Tag Archive for USPTO

Tech Titans Crush Patent Reform

Tech Titans Crush Patent ReformJeff John Roberts at GigaOM reports there is a battle going on in Washington DC over patent reform. Some in DC are attempting to rewrite the broken patent system. Under the current patent laws, what the author calls the struggling old guard firms can exploit the patent system to abuse monopolies over basic software concepts from decades ago. The result has been to smother start-ups and weigh down vibrant parts of the tech economy with frivolous lawsuits; lawyers get fat at the expense of those who are building real businesses.

Microsoft and IBM gutted a key House billThe latest push by Congress to fix the software patent problem suffered a setback after Congress allowed Microsoft and IBM to gut a key House bill that would have made it easier for victims to push back. TechEye explains that the “covered business method” (CBM) program drew the ire of Microsoft (MSFT) and IBM (IBM). The changes proposed would have sped up the method for the Patent Office to get rid of low-quality software patents. Under the reformed program, MSFT and IBM could not sue someone until the Patent Office considered if the patent was viable. TechEye reports that IBM flexed its political muscle (cash?) to stop the effort to expand the CBM program. An IBM spokesperson said that while “we support what Mr. Goodlatte’s trying to do on trolls, if the CBM is included, we’d be forced to oppose the bill.

The upshot according to GigaOM is that for the second time in three years, the U.S. is poised to pass a law that will make cosmetic changes to the patent system without addressing the root cause — garbage software patents — that has made the system a mockery and a byword for legalized extortion.

Patent OfficeThe article claims that reformers shouldn’t despair quite yet. GigaOM cites sources close to the legislative process that think real reform could still happen if powerful senators prevail and if opponents outgun Microsoft and its allies in the grubby money and lobbyist game. GigaOM lays out how the reform was de-railed.

Money Talks in the House

The chair of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R. Va.), was scheduled to bring his much-touted patent bill for a vote. The bill arrived on schedule — but it was a neutered version.

Fat cat, moneyA key provision, which would have provided a way to challenge software patents at the Patent Office, is no longer in the bill, which Fat cat money passed 33-5 vote by the committee. The change is significant, the author says because it means victims of patent bullies must still pay millions to challenge the patents in federal court or, as most do, simply swallow hard and pay a licensing fee.

Mr. Goodlatte’s decision to drop the provision is a victory for IBM and Microsoft, which have stacks of old software patents that provide licensing revenue even as their product lines sputter. It’s also a victory for trolls, which the article says are shell companies backed by private equity firms and lawyers that use patents (often obtained from Microsoft and others under a “privateering” arrangement) to wage ruinous legal war against everyone from Martha Stewart to individual users. (rb- Click here to read about IBM’s efforts to Patent Patent Trolling)

LobbistsAccording to reports, the change to the Goodlatte bill came after intense lobbying from groups linked to Microsoft, IBM, and others. The account was confirmed by a source close to Google (GOOG) and other groups that pushed for the provision to challenge software patents.

They outspent the living shit out of us,” said the source, who did not want to be named. He said that the companies spent heavily to lobby Democrats on the Committee and freshman Republicans, forcing Mr. Goodlatte to remove the provision rather than seeing it voted down at this stage.

A source with a lobbying group allied with Microsoft said the software giant’s role had been overstated, and that the change in the bill was less about money than it was about “shoe leather” lobbying.

Patent reform in the Senate

Electronic Frontier Foundation If we had a quarter of the people who opposed SOPA supporting this anti-patent troll law, we’d win,Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) told the author. Mr. Schumer was joined by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, to talk patent reform and his up his bill to take on trolls, which he said are “preying on New York’s technology industry.”

Mr. Schumer is pushing a bill that includes the key provision about software patents that was stripped from the House bill. Schumer’s support is significant, not only because he carries clout in the Senate, but because he succeeded in including a similar provision aimed at frivolous financial services patents in the America Invents Act of 2011.

Other patent reform bills are circulating in the Senate including similar bills from Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Va.) and Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tx.). According to the source tied to Google, Mr. Leahy has signaled that his bill is a “Christmas tree,” meaning other politicians can hang their preferred provisions atop it; the bill that will ultimately get a vote on the Senate floor will likely contain a provision to challenge software patents.

Washington insiders said patent legislation is one of the few bipartisan initiatives available to members of Congress, who are eager to notch legislative achievements before the mid-term campaign season begins next summer. This means that the bills are expected to go to a full floor vote in the House and Senate by early 2014 and that a markup session on a final bill will take place in the spring — the only question is which version will prevail.

The endgame

There’s months to go till conference committee,” said the source close to the reform lobby, predicting that the balance of power will tilt towards the software patent reform camp, as Google and others ramp up lobbying efforts. The source tied to Microsoft, unsurprisingly, panned this prediction and declared that challenges to software patents are now a “third rail” that most in Congress don’t want to touch.

The outcome will be determined in large part by money, and whether Google and the other companies that recognize the harm caused by software patents (Twitter (TWTR) is another) are willing to seize the chance at reform that is within their grasp.

Today, attitudes have changed after a steady parade of patent horror stories: Boston University using a 1997 patent to sue Apple and seek an iPhone ban; a troll using a 1998 patent from a Holocaust foundation to shake down the New York Times; a troll lawyer who boasts he likes to “go thug,” and is pressing an extortion campaign against hundreds of companies.

the patent system is out of handAll of this has led everyone from small app developers to President Obama to suggest the patent system is out of hand. After years of asking defendants to take it on faith that the system is working, it’s now up to Microsoft and others to justify that their ancient software patents — which award 20-year monopolies in a fast-moving industry — do more good than harm.

 rb-

While I’m not a lawyer, this seems pretty messed up to me. But that is the magic of Democracy, we get the leadership we elect.

 

Related article

 

Ralph Bach has been in IT long enough to know better and has blogged from his Bach Seat about IT, careers, and anything else that catches his attention since 2005. You can follow him on LinkedInFacebook, and Twitter. Email the Bach Seat here.

POTUS Declares War on Patent Trolls

POTUS Declares War on Patent TrollsPresident Barack Obama has declared that it is time to get tough on “patent trolling.” Paul Marks at New Scientist writes that when ordinary activities like using Wi-Fi in a coffee shop or updating smartphone apps provoke lawsuits you know something is seriously amiss with the legal system. Firms that buy up obvious patents that the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) should never have granted in the first place are called patent trolls according to the author.

US Patent and Trademark OfficeThe troll then “asserts” these patents by threatening to sue businesses that infringe them. Many will then settle out of court and pay an often business-crippling license fee.

As followers of Bach Seat know, there are a number of patent troll lawsuits related to wireless.  In 2011, Boston University’s law school estimated that dealing with patent trolling cost businesses in the US $29 billion (rb- which I originally covered here).

Seal of the President of the United StatesPresident Obama says the cash should have been spent on generating products, services, and jobs. So the White House is asking Congress to force the USPTO to narrow the scope of patents within the next six months so that whole fields cannot be trolled. Mr. Obama also wants to prevent patents from being asserted against the users of technologies, like coffee shops, rather than manufacturers. The White House says trolls will have to come clean about their identity, and not hide their “abusive litigation and settlement extraction” behind a thicket of shell companies.

This is a bold step forward by President Obama, and if these legislative proposals are enacted the playing field will be leveled,” Alan Schoenbaum, general counsel for the troll-fighting web hosting firm Rackspace told New Scientist. What’s crucial, Mr. Schoenbaum says, is that the President’s changes make sure trolls have something to lose when they fail in court. In essence, the U.S. legal system is unbalanced. In the UK, for instance, the loser pays. “That keeps frivolous lawsuits down to a minimum,” he says. “But ‘loser pays’ is rare in the U.S.

Rackspace logoThe author asks how can patent trolls be identified? Rackspace’s Schoenbaum says there are plenty of ways, “Trolls don’t invent, make or develop anything. Between 70 and 90% of their patents are software or business-method patents, and in virtually all cases the patent is invalid.

But San Francisco-based, “patent buster” Gregory Aharonian, who invalidates patents by finding previous inventions using the same ideas, told New Scientist he thinks it will be trickier to identify patent trolls. He told the author, “It is going to be hard for Obama to deal with the troll definition problem … Anyone who asserts an invalid patent, under any conditions, is a troll.” Mr. Aharonian says that some large technology firms behave like trolls when they assert overly broad or obvious patents they never exploit.

The only move that will crush the troll phenomenon is vastly improved patent quality, Mr. Aharonian says. “What upsets people Stack of moneymore is not the assertion tactics, but the crap being asserted.”

 rb-

This story barely had a full news cycle. The opportunity is dead and lost as the White House spin machine deals with the PRISM spying scandal.

Related articles
  • Stop Patent Trolls (sweenylegal.com)

 

Ralph Bach has been in IT long enough to know better and has blogged from his Bach Seat about IT, careers, and anything else that catches his attention since 2005. You can follow him on LinkedInFacebook, and Twitter. Email the Bach Seat here.

Anti-Patent Troll Bill Introduced

A newAnti-Patent Troll Bill Introduced bill introduced in the House of Representatives attempts to deter frivolous patent litigation. The bill would force unsuccessful patent plaintiffs to cover defendants’ legal costs according to Daily Wireless. Introduced by Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR) and co-sponsored by Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), the Saving High-Tech Innovators from Egregious Legal Disputes (SHIELD) Act is limited to patents related to computer hardware and software.

House of RepresentaivePatent trolls don’t create new technology and they don’t create American jobs,” DeFazio said in a news release. “They pad their pockets by buying patents on products they didn’t create and then suing the innovators who did the hard work and created the product.”

The article explains that patent trolls often buy broad patents. The purchase allows them to file flimsy lawsuits against multiple companies for infringement. Despite very thin evidence to back their lawsuits, companies are often forced to settle. They settle because going to court can easily cost over $1 million in legal costs even if the company prevails, explained DeFazio in a press release.

Loser pays

Electronic Frontier FoundationThe Electronic Frontier Foundation explains the idea behind the SHIELD Act is simple. A plaintiff needs to believe that a defendant actually infringes a valid patent before it sues. If it doesn’t, then the plaintiff could be on the hook for the costs of litigation. They would also have to cover the winning party’s attorneys’ fees (which can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars in some cases).

Fee shifting, often called “loser pays,” is not a new idea. It’s long existed in copyright law, it allows a court to award the winning party costs and fees in certain cases. In patent litigation, the EFF says this type of provision would help tilt the playing field slightly more in favor of the good guys. Fee shifting would empower innovators to fight back while discouraging trolls from threatening lawsuits to start.

The EFF has set up a website defendinnovation.org to lead the battle against patent trolls and reform the U.S. Patent Office.

rb-

Voter apathySigh – Today is primary election day here in the U.S. and I just got back from voting and a whopping 417 people in my neighborhood had voted. There are almost 17,000 people 18 years or old.

Voter apathy has everything to do with everything about where the US is today, including patent reform. Who are the politicians going to listen to?  I have covered the patent mess for a while here, here, here, and here. I doubt the political clout me and my 416 other neighborhood voters even matter when compared to the millions of dollars that Apple, Google, ATT, and the rest spend on lobbyists in Washington and Lansing to buy the legislation they want.

Have a nice day!

Related articles

Ralph Bach has been in IT long enough to know better and has blogged from his Bach Seat about IT, careers, and anything else that catches his attention since 2005. You can follow him on LinkedInFacebook, and Twitter. Email the Bach Seat here.

Patent Trolls Cost the US $29 Billion

Patent Trolls Cost the US $29 BillionThe United States patent system is costing the industry more than $29 billion a year in unnecessary legal fees. A Boston University study crunched the numbers and worked out that the legal action conducted by “patent trolls” cost U.S. companies an estimated $29 billion during 2011.

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) logoFortune defines patent trolls as entities that own the intellectual rights to innovations without innovating anything themselves, so-called “non-practicing entities.” They buy patents to sue infringers. According to the study, last year, 1,150 companies defended themselves against 5,842 patent troll lawsuits. Nearly half of those companies made less than $100 million during the year, which showed the authors that patent trolls aren’t just a problem for large firms, but rather a problem for smaller firms who have less money to invest in their own research.

The result is that the companies lost $29 billion in direct costs – legal and licensing fees. The study did not estimate indirect losses for defendants in things like delays in new products, loss of market share, or the need to change products.

Study authors James Bessen and Michael Meurer also found that the patent troll costs have escalated since 2005 when the study found a total of 1,401 claims were $6.6 billion in direct costs. The authors say increasing patent litigation in the U.S. is a significant tax on investment in innovation. To put the figure into perspective the total U.S. spending on research and development is $249 billion in 2009 but it is still a big tax.

Bessen and Meurer said it was rubbish that asserting patents played a socially valuable role in enabling small inventors to realize greater profits from their ideas. The report said that the costs of defending such legal action meant these organizations had less money to invest in their own research. The report claims that patent lawsuits were a social loss and not a transfer of wealth as the trolls claim.

rb-

I have followed patent trolls for a while here, here, and here.

The ineptitude of Washington to do anything right enables patent trolls. The report concludes “The rapid growth and high cost of NPE litigation …  should set off an alarm warning [to] policymakers that the patent system still needs significant reform to make it a truly effective”

Most reasonable people should agree with the study’s recommendation to increase transparency in the patent system and that the courts should rigorously supervise patent damages awards to make sure that damages are proportional to the value of the patented technology.

Related articles
  • Patent Absurdity: Trolling the Courts for Profits (aleksandreia.com)

 

Ralph Bach has been in IT long enough to know better and has blogged from his Bach Seat about IT, careers, and anything else that catches his attention since 2005. You can follow him on LinkedInFacebook, and Twitter. Email the Bach Seat here.

Techs Add Ads In Everything

The New York Times is reporting that Apple Computers has filed an application with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to patent to puts ads in everything. They  are working on a technology called “Advertisement in Operating System.” Advertisement in Operating System will display advertising on almost anything that has a screen of some kind: computers, phones, televisions, media players, game devices, and other consumer electronics.

The patent application claims the distinctive feature of the patent is it that doesn’t simply invite a user to pay attention to an ad — it also compels attentionApple’s (AAPL) technology, according to the NYT, can freeze the device until the user clicks a button or answers a test question to prove that he or she has dutifully noticed the commercial message. Because this technology would be embedded in the innermost core of the device, the ads could appear on the screen at any time, no matter what one is doing.

Within this new technology, Apple has developed what it calls an “enforcement routine” that makes people watch ads they may not want to watch. What the application calls the “enforcement routine” entails administering periodic tests, like displaying on top of an ad a pop-up box with a response button that must be pressed within five seconds before disappearing to confirm that the user is paying attention.

These tests “can be made progressively more aggressive if the user has failed a previous test,” the application says. One option makes the response box smaller and smaller, requiring more concentration to find and banish. According to the NYT,  the system can require that the user press varying keyboard combinations, the current date, or the name of the advertiser upon command, again demonstrating “the presence of an attentive user.” The system also has a version for music players, inserting commercials that come with an audible prompt to press a particular button to verify the listener’s attentiveness.

The Apple inventors, including Apple CEO Steve Jobs, whose name is the first listed on the application, say the advertising would enable computers and other consumer electronics products to be offered to customers free or at a reduced price. In exchange, recipients would agree to view the ads (rb- and give their personal data). If down the road, users found the advertisements and the attentiveness tests unendurable, they could pay to make the device “ad-free” on a temporary or permanent basis.

Google logoThe Download Squad points out that over at Google (GOOG), a “highly praised” feature of the newly announced Chrome OS‘s “totally new” approach to security sounds similar to Apple’s plan for forced ads. Chrome OS is reported to be self-healing. If the OS detects something it does not like, a “verified boot” will restore files to their previous state as if nothing ever happened. Since it is Google’s OS they get to decide what is or isn’t malicious. It is easy to imagine that anything which interferes with the delivery of Google-powered content would be considered malicious. Applications like AdBlock or AdSweep which block Google ads may not be allowed. Chrome OS will put Google in complete control over the delivery platform its audience is using.

Microsoft logoMicrosoft (MSFT) has experimented with ads in software since June 2007 with Microsoft Works. Now Microsoft is working on placing advertisements in a more conspicuous location next year with a free version of Office. Office Starter 2010 is a free version of Office that is pre-installed on some PCs. It will include a small Microsoft display ad in the lower-right corner of the screen and offers versions of Word and Excel with fewer functions than the regular paid ones.

In Office Starter 2010, Microsoft is not seeking revenue from advertising. They are using the ads only to promote the full-featured, commercial versions of Office. The company plans to take customers “along a journey to educate them about the product,” said Bryson Gordon, a director on Microsoft’s Office team said in the NYT piece. Microsoft will use a gentle approach to the up-sell. Customers can ignore the ads, which will sit passively in the corner of the screen,

rb-

The tech world is moving backward taking cues from Free-PC and ZapMe because the public is cheap. Apple, Google and MSFT are counting on the fact their product are so “insanely great” and integrated into our lives that we as consumers can’t live without Gmail or iTunes. Now that we are all junkies of cheap tech, the tech firms are going to exploit this. The price of free starts with a text ad then it will be a banner ad then a pop-up and then a full video where you have to interact with the device to use it.

MSFT, Apple, and Google have huge organizations to run, CEO’s and Wall $treet bankers that need their bonuses so the move to monetize all their services has just begun. The big question is how far will this go? Will the pillars of tech add so many clicks, surveys, ads, and forced interactions to eventually make their products unwieldy and useless. Look where FreePC and ZapMe are today.

Forced advertising is not some new idea lots of malware force their victims to view web pages they did not request.

 

Ralph Bach has been in IT long enough to know better and has blogged from his Bach Seat about IT, careers, and anything else that catches his attention since 2005. You can follow him on LinkedInFacebook, and Twitter. Email the Bach Seat here.