Hemp to rescue milk prices.

Low milk prices have farmers concerned, and some closing farms altogether. 

Looks like hemp can balance the low milk prices.

https://civileats.com/2019/06/26/could-hemp-be-a-cash-cow-for-dairy-farmers/

How PTO management incompetence is destroying small companies

Someone sent in the following ancedote, which is heard way too
often:

I was at an open house for a small IP law firm about a month ago and
was talking to the IP/research VP of a small biotech. They are a
start-up who have been waiting just over 2 years and still haven't
got a First Action on the Merits on their lead invention. They have
had to let almost everyone go and they are just holding on waiting
for that critical patent. It is so sad.

I am hearing this lament more and more, from biotech startups, software
startups, alternative energy startups. Because of PTO delays, they are
having to abandon patent applications, cripple their companies, and delay
hitting the markets with their products. Patent quality? It's suffering,
as everyone inside and outside the PTO is cutting back on searches (well,
that's more crap to bust in the future for me, though there is already
enough such crap).

If you have more such stories, please send them my way. Congress and the
Obama Administration need to hear this suffering, otherwise it is a waste
of billions of taxpayers' dollars to fund new energy/IT technologies, if
the startups, where much of the innovation will come from, can't protect
their breakthroughs in a timely matter. Otherwise, it is another signal
that the Obama Administration is pursuing an industrial policy that
favors large companies.

The Cross Coalition and Its Star Chamber Letter About Patent Battle

This is an interesting turn in the patent reform battle: The Cross Coalition, a group of companies doing business in green and environmental technologies wrote to Congress opposing the proposed patent reform bill. The Coalition is made up of big biochem companies, startups and similar environmental technology operations. The self-hype about anything green in Washington, the Cross Coalition might just succeed. This is similar to a letter that 430 bio and green companies wrote to Congress in 2007, also opposing the patent reform bill. These patent reform bills should be dumped until a new PTO Director can be installed and can put together respectable consensus within the patent world. The text of the Cross Coalition's letter:

We write today regarding the importance of the United States patent system to our transition to a clean energy economy. Our companies and those we represent are committed to nurturing the innovation pipeline and subsequent domestic manufacturing capacity that will build the next generation of energy efficient, renewable energy, and renewable fuel technologies, creating thousands of American jobs in the process. However, we are concerned with recent legislative proposals to make fundamental changes to the US patent system that we believe would weaken, rather than strengthen, patent protection, putting this innovation pipeline and subsequent American manufacturing capacity at risk. The patent reform legislation that has been introduced would reduce penalties for patent infringement by changing the law of damages. This change would elevate the importance of one of the factors now considered in calculating patent damages. By giving this one factor - apportionment - a preeminent position in damage calculations, proponents of the legislation would have achieved the goal of reducing damage awards. This type of reduction in the value of intellectual property rights could adversely affect the future of our industries in the United States in two ways. First, in order to meet the demands of a low-carbon energy future, the need for innovation in the areas of energy efficiency, energy crops, advanced biofuels, renewable energy, renewable fuels, carbon capture and storage, and environmental technologies is great. Our ability to rapidly innovate in these sectors is critical to ensuring that we and others will be able to effectively meet our mutual goals of reducing carbon dioxide emissions, thereby reducing the impact of global climate change and reinvigorating the American economy with the creation of green jobs. A significant reduction, or elimination of much of the value of the intellectual property that will be generated through this process will have an effect on the availability of the venture capital required, decreasing the speed at which innovation will occur. Second, we anticipate that our economy will flourish as innovation in environmental and climate technology sectors drives the creation of green jobs. Our companies and our members create these jobs as we manufacture and market our patented products and technologies to domestic and international customers. If the current patent system is modified, making it less costly to infringe on existing or future patent rights, we anticipate that our competitive advantage in the global marketplace will be reduced, impacting the creation of green jobs. As proposals are made to change the U.S. patent system, we encourage you to take into account the impact of these proposals on the viability of our burgeoning green economy and its associated green jobs, as well as our ability to attract the capital required to innovate at the necessary pace to effectively combat global climate change. Drastic changes, such as reducing penalties for patent infringement, will only discourage innovation, resulting in reduced investment and lost jobs at a time when the country can least afford it. We believe the American patent system is the best in the world and we look forward to working with you to ensure that it becomes even stronger. Thereby we can continue to encourage the kind of investment, product creation, and job creation that has been the hallmark of our economy for decades, and will ultimately drive our ability to meet the challenges posed by global climate change. Thank you for considering our views on an issue of fundamental significance to innovation in America.

Members of the coalition include: American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE) - Washington, DC Biomass Coordinating Council - Washington, DC Ocean Renewable Energy Coalition - Darnestown, MD EESTech Inc. - Chino Valley, AZ Southwest Windpower - Flagstaff, AZ Ceres, Inc. - Thousand Oaks, CA Fallbrook Technologies Inc. - San Diego, CA Viryd Technologies Inc. - San Diego, CA Mendel Biotechnology, Inc. - Hayward, CA IP Checkups, Inc. - Berkeley, CA Environmental Energy Solutions - West Hartford, CT GreenWorld, LLC - Arvada, CO DuPont - Wilmington, DE EarthLinked Technologies - Lakeland, FL International Applied Engineering, Inc. - Marietta, GA Unicoi Energy Services - Marietta, GA Industrial Resource Group, LLC - Schererville, IN Konarka Technologies, Inc. - Lowell, MA Syngenta - Golden Valley, MN Monsanto - St. Louis, MO Solutia Inc. - St. Louis, MO Energy and Environment Research Center (EERC) - Grand Forks, ND Greentech Capital Advisors - New York, NY ECR International, Inc. - Utica, NY ArborGen, LLC - Summerville, SC PetroTex - Cedar Hill, TX The Stella Group, Ltd - Arlington, VA Powered Green LLC - Madison, WI Terra Moya Aqua, Inc. - Cheyenne, WY

To buy or not to buy WordLogic

BUY: J. David Stewart, Analyst and Publisher, of the The Stewart Report (see this post) - A 25-year veteran of Wall Street, J. David Stewart is also a private professional investor, stock analyst and publisher of The Stewart Report (now in its 15th year of continuous publication). His acumen as an analyst specializing in small and micro-cap securities has earned him wide media attention, including feature stories in: Money, Fortune and Entrepreneur. He's also been quoted in The Washington Post, The Financial Post, The New York Times, The Financial Digest, Investor's Business Daily, The Dick Davis Digest and Barron's. The impact of his thinking is regularly reported in wire service dispatches by CBS Market Watch, Reuters, Bloomberg and Dow Jones News Service, and he is a frequent guest on national radio and television shows, including CNN. WordLogic Corporation's chart is one of the strongest I've seen in months. Admittedly, the recent market environment has resulted in a lot of very sickly looking stock charts, so I've been seeing some pretty bad stuff - but this picture would look outstanding even if I had nothing but bull-market winners to compare it to. After giving up roughly 90 percent of its value during the broad swoon that befell the entire market during 2008, WordLogic started bucking the general trend in early November and spent the next two months building a solid base from which to launch a New Year's rally - one that easily penetrated the short- (20-day), intermediate- (40-day) and long-term (180-day) moving averages, as well as a declining trend line that had represented minor upside resistance for more than six months. Since the beginning of the year, the stock has gained more than 200 percent, culminating on January 20 with a gap opening and subsequent move that tested the major resistance around 85 cents. Given the strong recent rally, I'd look for the stock to fail in this first attempt to break through that barrier, retrace to fill the gap on some short-term profit taking, then launch a rebound that will not only crack the major resistance but carry all the way to the $1.05-$1.10 level. If that takes some time, new resistance could build beyond that point - but if the stock gets there quickly, a further move carrying back to the 52-week high should follow close behind. The former Managing Editor of The Los Angeles Times Syndicate, Larry D. Spears has served as editor for America's foremost political and economic columnists, including Pulitzer Prize-winner Art Buchwald. As Editor of the Hume MoneyLetter, he polished the works of financial luminaries ranging from J. David Stewart to Wall Street Week host Louis Rukeyser and former U.S. Treasury Secretary William Simon. He also authored and edited "The SuperInvestor Files" for Hume Publishing and created the "100 Steps to Wealth" home-study course for Money Magazine. Currently, he is Editor-in-Chief for The Stewart Report and continues to specialize in the use of technical analysis and options trading, having authored four books on those subjects.

Intellectual Ventures buys up Transmeta's portfolio

It is a rather interesting time to buy a microprocessor patent portfolio. Tech PC sales and related probably will drop a bit in 2009. From an article by Rick Merritt in EE Times, (01/28/2009 9:02 PM EST):

SAN JOSE, Calif. ‹ Intellectual Ventures, a patent development and licensing company, has acquired the patent portfolio of Transmeta Corp., a startup that made an unsuccessful bid to develop x86-compatible processors. The portfolio includes more than 140 issued U.S. patents and others pending and issued in the U.S. and elsewhere. The announcement comes as Novafora Inc., a venture-backed company founded in 2004, said it completed the $255.6 million acquisition of Transmeta originally announced in November. Novafora will use Transmeta's technology to boost its video processor designs; Intellectual Ventures will license the Transmeta technology on a non-exclusive basis. "The acquisition of the Transmeta semiconductor patents augments one of the most comprehensive patent portfolios in the semiconductor field which now includes more than 2,000 patents," said Paul Reidy, vice president of semiconductor licensing at Intellectual Ventures. "Some of the recently issued patents detail some of the most interesting breakthroughs in microprocessor architecture we've seen in the last decade or so," he added in a press statement. Transmeta had generated royalty revenues of about $300 million licensing its patents on areas such as low-power processors and code translation to chip makers including Intel Corp. Novafora did not indicate what role the patent transaction played in its purchase of Transmeta. "The addition of Transmeta's power management technology to our video processor will enable us to target Novafora's products to the broadest range of video-oriented devices," said Zaki Rakib, chief executive of Novafora. In November, Novafora announced it entered into a non-exclusive patent license agreement with Advanced Micro Devices. Under the terms of the agreement, AMD transferred to Transmeta 700,000 shares of Transmeta's Series B Preferred Stock held by AMD.

How IP will become a major influence in acquisition and merger deals

From the 15 December issue of the National Law Journal, page 3: More than half of corporate and private equity executives believe that intellectual property will become a more important factor in mergers and acquisitions deals during the next five years, according to a new survey from deal-ranking company, the Mergermarket Group. Eighty-five percent of corporate respondents and 72% of private equity respondents to the survey also said a target company's intellectual property assets had importance equal to or greater than other corporate assets when M&A deals were on the table. K&L Gates and Boston-based consulting firm CRA International sponsored the survey. Given the global increase in patents and trademarks, it's not surprising that intellectual property is becoming a more important factor in M&A deals, said George Dickos, a Pittsburgh lawyer and co-ordinator of K&L Gates' intellectual property practices.

More on WordLogic and The Second of Nine Sisters

WordLogic could vigorously pursue an Olympic-sized pool of legal targets, all of whom will be swimming in litigation. For this very reason, WordLogic has intentionally forestalled litigation against the other offenders until a second, "sister patent" is formally granted. Cumulatively, the Company has nine IP's: There's the one patent that's already been approved, and eight patents that are still pending. Patent pending number two is a close sister patent to the one already granted. Evanshen said it's also for a classical deep-search, content-seeking, predictive, algorithm-based software technology for advanced word recognition - except this one's supercharged. That makes it a powerful playing piece, one that both strengthens and broadens the overall coverage of Company's intellectual property - and therefore its suit against Mercedes-Benz. Technically, in its current state of legal flux, the sister patent is still pending - but it's pending fast! Let me explain: In reviewing the online application - which is the right of the patent applicant - Evanshen told me last week that activity in the file's movement within the U.S. Patent Office suggested that "approval was imminent". He was correct. As part of Tuesday's news release, the Company was able to announce, "The United States Patent and Trademark Office has put WordLogic's second patent pending in a position of allowance. The Company's patent attorneys have filed the necessary response required to have this second patent pending allowed. The Company considers this development significantly important, firstly as an additional asset increasing the value of the Company and secondly with regard to the importance it will have in settling this case. "I, as co-owner of Stewart/Abbott Medical and a U.S. patent that's now pending, all I can say is this: "Man, I sure hope we get a letter like that!" To be in a "position of allowance" means you're all but home, the deal is all but done and you're just waiting for the ink to dry. For WordLogic Corporation, it means: 1) The boundaries of the existing suit are about to extend favorably; and, 2) The case against Mercedes will be much easier to win. This does NOT mean WordLogic needs the sister patent to be victorious or that it needs a second trigger to fire the first gun. No, patent number two is simply extra ammunition to win the case. And I believe it will. And, when it does, defendants in all future cases will fall like dominos, the damage verdicts will become almost predictable and the courtrooms will pay off like casinos. There is a lot in the wind right now, and much of it could send this stock soaring to previously unseen heights. Regardless of the "End Game" and how it's played out, Evanshen is looking at a surprising number of opportunities. It's a fairly complex decision tree, but each of the potential decisions is incredibly lucrative - and virtually all of them could play nicely into the hands of stockholders. The momentum at this point is considerable. Within a month or three, I could easily see the stock returning to its 52-week high of $1.90. Longer term, an out-of-court settlement with Mercedes-Benz or a deep-pocket buyout offer from one of the Googles or Microsofts of the world would certainly put the stock back at its 60-week high of $4.30 - and even that could easily turn out to be the valuation understatement of 2009.

The "S" Class Action Suit (WordLogic In Reverse)x50

In a tobacco suit or other class-action case (such as the asbestos litigation that leveled Johns Manville), you have several hundred people teaming together to sue a major corporation. If they win, lots of little people get lots of checks that they think are big. In the final analysis, though, only the attorneys score big. By comparison, we have one plaintiff - WordLogic Corporation - which is positioning itself to attack as many as 50 companies worldwide. If successful against Mercedes - as it was against Hewlett-Packard - tiny WordLogic stands to be awarded millions upon millions, year after year, with each consecutive victory setting a precedent to win the next - and to win it more easily. Case law is predicated on legal precedent - and, to some extent, WordLogic already has one. Before the Company even went public - and while the patent was still pending - CEO Evanshen won an out-of-court settlement against Hewlett-Packard for $2 million. Technically, the suit was for trademark infringement. Had the patent already been granted, as it now has been, Evanshen believes WordLogic would have received "probably ten times that $2 million amount." In time, dozens of other suits, worth dozens, if not hundreds of millions in damages each, will likely be filed against defendants with names that are just as recognizable as Mercedes-Benz - especially if WordLogic defeats Mercedes-Benz.

The $360 Million-Dollar Door Ding

Obviously, I couldn't begin to put a per-share value on the suit without some idea as to the value of the suit itself. To do that, I needed to know more about the cars with pirated WordLogic software. A lesser professional would have gone to the web, not me. Driven by the dedicated, relentless Southern California work ethic so closely associated with sleepy beach towns, I left work a little early (10 a.m.) to visit Mercedes-Benz of Laguna Niguel (the eleventh largest M-B dealer in the world) because I didn't want to chance a slow Internet connection. To save time, I also chose an uber-fast car to test drive: A race-inspired, "Silver Arrow"-colored 2009 AMG SL63. With a 6.2 liter, 525 HP V-8 motor tied to a seven-speed gear box, it can do zero to 60 in 4.2 seconds, has a top speed of 155 MPH (limited by an electronic "governor"), and is therefore worth every penny of its $152,665 price tag. That sounds like a large sum of money until you realize that M-B of Laguna Niguel sports a lavish "Customer Comfort" area with sumptuous leather chairs to sit in while you rest your wallet and sip complimentary Starbucks coffee as they hand wash your car ... any time you want ... free. So, it all works out. Right? Right! Opulent dealership set-ups such as this - coupled with seriously flawed logic patterns of car guys such as myself - enabled Mercedes-Benz to sell 1,034,700 automobiles in the first 11 months of 2008. December will be reported shortly and raise the figure a bit, but let's just say they are doing one million cars annually. Of those, Andre, my salesman, said about one-third are of the S-Class variety (which are the models with the COMMAND System as standard equipment), suggesting that over 300,000 M-B cars leave showrooms each year with WordLogic technology on board. That was the first number I needed to ascribe a value to the suit. Furthermore, in Mercedes cars that don't include it, the package with the COMMAND system option costs $2,950 additional - that being the second figure I needed. Until Tuesday morning (when the Company issued a news release covering this topic), I guesstimated that at least $200 of that $2,950 could/would/should have been paid in software licensing fees to WordLogic Corporation. Therefore, based on 300,000 Mercedes models sold annually with WordLogic software on board, and with that software worth at least $200, the infringement deprived WordLogic of something like $60 million each year. It was explained to me that, by law, the suit is allowed to go back two years, so that's $120 million in damages right there. However, since M-B knowingly ignored the patent and built COMMAND-equipped cars anyway, WordLogic is entitled to sue for three times that amount. That, according to my math is a $360 million "door ding" against Mercedes - and trust me, I'm good at math. Apparently, I'm a fairly good guesser, too: In the Tuesday news release I just alluded to, the Company said it is seeking "8.6 percent in royalties on the sales of the infringing product that sells for approximately $3,000 to $5,000 per car," and that "treble damages" apply to those models sold "in 2007, 2008, and 2009." Comparatively then, WordLogic's in-house formula equates to low-end damages of about $464.4 million. We'll play it conservative though and use my $360 million number as we compare it to the Company's capital structure. WordLogic has just over 30 million shares outstanding, meaning the suit, on a per-share basis, could deliver shareholders approximately $12 per share in cash. The stock is presently priced under a buck. Now it's your turn to do the math. Remember: Mercedes-Benz is two names, but it's just one company and this is just one patent infringement suit. Truth is, this patent is being blatantly infringed on daily - all over the world! How many devices incorporate predictive text messaging? How many other multi-billion-dollar corporate machines are running on this software? What might be the total amount of damages? Your guess is as good as mine, and I'm sure the aggregate numbers are probably far too large for any of us to believe.

WHY IBM'S KAPPOS IS UNFIT TO BE NEXT PTO DIRECTOR

I am totally opposed to Kappos being appointed as the next PTO Director, for his involvement in multiple IBM efforts over the last ten years to undermine any attempts to improve patent quality. It would be a horrible message to send to inventors to have a lawyer from the most abusive patent playing company, IBM, as head of the PTO. One reason the PTO's backlog is so great is that companies such as IBM flood the PTO with tons of crappy patent applications, to jam up the system making it hard for competitors to get patents that could challenge IBM's markets. Anyone forget IBM's airplane-bathroom-reservation patent? I also post this classic 1997 article from Business Week that pretty much describes how IBM invented trollism (shaking down companies by asserting lots of crappy patents, and some good ones, from their massive portfolio). IBM was a major player in the Software Patent Institute scam (a 1990s effort to deflect any resources from a serious attempt to improve prior art handling at the PTO), and is a major player in the SPI's child, the 2000s scam otherwise known as the Public Patent Peer Review project. For many of these undermining efforts, Kappos was involved. He should not be awarded Directorship of the PTO. Slashdot this week has a summary of criticisms of IBM's attempts to get U.S. bailout money so it can fire U.S. workers and move more of its jobs overseas. "As his company was striving to hide the bodies of its laid off North American workers, IBM CEO Sam Palmisano stood beside president Obama and waxed patriotic: 'We need to reignite growth in our country.', Palmisano said. 'We need to undertake projects that actually will create jobs." While Sam positions IBM to get a slice of the $825 billion stimulus pie, IBM is quietly cutting thousands of jobs and refusing to release the numbers or locations." The country deserves someone coming from some other company to be the next PTO Director, if the next choice is a corporate one. Kappos is a much smarter version of Jon Dudas, and will be as effective, if not more, in overseeing the further degradation of PTO capabilities with regards to patent examination (which again, is in IBM's interests). So everyone, make copies of the BusinessWeek article below, and send it to your Congressional representatives, asking them to not allow any lawyers from IBM to become the next Director of the PTO.

HOW IBM INVENTED TROLLISM

Found in BUSINESSWEEK 17 MAR 1997: BIG BLUE IS OUT TO COLLAR SOFTWARE SCOFFLAWS by Ira Sager, Business Week, 17 March 1997, page 34 Big blue holds more software patents than any other company in the world. That's great for bragging rights, but it does little for the bottom line. Now, however, IBM sees money in that trove of intellectual property - and its efforts to collect are making software companies hoping mad. Note: might as well call this date the formal birth at IBM of trollism Lawyers for Big Blue are searching for software companies that it says should be paying royalties but aren't. Over the past several months, IBM has been quietly pursuing patent claims against such well-known software companies as Oracle, Computer Associates, Adobe Systems, Autodesk, Intuit and Informix. IBM is also pressing a software claim against computer maker Sequent Computer Systems. Note: a lesson well learned by many trolls to follow in the years to come. All thanks to IBM. So far, no lawsuits have been filed, but software companies aren't waiting. Several of them are launching a pre-emptive strike, hiring Silicon Valley's star litigator, Gary Reback, a partner at Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich, Rosati. Two years ago, Reback took on Bill Gates. Representing a handful of Silicon Valley companies, he unsuccessfully tried to get the Justice Department to broaden an antitrust investigation of Microsoft. Now, Reback is hurling charges against IBM similar to those he leveled at Microsoft. "IBM shows up the same way someone might might demand protection money.", he says. Officials at the companies confirm that IBM has contacted them, but most refuse to talk publicly. Note: Peter D. - instead of "troll", you should have suggested "goodfellas" Collecting the patent royalties could add millions to IBM's net profits. In 1995 - the last year IBM released figures - the company took in $500 million from royalties on all patents Note: yet it cannot afford to pay for prior art searches for its patent applications software and hardware alike. Insiders say that senior managers Note: this include Kappos? believe that IBM could collect $1 billion a year from its patents. The software makers that have been contacted by IBM aren't yet willing to help Big Blue reach that goal. They maintain that lot of software patents - IBM's included - are too broad and never should have been issued. IBM's pursuit of royalties, they argue, is an abuse of a patent system that is too lax and does not require an applicant to really prove that the software application is unique. Note: of course, while complaining, these companies did nothing to help organize prior art resources and tools to donate to the PTO. IBM contends it's just trying to protect its intellectual property and get a fair return on the $5 billion yearly tab it runs up on research and development. "What Gary Reback is asking us to do is provide an R&D subsidy to our competitors, and we won't do that.", says Marshall Phelps, IBM's attorney in charge of intellectual property and licensing. Note: Phelps moved over to Microsoft, which is now flooding the PTO with its crappy patent applications, while his groomed successor is Kappos. Some companies are afraid that paying now will set a precedent, making it harder to say no later. "If we sign up with IBM today, then what happens in three or five years, when the patent agreement expires?", asks Oracle patent attorney Allen Wagner. With all the skirmishing that lies ahead, this dispute is still in Version 1.0.

The rest of the story on the Microsoft espionage lawsuit

We are frequently (almost always justifiably) outraged about IBM's antics in the patent procurement and/quality debate. While they don't make your rants nearly as often, I place Microsoft in almost the same company as IBM. An interesting case was reported last week based on a lawsuit filed by Microsoft against an ex-employee (who they fired) who had filed a patent infringement suit against a number of Microsoft customers, alleging he had violated his duty to Microsoft by downloading confidential Microsoft documents while a Microsoft employee that he then used in his lawsuits against their customers. Well, as Paul Harvey used to say, here's "the rest of the story". As is almost always the case, when IBM or Microsoft say anything about patents or patent-related litigation, one should receive it with a somewhat jaundiced eye. A useful note: a candidate to be the next PTO Director, Dave Kappos, is a head patent lawyer at IBM. From the Seattle PI, Feb.2, 2009 here is Miki Mullor's reply to the Microsoft lawsuit against him. His statement does not substantively address Microsoft's allegation that he stole Microsoft's confidential and proprietary information for use against the computer manufacturers:

I am the inventor of U.S. Patent No. 6,411,941 relating to software anti-piracy technology, and Ancora is my company. I applied for my patent in 1998. In 2002, the patent issued from the United States Patent and Trademark Office. In 2003, I approached Microsoft and had several talks with a Microsoft lawyer and employees of Microsoft's AntiPiracy group about my invention and the benefits Microsoft could realize by using it. Microsoft declined and said they had no interest in my invention. We ceased business operations at Ancora in 2005, and Microsoft was the first company to extend me an employment offer. I accepted. When I joined Microsoft, I notified them in writing of Ancora and my patent in both my resume and in my employment agreement. In its complaint against me, Microsoft withheld the portions of these key documents that show this. At the same time I was employed at Microsoft, but unknown to me, Microsoft was developing what is now known as "OEM Activation." OEM Activation is installed on computers made by HP, Dell, Toshiba and others ... to prevent piracy of Microsoft's Windows Vista software installed on those computers. This work was being done in a different department at Microsoft. OEM Activation is a blatant copy of my invention. In June 2008, my company Ancora filed a patent infringement lawsuit against HP, Dell and Toshiba in the federal court in Los Angeles. Microsoft fired me for trying to protect my own invention --- an invention I told them about before they ever hired me. Recently, Microsoft filed a retaliation suit against me personally in Seattle. Microsoft accuses me of lying, deceit, fraud and misappropriation. These are shameful, dishonest attacks on my character by Microsoft - the company that stole my idea in the first place. Their attacks are untrue, and they hurt me and my family. Microsoft basically admits stealing my idea in the complaint they filed because they are asking for a license to my patent. Microsoft would only need a license to my patent if they were infringing it in the first place. My patent case in Los Angeles has been going on for several months now with substantial progress. Clearly, Microsoft and the PC OEMs realized that they have no defense on the merits of the patent case.

The War in Germany and WordLogic

According to CEO Evanshen, the people at Mercedes-Benz appreciated WordLogic's software superiority in assisting with driver operation of the GPS-based navigation system, and incorporated into their cars. But, they "forgot" to pay for it. So in 2005, WordLogic Corporation filed suit. Despite that, Benz continued using the software and eventually bundled it with a Harmon/Kardon Logic 7 sound system, Bluetooth cell-phone support (including a phone book), and made it a cabin-tech feature for all of its prestigious "S-Class" automobiles. In showrooms, the portion of the multimedia package that controls everything is known as the "COMMAND" system. Every component in the multimedia package is intuitively accessed using COMMAND's predictive software - software that Evanshen, the inventors and the attorneys steadfastly maintain is WordLogic's IP. Evanshen also told me that "... because the German car maker (actually he might have called it a "lawless beast") was made fully aware of the patent and ignored it anyway, treble (legalese for triple) damages are in order." The suit against Mercedes-Benz is "unspecified" as far as the dollar amount of damages being sought. If I understand my attorney correctly, an unspecified claim is a "tort claim", wherein the amount to be awarded is left to the Court to determine. This is usually the case when there are claims that don't have an exact value figure. "Plaintiff has been damaged in the amount to be proven or decided at trial," is an example of how the initial complaint might be phrased. Suits of this nature can also claim for "General Damages", which include future losses and cannot be decided - not today, anyway - by calculating receipts, etc.

Here is something for Obama's platform

We sure have gotten to the historical moment when today, the first black U. S. President is about to be sworn in. Many Americans hope that he will make a difference, and implement perceptible, positive changes. I think that our country, as a leader in Internet-driven information, web social activities, and more particularly, in blogosphere, can move the changes forward by coordinating the changes. Because it is not up to one individual only, the US President or a prominent billionaire, but every web citizen to understand and hone up the master plan that the country should abide by. After all, as the common wisdom says, if you fail to plan, you plan to fail. A good start for the plan, or the platform, I found, is something that has been outlined as Reinventing America. Good point - "we need to change our school curriculum by including courses on ethics and business manners. We also need business transparency platform that would establish guidelines for organizational transparency. This would include specific recommendations for both for-profit and non-profit organizations and government bodies. Greater transparency in the nation’s capital will lead America by example." This is a great new deal that avoid the unpleasant, intrusive governmental regulation.

WORKING AT THE IBM VS. WORKING AT PTO

On the Kappos bit, however - granted that the past behavior is that of a quisling, could there not be a scintilla of benefit to bringing in the management style of IBM? Regardless of IBM's manipulating the (Patent) system to their own ends, IBM has had one of the most ruthless, effective and fair management styles. At least it did have, in earlier times (which was pre-PC and women executives, when it was mandatory to wear dark suits, ties and laundered shirts - professionally laundered, not in the home washer). This discipline, which surpassed the military of then (and assuredly the military of now, that permits work clothes and tiger suits off-base and battle-rank is worn openly) was the epitome of equality in the one most important aspect: The higher one rose in IBM, the tougher it got. A single grievance by client or employee resulted in immediate reallocation of your resources until a hearing was held. If you were exonerated, the employee was terminated and you were free to pick up the pieces. At the PTO, the situation is ack-basswards: The main pressure is put on the lower ranks, with the incentive to rise being exponential increases in pay and bonuses with far, far less responsibilities - not to mention the relief from escaping the production system used as a cattle-prod on examiners. A common refrain of managers is that they are "constrained" by HR and OPM (from doing their jobs). On more than one occasion, I have been told that an examiner cannot be reassigned because the person is of a protected persuasion and a) the manager/supervisor/director fears scrutiny, or b) the manager/supervisor/director is being already scrutinized or c) the employee has a civil rights appeal pending. In short, the unprotected lower class is overworked and under-supervised, the "protected" lower class is under-worked and under-supervised, the middle management is overpaid, underworked and inexperienced. While the customers - the US Citizens and the Country - are abused and neglected. So, bring in a lackey of IBM. Perhaps some of the discipline from the old school will rub off. It might sound tough, but it was a hell of a lot easier to work in a system where your supervisor was paid twice your salary - because they worked twice as hard - rather than the upside-down world of today's PTO.

Microsoft gets awarded yet another excrement patent

Case in point - one of the revolting pieces of fecal patents just issued recently to Microsoft. It demonstrates yet again the contempt of large companies do to any prior art searching, the love of large companies to flood the PTO with crap applications to choke the system while whining about others who do the same [now known as Chandlerism], and once again, it demonstrates the PTO'S COMPLETE AND TOTAL MISMANAGEMENT OF PRIOR ART SEARCHING AND RESOURCES. When Jon Dudas told Congress that most, if not all, measures of quality at the PTO are their highest in 25 years, he deliberately LIED to Congress. Whoever is paying Dudas to wreck the PTO is getting their monies worth. The patent. The USPTO belched/oozed/barfed out U.S. patent 7,437,290 to Microsoft: Automatic censorship of audio data for broadcast U.S. Patent 7,437,290 MICROSOFT (filed October 2004, issued October 2008) Despicable claim language aside, this patent is a method for detecting undesired speech in broadcasts, censoring (deleting, bleeping) the undeisred speech and updating probability tables for the presence of the recognized speech. COMPLETELY UNINNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY. The claim is attached below. So how much tremendous amounts of prior art, with Bill Gates' billions to sustain decent prior art searching (NOT - a lesson well learned by its stepchild Intellectual Ventures) - how much prior art is associated with this patent? NEXT TO FREAKING NOTHING. The patent cites two prior patents, and one non-patent prior art published too late: 7,139,031 Automated language filter for TV receiver 6,337,947 Method and apparatus for customized editing of video and/or audio signals Seide et al, "Vocabulary-Independent Search in Spontaneous Speech", IEEE International Conference on ASSP, May 2004 Such pathetic prior art submissions should a priori be automatic proof of intent to deceive the Patent Office. Just how pathetic is this patent? Once again, let me do a 15-minute-Jon-Dudas-High-Quality-Patent-Bust. Thebust relies on five patents that were published by the time the examinershould have been doing ANY searching, four of which were published at the

time Microsoft filed they patent, had they wanted to do any searching: Publ. Date. Number Title ----- --------- --------------------------------------------------------- 1993 5,199,077 Wordspotting for voice editing and indexing 2004 6,829,582 Controlled access to audio signals based on objectionable audio content detected via sound recognition 2000 6,166,780 Automated language filter 1999 5,870,708 Method of and apparatus for scanning for and replacing words on video cassettes 1994 5,369,440 System and method for automatically controlling the audio output of a television So let's look at this prior art, which neither Microsoft nor the PTO did, to see how crappy Microsoft's patent is. The first patent, dating back to 1993 (eleven years before Microsoft filed) is a foundational patent on pattern recognition systems (in this case, Hidden Markov Models) to learn to recognize and delete segments of speech, which includes questionable segments of speech that are being broadcasted: _________________________________________________________________ United States Patent 5,199,077 Wordspotting for voice editing and indexing Abstract A technique for wordspotting based on hidden Markov models (HMM's). The technique allows a speaker to specify keywords dynamically and to train the associated HMM's via a single repetition of a keyword. Non-keyword speech is modeled using an HMM trained from a prerecorded sample of continuous speech. The wordspotter is intended for interactive applications, such as the editing of voice mail or mixed-media documents, and for keyword indexing in single-speaker audio or video recordings. From the SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION: An important application for the wordspotting system of the invention is not only indexing of recorded speech, but especially for interactive voice editing of recorded speech, such as voice mail, dictation, or audio documentation. Wordspotting can be employed by the user to enable editing operations by locating specific words in the recorded speech for deletion, substitution, or insertion. It will also ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ enable efficient and automatic means of indexing into long audio documents. The system, while restricted to a single speaker, or pairs of speakers is not restricted in vocabulary size. _________________________________________________________________ One application of this patent is to use the Hidden Markov Models on recorded speech THAT IS BROADCASTED, using the detections to delete specific words, i.e., Microsoft's patent. Almost complete anticipation, especially when obviously combined with the following patent: _________________________________________________________________ United States Patent 5,369,440 System and method for automatically controlling the audio output of a television Abstract A system and method for automatically controlling the audio output from a television so as to avoid listening to undesired material includes a microphone for converting the audio output from the television into audio signals, an audio amplifier for amplifying the audio signals from the microphone, a waveform pattern comparator, a waveform digitizer and recorder, a speech recognition unit, an external device controller, a computer and an input/output device. In setting up the system for subsequent use, waveform patterns of audio signals corresponding to material being outputted from the television which the listener considers undesirable are digitized by the waveform digitizer and recorder and then stored in the waveform pattern comparator. In addition, digital signals corresponding to key words in undesired material are entered into the computer through the input/output device and then transferred from the computer to the speech recognition unit. Once the system has been loaded with the undesired material, waveform pattern comparator continually digitizes and compares the audio signal output from the audio amplifier with the stored data. At the same time, the speech recognition unit compares the audio signal output with the stored key words. When the undesired material is detected an indicator signal is sent to the external device controller which outputs a control signal which is applied to the television to make some adjustment to either the sound or the channel to avoid listening to the undesired material. _________________________________________________________________ So two patents, published in 1993 and 1994, TEN YEARS BEFORE MICROSOFT FILED THEIR PIECE OF CRAP, completely anticipate Microsoft's supposed invention. Just to have fun, I found three more patents, also so much on point to be powerful prior art. _________________________________________________________________ United States Patent 6,166,780 Automated language filter Abstract A method and apparatus for analyzing the closed captioned aspect of a video signal for specific undesirable words or phrases and then muting the audio portion of those words or phrases while not affecting the video portion therein while simultaneously modifying the closed captioned signal in order to display only acceptable words or phrases. _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ United States Patent 6,829,582 Controlled access to audio signals based on objectionable audio content detected via sound recognition Abstract An apparatus, program product, and method restrict access to objectionable audio content in an audio or audio/video transmission using sound recognition. Sound recognition may be performed, for example, to detect and control access to objectionable non-spoken audio content, e.g., by detecting violent sounds such as screams, explosions, gun shots, sirens, punches, kicks and/or other non-spoken content such as sexually-suggestive sounds. In addition, occurrences of objectionable audio content detected in an audio transmission may be tracked so that access to the audio transmission may be controlled responsive to the identification of multiple occurrences of objectionable audio content. Furthermore, access control over detected objectionable audio content in an audio transmission may result in inhibition of access to a program associated with the audio transmission. _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ United States Patent 5,870,708 Method of and apparatus for scanning for and replacing words on video cassettes Abstract A scanning apparatus for scanning a video recording for objectionable content is disclosed that includes an audio processor for analyzing the recording and recognizing the objectionable audio, and audio control gate for manipulating the objectionable audio. The scanning apparatus also includes an amplifier that amplifies the signal and converters to convert the signal from analog to digital format prior to analysis and digital to analog format after analysis. The method of scanning the video recording for objectionable content includes the steps of analyzing the recording and manipulating the recording. The method first includes the steps of amplifying the recording signal, separating the audio portion of the recording from the composite recording, digitizing the portions of the recording, and storing the composite portion of the recording in a loop while analysis is performed on the audio portion of the recording. _________________________________________________________________ So five patents I found in 15 minutes completely invalidate Microsoft's crappily issued patent. And this doesn't rely on even more patents, and even much more non-patent prior art that is available, had anyone bother to do any searching (apparently a firable offense at Microsoft). 15 minutes neither Microsoft nor the PTO spent doing a similar search. Because to big companies like Microsoft, and big liars like Jon Dudas, patent quality is still a big freaking joke. So when con artists like IBM lie about the need for public peer review of patents, while remaining silent about the incompetence of PTO management with regards to prior art handling, it is just con artists cheating. And when liars like Jon Dudas chandleristically whine that the PTO needs more prior art, it is a big freaking lie because the PTO still is unable to make use of all of the patent prior art it has complete access to, let alone non-patent prior art. All of these people are liars, especially since it takes longer for them to write their liars about prior art that it does for me to find the prior art. ========== Automatic censorship of audio data for broadcast Microsoft U.S. Patent 7,437,290 1. A method for automatically censoring audio data, comprising the steps of: (a) automatically processing the audio data to detect any undesired speech that may be included therein, by comparison to undesired speech data, by performing the following steps; comparing words in the audio data against words comprising the undesired speech, to identify potential matches; dynamically varying a probability threshold dependent upon at least one criterion; and based upon a probability of a potential match and the probability threshold, determining whether any undesired speech is included in the audio data; (b) for each occurrence of undesired speech that is automatically detected, altering the undesired speech detected in the audio data, producing censored audio data in which the undesired speech is substantially no longer perceivable by a listening audience; and (c) dynamically adjusting the probability threshold based upon a frequency with which undesired speech by a specific speaker is detected in the audio data, so that as the occurrences of undesired speech that are detected increase, the probability threshold is reduced

Law Firm Uses Bogus Trademark Claim in Attempt to Silence Online News Site

EFF Urges Judge to Dismiss Baseless Lawsuit San Francisco - The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF, see another relevant post )and Public Citizen, joined by Public Knowledge and Citizen Media Law Project, urged a federal judge in Chicago Friday to dismiss a law firm's baseless trademark claims, which were apparently aimed at quashing speech by an online news site. The firm of Jones Day filed the lawsuit against the real estate news site Blockshopper.com, alleging that using its trademark "Jones Day" to refer to the firm in a headline and linking to the Jones Day website could lead to confusion over the sponsorship of the site. In its amicus brief, EFF and Public Citizen argue that these routine references to Jones Day are well-established fair uses of a trademark and clearly protected by the First Amendment. "The claims are absurd -- Blockshopper was simply reporting accurately on the activities of two lawyers who happen to be Jones Day employees," said EFF Staff Attorney Corynne McSherry. "That reporting is protected under trademark and free speech law, and Jones Day should know that. If Jones Day had its way, any trademark holder could use trademark claims to restrict news and commentary related to its business and any of its employees." "Jones Day alleges that the public could be confused by the references to its name and links, but Internet users know that websites generally link to other websites, independent of any official affiliation," said Paul Alan Levy, attorney with Public Citizen. "That's why it's called the World Wide Web." This amicus brief is part of EFF's No Downtime for Free Speech Campaign, which works to protect online expression in the face of baseless intellectual property claims. Robert Libman of Barnhill, Miner & Galland assisted in filing the brief. The full amicus brief is at http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/JDvBlockshopper/JonesDayAmicusBrief.pdf This release is from http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2008/09/19

Apple stealing ideas from iPhone developers

from 19 September 2008 @ 4pm in Opinion, News Apple sparked controversy in mid-2004 when it demonstrated Dashboard, a feature included with Mac OS X 10.4 (Tiger), which shipped the following year. Dashboard delivered always-on, mini-applications in the form of "widgets" that could be quickly accessed via a keyboard command or other invocation. Such functionality has since been implemented in Windows Vista and elsewhere, but at the time, it was the domain of of a tool called Konfabulator. Dashboard's feature set and operation were so similar to Konfabulator's that some developers and users cried infringement. If recently filed patents materialize as actual software, Apple may spark similar contention with a forthcoming iPhone update. As expounded by MacRumors, a recent Apple patent application calls for an "At a Glance" notification screen that would show calls, SMS, Voicemail, and possibly other data - in detail - on the iPhone's unlocked home screen. The planned functionality, as depicted in the patent application, bears striking resemblance to an extant iPhone application, dubbed IntelliScreen, which is available exclusively for jailbroken iPhones. Jonathan Zdziarski, author of the book iPhone Open Application Development and developer of the popular NES emulator for jailbroken iPhones, is among the developers already charging Apple with feature-theft. He says "Apple appears to be using ideas from commercial software already being sold and attempting to patent the concepts as their own. Apple has recently filed a patent application for a notification screen on the iPhone. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that this is a clear rip-off of the commercial Intelliscreen product. The case here isn't a simple hijacking of an idea however - Apple is attempting to patent Intelliscreen's concept, which could be detrimental to the original manufacturer of the software, who is actively selling it for Jailbroken iPhones. This raises some serious questions about whether Apple is being unlawfully anti-competitive: by policy, they have banned Intelliscreen from being sold on the AppStore, so the original manufacturer has to sell it on their own." Zdziarksi's commentary is, to some extent, hyperbole. Apple already uses a locked-screen notification scheme, showing the names of callers and text message senders, but no further detail. The new patent describes direct interaction with locked-screen notifications (calling listed contacts, responding to listed text messages, etc.); IntelliScreen offers this functionality in robust fashion. In fact, IntelliScreen lets users view, read and delete emails and SMS messages directly from the locked screen. Still, one might reasonably call Apple's proposed changes (perhaps third-party-inspired) feature expansion rather than feature theft. Muddling the issue, however, are Apple's strong-arm tactics to prevent iPhone developers from duplicating its own functionality in their applications. Per our sister site News.com, Apple rejected Podcaster - an iPhone application that lets people download podcasts directly to their devices without going through iTunes - from the App Store. The developer of the application said that Apple told him the application "duplicates the functionality of the Podcast section of iTunes", apparently making it unfit for the App Store. As such, a fairly creepy precedent could emerge: Apple is free to duplicate functionality created by third-party iPhone developers, while said developers are explicitly banned from duplicating Apple's. Thoughts? Post to the comment section below

Is Mickey Mouse evil?

In many IP circles, Disney is viewed as evil for their successes in getting copyright term extensions. One [false] rumor is that Disney wants to tie copyright term to the proton decay rate (which is ten to the zillion years). One true statement reflecting another form of idiocy is a statement last week from a Sunni cleric in Saudia Arabia announced that children should not be allowed to watch Mickey Mouse, labeling the cartoon character a "soldier of Satan" who should be killed.

NEW PATENT INVESTMENT FUND BUYS $30 MILLION IN PATENTS

ANTI-TR-LL COMPANIES CREATE A TR-LL FUND TO BUY PATENTS Patent startup gains high profile backing - RPX already purchased $30 million in patents Rick Merritt (09/17/2008 12:52 PM EDT) URL: http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=210602186 SAN JOSE, Calif. - A startup that claims it has a better approach for helping high tech companies deal with the rising costs of patent litigation and licensing has gained backing from two large venture capitalists. RPX Corp. announced it has received an undisclosed amount of equity investments from Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers and Charles River Ventures. The startup is one of a growing number of companies sprouting up to address the problem of trolls, also known as non-practicing entities whose sole business is in acquiring and asserting patents, typically against large product companies. As many as 20 percent of the estimated 1,500 patent lawsuits filed in the first half of the year came from such companies, according to John Amster, co-chief executive of RPX. Intellectual Ventures (Bellevue, Wash.), launched by former Intel and Microsoft executives in 2000, is said to be among the first and largest of the group of companies formed in part to address the troll issue. Investors in the company are reported to include Intel, Microsoft, Nokia and Sony. In June another startup, Allied Security Trust, came out of stealth mode to describe its plan to buy, license and sell patents for its corporate investors including Cisco Systems, Ericsson, Google, Hewlett-Packard and Verizon. At that time, industry observers predicted it would be the first of many such collaborations. A report in the Wall Street Journal suggested Intellectual Ventures is itself becoming troublesome for some large companies because it is demanding increasingly high licensing fees for a growing treasure trove of patents it has acquired. The article said RPX will try to carve out a business as an alternative, setting fixed fees for companies to license its patents. John Amster, one of two former Intellectual Ventures executives that formed RPX, said he will not detail the company's business model or customers until October. However he did say RPX will acquire patents in a broad range of technology and e-commerce areas, especially when the patents are being asserted or involved in litigation. "That's the area of most pain for companies," said Amster, who left his position as general manager of strategic acquisitions and licensing at Intellectual Ventures to form RPX. RPX will not assert patents against other companies, but generate revenues from licensing and selling the patents it buys, Amster said. The startup does not expect to seek other direct equity investments either from venture capitalists or high tech companies. The model of a "patent-buying cooperative" set by Allied does not optimally align the interests of potential customers, something RPX will address, Amster said. The startup also aims to help companies reduce personnel time and costs spent defending patent suits. Amster quoted figures from a 2005 survey by the American Intellectual Property Law Association survey which estimated litigation costs were approximately $4.5 million per case, not including the costs of any settlement. RPX aims to buy as much as $100 million in patents and patent applications in 2008. To date it has spent $30 million acquiring about 100 U.S. patents and 50 patent applications including a portfolio that applies to mobile communications and Internet search and another on RFID and distribution of goods. "They have important implications for existing and emerging applications that could create problems for a wide range of companies," Amster said. The startup has been building its staff, hiring Paul Saraceni, an associate general counsel for intellectual property strategy at Yahoo as the startup's Chief IP Officer. Joe Chernesky, president of IPotential (San Mateo, Calif.), a patent consulting and brokering firm said RPX could do well, in part due to its founders' backgrounds at Intellectual Ventures. "This is one that I think will be interesting to watch," Chernesky said. Chernesky was less bullish on Allied which he said has struggled to purchase patents in the face of stiff competition from Intellectual Ventures. "Intellectual Ventures has a huge presence and they have been buying everything up," he said. "They can have an offer on the table within three weeks, and Allied didn't have the procedures in place to do that," he added. Brian Hinman, former chief executive at Allied, said Intellectual Ventures was "a very aggressive competitor," but he said he expects Allied to be successful. In his 18 months at Allied, Hinman said the company grew its staff and tapped into multiple sources of patents. "Some strategic patent portfolios were purchased," said Hinman. "When I joined in March 2007, there was nothing in place except a few companies, a concept and a strategy," he added. "The execution was left to me." Hinman joined Verizon, an Allied member, in August of 2008 as vice president of intellectual property