Summary: It is important not to forget that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is still run by a former Microsoft legal representative who is shilling software patents and Microsoft’s proprietary document formats
Rewarding corruption
Why move away from standards and impose (using ‘fines’) Microsoft formats that involved corruption including bribery? Why does the USPTO push formats and products of just one USPTO applicant?
Summary: The Microsoft infestation in the USPTO shows no signs of stopping
WITH Microsoft Vidal [1, 2] in charge of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) we should not be surprised to see the world’s most influential patent office pushing Microsoft’s vendor lock-in more aggressively than ever before.
“I got this today from the USPTO,” a reader told us. “They are going to allow pdf back-ups*, because everybody knows DOCX doesn’t work.”
To quote:
New temporary backup option to help ease transition to DOCX
As part of our efforts to use all available technology to strengthen patents and reduce pendency times, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is transitioning to the DOCX format for patent application filings. In our latest initiative to ease the transition to DOCX, and to address concerns that the new format might result in conversion discrepancies, we have announced an interim, optional procedure.
Through December 31, 2022, applicants may upload a backup PDF version of their application with their DOCX version. There are no fees associated with this backup PDF. And, there is no obligation to provide a backup PDF. The backup PDF option will allow applicants concerned about the new format to gain confidence in the reliability and accuracy of filing applications in DOCX. Applicants can be assured that, should there be any conversion discrepancies, they can rely on the PDF to verify the substance of their original filing.
To learn more about how the transition to DOCX will improve patent quality and speed the application process, please read our latest blog. The Federal Register Notice announcing this process is available on our Patent Related Notices webpage. Please see the USPTO’s DOCX web page for more information about filing patent application documents in DOCX.
We encourage all applicants to start filing in DOCX so we can streamline the process for you and improve our ability to examine your application quickly and effectively.
They are basically imposing Microsoft on everybody. How is this even legal???
“I found patent attorneys on the Internet talking about how DOCX doesn’t work,” the reader told us. “But, as you can imagine, they never responded when I contacted them about my efforts to actually do something about the USPTO, Kappos, and Microsoft.”
“Kappos has a buddy named Bernie Knight who he installed as General Counsel at the USPTO, and Knight wrote an opinion that enabled the introduction of the $200 “electronic filing incentive” penalty, and, subsequently, the $400 penalty if DOCX isn’t used.”
“Knight is peddling himself in Washington as an “anger management” counselor. He charges $300-per-hour. Knight and Kappos have made thousands of people angry, and Kappos gets $1,000-per-hour, surely – maybe more – and Knight gets $300-per-hour for “anger management.” I never use this cliche, but, I’ll break my own rule: Only in America. Another link to Knight. █
_____
* Free, apparently, initially, just so people think they care.
Summary: The tradition of GAFAM or GIAFAM inside the USPTO carries on (e.g. Kappos and Lee; Kappos lobbies for Microsoft and IBM, whereas Lee now works for Amazon/Bezos after a career at Google); it’s hard to believe anymore that the USPTO exists to serve innovators rather than aggressive monopolists, shielding their territory by patent threats (lawsuits or worse aggression) and cross-licensing that’s akin to a cartel
THE company known as “Microsoft” isn’t just some ordinary firm. It is widely reviled because it is uniquely malicious and outright criminal. It was founded and run by criminals.
What Microsoft is not: a software company. What Microsoft is: a cult, a military contractor, and an espionage partner of the NSA et al. It’s also a lingering, ongoing threat to national security. The company controlled by a very famous criminal (Gates) has caused massive financial damage to hundreds of countries.
“The company controlled by a very famous criminal (Gates) has caused massive financial damage to hundreds of countries.”A few days ago Patent Docs took note of the fact that in spite of the US patent office being hijacked by the Microsoft ‘cult’/’religion’ (it has the hallmark of entryism), OOXML being made almost compulsory (otherwise penalties!) is a move that’s being delayed. Did they curb implementation due to backlash? Who knows…
It is clear, however, that people are protesting. Some write to us about it.
It’s bad enough that Microsoft already controls (even illegally!) the EPO. The staff of the EPO is very unhappy about that!
“The Director chosen by President Obama would later lobby for IBM and Microsoft, going as far as exploiting a pandemic to push for software patents.”Now the Corporate President wants to put a person who worked for Microsoft part of the time… in charge of the US patent office, the world’s largest and most important patent office, which Microsoft relies on for blackmail of competitors, including GNU/Linux.
“Vidal has extensive experience as a patent litigator, and has represented companies including Microsoft Corp,” said this article a month ago. IAM spoke of a company or “plaintiff who sued Microsoft, another Vidal client.”
So President Biden wants to put a Microsofter in charge of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), just like President Obama put a deputy there who had come from Microsoft. The Director chosen by President Obama would later lobby for IBM and Microsoft, going as far as exploiting a pandemic to push for software patents.
A reader of ours, who uses GNU/Linux (Linux Mint I believe), decided to write about this (“letter to USPTO nominee and firm”), attributing the Microsoft capture to David Kappos although this OOXML scheme emanated from or started during Andrei Iancu‘s term. █
Summary: The latest from the USPTO, based on a communication from yesterday afternoon, may serve to suggest the blowback is growing and applicants aren’t happy to be forced to use Microsoft’s OOXML (or face severe penalties)
A reader who is a GNU/Linux user has alerted us that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is still working to impose Microsoft’s monopoly and proprietary formats by means of penalising those who don’t ‘play ball’. We’ve long written about this injustice, to put it mildly (more like overt corruption considering what likely led to it; akin to the EPO outsourcing everything to Microsoft, which isn’t even a European company).
Here’s a message sent by the USPTO yesterday (less than a day ago):
USPTO to delay the effective date of the non-DOCX filing fee
From: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
Reply-To:subscriptioncenter@subscriptions.uspto.gov
Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 1:42 PMHaving trouble viewing this email? View it as a Web page.
Patent Alert
USPTO to delay the effective date of the non-DOCX filing fee
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has issued a final rule that delays until January 1, 2023, the effective date of the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.16(u) for any nonprovisional utility patent application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111, including any continuing application, that is not filed in DOCX format. Prior to this final rule, the fee was set to take effect on January 1, 2022. The delay will enable the USPTO to undertake enhanced testing of its information technology systems as more users file in DOCX, and it also will give applicants more time to adjust to filing patent applications in DOCX format.
You can find the full text of the final rule in the Federal Register and on the USPTO’s Patent Related Notices webpage.
We’ve included a screenshot at the top.
To put all this in context, our reader explains: “I just got an e-mail from the USPTO saying that they were going to delay the $400 penalty for using pdfs instead of DOCX. I recently discovered from Techrights that the USPTO’s DOCX plot includes forcing application files to pay a $400 penalty for using pdfs. First, it was the $200 penalty – the “Electronic Filing Incentive” – to force paper filers to file electronically, which would be with pdfs. Now, the plot is a $400 penalty for using pdf.”
This reader has meanwhile complained [PDF] about David Kappos, who is alleged to be connected to this mess (Microsoft and IBM controlled the USPTO at the time; Kappos lobbies for both now).
“One of the perks that they gave Kappos for corrupting the USPTO,” the reader explains, “is a teaching position at the prestigious Columbia Law School, and I decided to write to the dean, so on 11/11/21 I sent her e-mails – I had sent a paper letter a few days earlier – telling her about Kappos, and suggesting that she could help getting him disbarred, or at least she could fire him. inviting her to help me get Kappos disbarred, or at least fire him.”
He told her about Microsoft and DOCX: “Paper is the thin end of the wedge. I suppose you might not care about somebody who puts a patent application on paper. But, what about a pdf? Do you use pdfs? Would you be surprised that, with their success in penalizing patent application filers for using paper, the Kappos-corrupted USPTO is now planning to penalize patent application filers for using pdfs? See the accompanying “The problem with the USPTO’s proposed non-DOCX penalty.” [See https://blog.oppedahl.com/?p=4623 , and much more here https://blog.oppedahl.com/?p=7101] Having penalized patent application filers for using the ubiquitous paper to force them to use Microsoft Windows, now the plot is to penalize patent application filers for using the ubiquitous pdfs to force them to use Microsoft’s proprietary DOCX software. And, do you think they will stop there? Why should they, now that Kappos has corrupted the USPTO for them? Will they develop a proprietary Microsoft keyboard that must be used, because there are newly-developed symbols or codes that they come up with and that must be used?”
It’s very plausible that other people have complained, hence the delay. They kick the can down the road for a little while longer. Maybe the next USPTO Director (there’s none at the moment; it is a ‘placeholder’ ad interim) will reverse this awful decision, seeing that Microsoft is floundering anyway. It’s truly insane to do such a thing in 2021!
“I would like to think that she got angry and contacted Kappos and Kappos contacted the USPTO,” the reader notes. “I KNOW that didn’t happen, but you never know: if the right person makes a certain phone call, things can happen. Again, I know that didn’t happen, but it’s good to see DOCX is being delayed.”
Usually it’s a sign of problems, like the US military delaying the implementation of HoloLens (a truly ridiculous rollout of a product from a company whose entire staff Microsoft sacked!). It was all along just a sort of bailout (or grifting), in effect President Biden misusing “defence” budget to prop up Microsoft, the password-stealing company, in the same way Trump had done that with JEDI. Trump passed billion of dollars to Microsoft and to Bill Gates in a number of other ways, as we noted here before. They’re misusing taxpayers’ money (or growing national debt) to feed grifters and crooks. █
Related (USPTO angle): USPTO Rewards Microsoft for Corruption at ISO by Teaching People Proprietary OOXML and Promoting Its Use | USPTO Craziness: Changing Rules to Punish PTAB Petitioners and Reward Microsoft for Corruption at ISO | Conflict of Interest: Microsoft and IBM Controlling the USPTO and Leaving GNU/Linux Users Shut Out (in the Cold) | Why Wouldn’t an Office That Grants Monopolies Support Microsoft Monopoly? | USPTO Promotes Microsoft Monopoly and Proprietary Software (Updatedx2) | David Kappos (IBM/Microsoft Lobbyist) Reported for Misuse of Authority and Conflict of Interest
The corrupt typically attracts the corrupt and protects the corrupt
Summary: The World Intellectual Property [sic] Organization — like the EPO (where António Campinos outsourced IT systems to Microsoft) — is choosing the most notorious/corrupt ‘tech’ ‘company’ (cult) instead of open standards and, as the links above show, this is nowadays done inside the United States and outside the United States as well, raising legal questions/ire
OVER a decade ago we wrote many hundreds of posts about corruption of Microsoft in the document formats dispute. Instead of accepting and adopting open standards Microsoft decided and insisted on openwashing its proprietary formats, which basically correspond just to Microsoft’s proprietary Office. The specifications contained not only Microsoft’s product name but also many versions of it. Retrofitting something proprietary — with binary enclosures! — into XML and then calling it “open” was an early example of the Open Source brand rotting to death. To quote Microsoft’s Jason Matusow, an integral part of the ‘Open’ XML corruption (further background in [1, 2, 3]): “More Open Than Open [...] I am constantly amazed at the flexibility of this single word.”
Yes, it had already become almost meaningless when he wrote this (around the time we coined the term “openwashing”).
Anyway, here we are more than a decade later and the corruption of Microsoft paid off. Agencies around the world shamelessly promote Microsoft’s proprietary formats as a de facto standard, as a default, and moreover financially penalise people who refuse to (or cannot) use Microsoft’s proprietary formats.
“…here we are more than a decade later and the corruption of Microsoft paid off.”Bar complaints against David Kappos notwithstanding (links above, still ongoing), we recently learned that WIPO is also rotten in the sense that it promotes Microsoft and discriminates against Microsoft’s rivals. “The USPTO has been bombarding me with E-mails about DOCX,” a reader has told us. “Just got one from the WIPO.” (It says “ePCT-Filing in Docx”)
To quote:
Dear ePCT user,
You are invited to join our next ePCT webinars on ePCT-Filing in Docx.
In these sessions you will discover the advantages of using Docx and you will be guided through the different steps on how to create a Docx specification to be uploaded in ePCT for receiving Offices accepting Docx.
Two sessions with the same topic and content will be provided to cover different time zones and are free of charge.
-Tuesday 05 October 2021: 09-10:30 am Geneva Time (CET) for Asia, Europe time zones, etc.
Registration link: https://wipo-int.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_-7j8UAt7QGiD7MHavzxwCg
-Thursday 07 October 2021: 4:30-6:00 pm Geneva Time (CET) for North and South America time zones, etc.
Registration link: https://wipo-int.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_KH8E-RyYTOGtIl1sVzhUpw
The PowerPoint slides are already available for download at https://www.wipo.int/pct/en/seminar/webinars/index.html under ePCT-Filing in Docx.
The two webinars will be recorded and made available on the PCT Webinars web page https://www.wipo.int/pct/en/seminar/webinars/index.html.
If you require further details, please contact pct.eservices@wipo.int
Best regards,
PCT Operations Customer Support Section
So are they trying to train people for Microsoft? Is this even legal? Well, WIPO is immune and cannot be sued. It’s like the EPO. It would be interesting to know who exactly was behind this decision and what was behind it. As we’ve seen countless times before, Microsoft does not play by the rules — it bribes, cheats, infiltrates, blackmails, and worse. █
“Really, I’m not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a completely unintentional side effect.”
–Linus Torvalds
Related: USPTO Rewards Microsoft for Corruption at ISO by Teaching People Proprietary OOXML and Promoting Its Use | USPTO Craziness: Changing Rules to Punish PTAB Petitioners and Reward Microsoft for Corruption at ISO | Conflict of Interest: Microsoft and IBM Controlling the USPTO and Leaving GNU/Linux Users Shut Out (in the Cold) | Why Wouldn’t an Office That Grants Monopolies Support Microsoft Monopoly?
“Modernizing” as in adding vendor lock-in and pushing proprietary dependencies
Summary: Classic example of vendor capture; Microsoft engaged in endless and well-documented corruption to push OOXML and now the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) participates in this marketing propaganda; moreover it financially penalises people who don’t use Microsoft’s proprietary formats; this is certainly what Microsoft lobbied for. “Just got this from the USPTO,” a reader told us about this new E-mail and Web page (promoted via E-mail). “I’m not too savvy on this DOCX stuff, but I notice the word “surcharge,” and I guess they’ve figured out another way to scam fees from Linux users.” Similarly, the EPO was illegally outsourced to Microsoft. They infiltrate and take over patent offices, just like that.
Update: Someone has written a summary about this:
There are still a few months to fix this, but for now the US Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) Acting Commissioner for Patents, Andrew Faile, and Chief Information Officer, Jamie Holcombe, have announced that starting January 1st, 2022, the USPTO will institute a surcharge for applicants that are not locked into Microsoft products via the proprietary DOCX format. From that date onwards, the USPTO will move away from PDF and require all filers to use that proprietary format or face an arbitrary surcharge when filing.
First, we delayed the effective date for the non-DOCX surcharge fee to January 1, 2022, to provide more time for applicants to transition to this new process, and for the USPTO to continue our outreach efforts and address customer concerns. We’ve also made office actions available in DOCX and XML formats and further enhanced DOCX features, including accepting DOCX for drawings in addition to the specification, claims, and abstract for certain applications.
One out of several major problems with the plans is that DOCX is a proprietary format. There are several variants of DOCX and each of them are really only supported by a single company’s products. Some other products have had progress in beginning to reverse engineering it, but are hindered by the lack of documentation. DOCX is a competitor to the fully-documented, open standard OpenDocument Format, also known as ISO/IEC 26300.
DOCX is not to be confused with OOXML, though it often is. While OOXML, also known as ISO/IEC 29500, is technically standardized, it is incompletely documented and only vaguely related to DOCX. The DOCX format itself is neither fully documented nor standard. So the USPTO is also engaged in spreading disinformation by asserting that it is.
Previously:
(2015) Microsoft Threatened the UK Over Open Standards
Update #2: This controversy has reached more mainstream media. E.g.:
Documents submitted to the US Patent and Trademark Office should be in .DOCX format starting from next year – and if you want to stick to PDFs, that will cost extra.
“At the USPTO, we are continuously working to modernize and streamline our patent application systems,” the agency announced this week. “To improve application quality and efficiency, the USPTO will be transitioning to DOCX for all filers on January 1, 2022.”
The office said it decided to make the change years ago in an attempt to streamline the patent examining process. DOCX, otherwise known as Office Open XML, is standardized as ECMA-376 and ISO/IEC 29500. Though it was created by Microsoft for its own products, such as Word, the file format is supported by LibreOffice, OpenOffice, Google Docs, and others. And though the Windows giant has sworn it won’t sue over licensing and patents regarding DOCX, there are some caveats.
Two years ago someone warned about it:
Until now, it has been optional for a practitioner to file a US patent application in DOCX format rather than in PDF format. But USPTO now proposes to charge a $400 penalty for filing a patent application in non-DOCX format. This is a very bad idea, for reasons that I will discuss in detail. Only if USPTO were to make fundamental changes in its way of receiving DOCX files would it be acceptable for USPTO to impose a penalty for filing in a non-DOCX format.
USPTO needs to follow WIPO’s example, permitting the practitioner to file a “pre-conversion format” version of a patent application along with the DOCX file. In the event of some later problem with USPTO’s rendering of the DOCX file, the practitioner would be permitted to point to the pre-conversion format, which would control in the event of any discrepancy.
The normal way to file US patent applications is in PDF format. With PDF format, the applicant has complete control over the appearance of characters and symbols.
Some years ago, the USPTO began beta-testing a system that would permit a practitioner to file a patent application in DOCX format instead of in PDF format. Yours truly was among the very first of the beta-testers of USPTO’s system for DOCX filings. As implemented by the USPTO, the practitioner would upload a DOCX file, and USPTO would render the DOCX file in a human-readable PDF image format. As part of the e-filing process, the practitioner was expected to proofread the rendered image as provided by the USPTO’s e-filing system. The notion was that the practitioner would be obliged to catch any instances of USPTO’s system rendering the DOCX file differently from the way the practitioner’s word processor had rendered that same DOCX file. If, for example, some math equation or chemical formula had gotten corrupted in USPTO’s system, the practitioner would expected to catch this prior to clicking “submit”.
This ‘Microsoft tax’ was discussed months ago by litigation giants:
Summary: The first part in a series about the USPTO protecting the cabal of proprietary software giants/monopolies, including improper appointments and outright corruption (as observed by a longtime critic of the Office)
THE U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director-turned-lobbyist David Kappos was discussed here many times in the past. He came from IBM, worked for the USPTO, then returned to lobbying for IBM and Microsoft (among others). Nowadays he’s lobbying hard for software patents (or to abolish/bypass 35 U.S.C. § 101). He’s working for software monopolies while they fund him to lobby. It harms the image of the USPTO. The Federal Circuit has a similar problem with two former chief judges.
The issue with Kappos may seem like “old news”, but here’s the gist of it:
As was explained at the time:
“Then, too,” a reader has told us, “there is the issue of the USPTO not working with Linux, which might interest you.”
“The Kappos-Politico article is something I found, where people in Congress were – back in the day – suspicious about Kappos being from IBM, and bringing with him a Microsoft guy. They implemented something called the Electronic Filing Incentive. Trying to force people to use computers and, of course, Microsoft.”
“Can the USPTO moreover block GNU/Linux users wishing to file patents and interact with the Office?”We have been sent about 50 pages, but we are reproducing here just a subset of these (a lot of those deal with exuberant fees or marginalisation of “lone inventors”, which is a legitimate concern, albeit not our focus).
We’d rather focus on the GNU/Linux compatibility issues alone. As we noted here in recent years, the USPTO intends to financially penalise (punish) people who don’t use Microsoft formats [1, 2, 3] though it’s clear Microsoft is somewhat of a thing of the past with just about 30% of the public using Windows or other Microsoft operating systems.
Can the USPTO moreover block GNU/Linux users wishing to file patents and interact with the Office? Look at the status of GNU/Linux in the US government, as per Wikipedia:
Proprietary stuff is required by the USPTO:
Adobe stuff hasn’t worked since 2013:
“I’m a four-decade American inventor who has been fighting corruption at that USPTO for maybe about 15 years,” the reader said, “and I recently made an important medical discovery, and filed a patent application, and the USPTO is threatening my application, simply because I use Linux.”
We’ve been aware of such issues for a very long time. They range from formats to site access or specialised tools
“The Internet informs me that you are interested in USPTO corruption and medical biophysics and open-source software,” the reader told me, “so, perhaps, maybe we can connect to discuss a few things, although you are on the high-tech end of things, which I am not. I suppose, broadly, my medical discovery would be considered medical biophysics, since it involves mechanical sound waves and their effect on the body, and, specifically, urological function.”
We will likely revisit this issue some time in the near future. “As you can imagine,” the reader said, “I’m extremely angry, and I’m right now finalizing a big report that I’m going to send to a bunch of people in DC, hoping to get something done. I’ll send you the report when I finish it.”
We’ve mostly been focusing on EPO corruption, but some overlaps exist across the pond, with European software patents being used as an excuse against SCOTUS precedents, even in the face of challenges like Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) inter partes reviews (IPRs). Stay tuned for more… █
“They’ll get sort of addicted, and then we’ll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade.”
Summary: Preying on so-called ‘users’ is the nature of proprietary software, which puts digital shackles on people and then starts manipulating them
THE simple fact is that many of today’s interfaces are designed to be “addictive”, especially on the Web where the ‘currency’ is screen time (opportunity to spy on people and foist ads onto them). This is certainly true about Facebook (with admissions from the company) and Twitter is hardly better with its infinite scrolling, suggestive (yet cryptic) “trending” clickbait and so on.
“…if many ‘addicts’ get together, they can fork the implementation to better suit their needs and distribute the fork free of charge.”It wasn’t too long ago that Richard Stallman asked geeks to submit to him examples of interfaces that had been designed to be addictive.
In the case of ‘traditional’ and native software, formats that are secret and proprietary software with lock-in mechanisms have long been used to force people to ‘upgrade’ (pay for the same thing over and over again). The network effect, or peer pressure by format incompatibility, is an issue long documented (for decades; it helped rationalise the vendor-neutral OpenDocument Format).
It’s time to communicate these issues using the jargon or slang of narcotics. The term “users” is heavily used in that context because of the helplessness of the addicts, who are reduced to mere zombies that consume and cannot think clearly.
Free software addresses some but not all of these issues; there’s no guarantee that addiction elements will be entirely obliterated just by virtue of some piece of software being free (to study, modify, share as well as run without restrictions). One can easily get addicted to Free (as in freedom) computer games. But the leverage the developer gains over individual people or large groups of people (even entire nations) is clearly limited; if many ‘addicts’ get together, they can fork the implementation to better suit their needs and distribute the fork free of charge. That’s very much unlike what a certain Bill Gates (nowadays a vaccine profiteer) sought to achieve with Microsoft products. It’s all about power, unjust power and coercion. It’s not about technical excellence; technology here is merely the means by which to gain power (political, not technical) over a lot of people while amassing endless wealth, controlling the lives of so many without democratic oversight. █
Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Guest Editorial Team
Community: Get involved
RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates
Site Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content
Site Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page
IRC Channels: Come and chat with us in real time
Design by Beccary and Weblogs.us · Valid XHTML · Valid CSS · Hosting by Schestowitz · Part of Bytes Media
 | |
Content is available under CC-BY-SA
Editors • About the Site • Comes vs. Microsoft • Using This Web Site • Site Archives • Credibility Index • OOXML • OpenDocument • Patents • Novell • News Digest • Site News • RSS
