that it can no longer issue such patents, according to rumours/gossip
The Open Invention Network (OIN), whose CEO used to talk about how Microsoft would attempt to pass patents for patent trolls to attack GNU/Linux, adds Canon as a community member and we are attempting to keep track of Microsoft's intricate shell game (securing a multi-billion dollar patent 'tax' on Linux)
Apparently, according to the patent microcosm, Google runs the world and software patents are very evil only when Google gets them
Coverage regarding patents in Europe is still (nearly) monopolised by the patent microcosm, i.e. the 'industry' that profits when many patents are granted and a lot of lawsuits get filed
The European Patent Office (EPO) comes under renewed pressure from Claudine Lepage, who is about the same age as Battistelli but isn't tolerating him, saying that he directly impacts the reputation of France in international institutions
Links for the day
A true testament to the sordid state of sites which claim to cover patent matters but are actually false marketing disguised as "news" or "advice"
Links for the day
Benoît Battistelli turns out to still be involved in Saint-Germain-en-Laye politics
The cartoon anticipates/extrapolates the impact of the latest reform on the future patent quality and possible consequences for holders of European Patents after Brexit
In spite of the suspicious absence of real coverage/journalism regarding the Unitary Patent (as opposed to puff pieces penned by Team UPC), voices come out in opposition of the Unitary Patent and comments continue to be deleted (usually by Team UPC, which orchestrates a media blackout on UPC matters)
Now that the European Commission openly intervenes in matters pertaining to the EPC and granted patents, will it belatedly revoke all these software patents (granted over the years by the EPO)?
A truly extraordinary situation at the EPO, where laws are being violated in the name of so-called 'production' and truth is treated as "defamation" and attacked vehemently
Issues for the UPC have become too much for momentum to be gained anywhere across Europe, resulting in decay and perhaps abandonment
Links for the day
The European Patent Office (EPO) can only be mentioned in a positive way/context in IP Kat, as Battistelli and his cronies may celebrate deletion of comments critical of them
Links for the day
Apple and Samsung are going to court again and again, much of the time just to bicker/argue about stupid design patents like rounded corners
An epidemic of censorship around the Unitary Patent (UPC) and the European Patent Office (EPO) belatedly receives a lot more attention
Recalling the time Battistelli was considered unfit for the job of Vice-President (let alone President)
Source: Software Patents Purely for Marketing Purposes in an Age When These Aren't Enforceable Anyway
No comments:
Post a Comment