Software Patent Reform Happening Now 130
Jim Hall writes "Many of us in IT recognize that software patents are a bad idea — you can patent just about anything if you put "on a computer" at the end of it. But now we can finally do something about it. Congress is considering the America Invents Act — your Representatives are very interested in hearing from you. Also, the USPTO is inviting public comments to change the system (you need to file by June 29, 2011.) I've written a blog post about software patents with more, starting with a primer of copyright and patents."
Re: (Score:2)
For the better or worse ???
Well, that depends on whether we take action on this, or let it sit. As I've written here before [slashdot.org], How will a Senator or Representative know what are the important topics their constituents need addressed? They pay attention to it when you direct their attention, but first you need to get their attention. And the way to get their attention right now is through writing letters, calling, and visiting them.
Right now, your congresscritter is paying attention to patent reform - albeit without software patents. Ma
Invest some time and money in fixing this. (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Find who your Senators / Representatives are.
2. Buy some decent letter writing materials. A physical letter carries a LOT more impact than an email.
3. Write the letters without profanity or insults. Include your contact information.
4. Send the letters to your Senators / Representatives.
5. Get your friends to write similar letters. The more letters they get, the more they will focus on this issue.
6. If an important vote is coming up, place a follow-up call to remind them how important this issue is.
The people most INVOLVED with the political process are the people who shape the political process. Corporations can pay people to devote time to influencing such decisions.
Re: (Score:1)
7. A cash donation of > $1000000 will help get their attention.
Re:Invest some time and money in fixing this. (Score:4, Interesting)
This isn't true all the time but it's true enough that voters feel disenchanted with voting.
Re:Invest some time and money in fixing this. (Score:5, Insightful)
8. Send them letters, too.
Trust me on these last two. If a member doesn't have much authority over a relatively obscure issue, their office probably won't have any knowledge on the issue and won't be swayed as much by constituent mail, as there's no intellectual context into which they could slot it. Lobbyists will meet with staffers first, members much later. If you educate or intrigue the staffer, it'll get processed properly by them and percolate upwards. And that follow-up is essential. Good luck, junior lobbyists!
Re: (Score:1)
Unfortunately, they then turned around and did the exact opposite of everything they said a
Re: (Score:2)
Scanning through the threads, I've read at least a half-dozen cowards all spouting the same nonsense: politicians are all corrupt, don't bother to do anything, being cynical is cool, corporations are a monolith that all believe the same thing and have an iron grip on our democracy. If you really believe this, why not sign your name? Afraid the corporate interests are going to track you down and give you an award for successful promotion of FUD?
Re: (Score:2)
Well unless you plan on spending millions, it is the corporations who will continue to have the biggest voice and the biggest bribes.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder what Google would lobby for?
Re: (Score:3)
This is why we need to act (Score:3)
That's a great example, and it shows why we (as a slashdot community) need to contact our Senators and Representatives now about software patent reform! Especially the Representatives, since that's where the America Invents Act currently is up for vote.
My advice: if they aren't willing to take action now (because AIA is about to go for vote, so they don't want to change it) ask them to support a procedural change with the USPTO. See my other post on that. If the AIA passes, the USPTO is supposed to propose
Re: (Score:3)
I can't see much that is better. The present system is being gamed. The new system will also be gamed. All it takes is one really good lawyer to figure the angles, use them once, then all the corporations will follow suit. Sad fact is, our legal system favors him with the deepest pockets, and this changes nothing.
Outlaw software patents, and be done with this farce.
Re:attention (Score:1)
Forgive the bitterness below.
"Write letters, call, visit". Really?! You tried hard to write a good story so it's like that Dr. Who episode that double-pulls what the other guy thinks for a combined result of Bad.
It's all Intellectual Property. (Cashew gallery, please hold the comments.) Why are patents so thunderously different from Copyright when we're just starting to see the crossovers such as "WantToPatent Methods" stuff being rendered as Art/Math/Other.
Let's work with your comment above. "How will a Se
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, if you can get your Senator or Representative to pay attention to you by posting a video on YouTube, then go with it.
But I'm just telling you what we know politicians will listen to. And right now, the best way to get a politician's attention is to contact them through traditional means. And yes, writing letters or calling their office (or if you happen to live nearby to an office, visiting them) is something they listen to.
re: "Do the right thing". (Score:5, Informative)
But is it the right thing?
Slightly at odds to my remarks about Microsoft in a sibling post, let's try this Microsoft example from Wikipedia.
Any comments?
--- From Wikipedia
Impact of the changes
Opponents of H.R. 1249 assert that the impact of the changes to the current law will be to effectively neuter the U.S. patent system. Patents owned by startup companies, research institutions, and independent inventors ("startups") will be unenforceable against large corporations. Avistar Communications Corporation's encounter with Microsoft illustrates how this plays out. In 2007 Avistar was a startup developing desktop videoconferencing and online collaboration tools. Avistar had 29 U.S. patents, a number of pending U.S. patent applications, and numerous foreign patents and applications. Avistar approached Microsoft to negotiate a license to Avistar's patented technology. Microsoft wanted a license on terms Avistar would not agree to, and decided to use post-grant opposition in the PTO to litigate Avistar into submission. After six months of licensing negotiations, Microsoft, in February and March 2008, requested reexamination of each of Avistar's 29 U.S. patents.[66] Defending a single patent in a reexamination proceeding "routinely costs a patent owner hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees."[67] To pay the legal expenses associated with the reexaminations, Avistar, in April 2008, announced that it would cut its work force by about 25 percent.[68] This was not enough. With legal costs piling up, Avistar was forced to sell substantially all of its U.S. patents and patent applications, and related foreign patents and patent applications to Intellectual Ventures ("IV"). IV, originally called the Patent Defense Fund, was founded in 2000 by two-ex Microsoft employees. The idea was that IV would provide a way for Microsoft and other large technology companies to protect themselves against patented inventions. "Initially, each company ... was asked to pony up $50 million. The plan was that IV would then go out and buy patents that were knocking dangerously around the marketplace, and investors would get a license to the entire portfolioâ"effectively immunizing them from the danger of intellectual property litigation." [69]. IV has raised over $5 billion.[70] Avistar sold its patent portolio to IV in January 2010, taking a grant-back license so it could continue to sell its patented products.[71]
Avistarâ(TM)s encounter with Microsoft reduced the price of Avistar stock 61%,[72] and Avistar no longer owned the intellectual property it spent years developing. Microsoft imposed unbearable costs on Avistar using the reexamination procedure available under current law, i.e. without the benefit of the even costlier post-grant opposition procedures created by H.R. 1249.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_Invents_Act [wikipedia.org]
Riiiight (Score:1)
This is the same legislature that has basically extended copyrights indefinitely, I'm sure this will end well
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The sad fact is that extending copyrights basically hurts nobody with money. Ensuring Micky Mouse is perpetually in copyright only harms the public domain and the insults the various founding principles of America.
Patents on the other hand, do harm people with money, and worse, patent trolls ensure that everyone is at huge risk. Thus change will happen.
It is depressing that, as a highly trained engineer, my patents have less monetary value to society than the latest Justin Bieber garbage. If society had to
How to rationalize the shorter patent term (Score:2)
IMHO - the best thing would be to say lifetime of patents == lifetime of copyrights
Apologists might rationalize the shorter patent term thus: Unlike patents, copyrights in theory have an independent creation defense. Proving an allegation of copyright infringement involves proving that the alleged infringer had at some time had access to a copy or performance of the plaintiff's work. This theoretical defense does break down, however, in the case of musical works played over radio and over loudspeaker systems in grocery stores, where someone can effectively force access to a work on someon
Can't be worse (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Can't be worse (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes. As cheesy as it sounds, your voice does matter.
Seriously, call their office, write them a letter (handwritten carries the most impact, but typed will do), or visit them in their office. Ask your Representative and/or Senator to push for "software" patent reform. Have some examples of "software" patents handy, and feel free to make a suggestion for how to fix the system. I think the citizen review [blogspot.com] method is a workable option. I've been discussing this topic with Sen. Franken's office for a while now, so if you don't have a particular suggestion to offer, ask your Senator to see what Sen. Franken is up to. I'm not kidding, they do listen to comments like that.
Re: (Score:3)
How about get them to write a better bill
The thing is utterly horrible. Issuance of support of this bill will in fact, not help the software patent situation at all. [techdirt.com] I hope people realize that. We need software patents to go away and guess what? This bill isn't it. It's a doublespeak bill.
So yes, please send to your congresscritters, who will ignore your pleas, water down the bill more, and make the only substantial thing it does be enable first to file which will fuck over people who don't file patents be
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
By the way, "First to File" is part of the America Invents Act.
And yes, "First to File" is really stupid. Fortunately, many Representatives (who are about to vote on AIA) also think "First to File" is a Bad Idea. But they need to hear from their constituents, or they won't fight it. And Reps do listen to their voters, and are especially open when they're about to vote on that topic.
So does that convince you to contact your Representative about the AIA?
Re: (Score:2)
So does that convince you to contact your Representative about the AIA?
Hell yeah but they answered "This is an American thing, stupid geek, you are living in Europe."
Re: (Score:2)
Hell yeah but they answered "This is an American thing, stupid geek, you are living in Europe."
I know you are joking (or trolling) but you should know that several EU countries are considering changing their patent system to be more like the US. So if you live in the EU, you should be concerned about what's happening to the US patent system, because you might be next.
Re:Can't be worse (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm afraid it's not so simple. There are now many companies that have massively invested in patents, either to sue other companies or protect themselves against other patent lawsuits. They certainly don't want to see all this investment lost, although it would be net benefit for everybody involved, including them. Getting your congressmen to view this point of view instead of the lobbyists that will try the best to protect the patents of the companies they work for is the hardest part.
When I spoke with my Senator's office, and (later) with my Representative's office, they both talked about business and how business doesn't want software patent reform. They get this impression by talking to lobbyists, who are presenting one side of the store. But point out that this is costing businesses a lot of money in patent defense, [toptechnews.com] and that some companies have come out asking for software patent reform, and the politicians do listen. When even a company like Google has to announce they are buying a patent portfolio just to use it in defense ...
Re: (Score:2)
It's a sad situationÂ: most larger companies' positions on software patents and IP in general are captured by their in-house IP professionals anyway, but both large and small companies (and individuals) generally don't have knowledge and insight sufficient to see through the prevalent patent system economic quackery and mythology - even though it's really as transparently bogus as any quack medicine pseudoscience. It's ironic - but also rather satisfying to my nationalistic instincts ;-) - that here i
Should vs Will (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Defeatism is definitely the best route to positive change, well played!
Re:Should vs Will (Score:5, Informative)
I don't believe this is really the case.
It's true that politicians don't understand technology very well. They come from varied backgrounds, but rarely does that include IT. So they need people to explain technology topics in terms they can quickly understand. Otherwise, they'll listen to the people who are in their face most often - and that's usually the big lobbyists.
Do some research on software patents before you talk to your Senator or Representative. I often bring up the progress bar patent [blogspot.com] (which expired just a few months ago.) Start with "You know when your computer boots up, or you're loading a web page on your browser? Notice that progress bar at the bottom of the screen? That's patented, and technically someone would have had to pay a license for that."
Never fails to stun them into realizing that's stupid.
I honestly believe that if enough people go to their Representatives RIGHT NOW and talk to them about software patent reform, they'll listen.
That is not a "progress bar patent" (Score:2)
I often bring up the progress bar patent [blogspot.com] (which expired just a few months ago.) Start with "You know when your computer boots up, or you're loading a web page on your browser? Notice that progress bar at the bottom of the screen? That's patented, and technically someone would have had to pay a license for that."
That is not the impression I get from reading the patent [uspto.gov], which is much more specific (and the patent claims the methods to accomplish this task. In fact, the patent doesn't even mention a bar, it mentions a rectangle of twenty characters, and the characters disappear in an unspecified order (but not necessarily linearly):
The icon does not require a graphics display to be used and therefore can be used on both graphics and non-graphics displays. The icon of the prepared embodiment has five rows consisting of four percent (%) symbols surrounded by a border. At the beginning of a task, a task monitor quantifies the task into substantially equivalent task work units. All twenty "%" symbols are present and displayed to the user. When the task monitor determines that one task work unit has completed, one "%" symbol is replaced in the icon by a replacement character, such as a blank or null character. The replacement of one "%" symbol each time a task work unit completes continues until all of the "%" symbols are replaced, indicating 100% completion of the task. The order in which symbols inside the icon are replaced is determined by a pattern array and can be modified if desired. The symbols used inside the icon and for the border are selected to be available in virtually all languages, and can also be modified to meet the needs of a particular user.
Granted, it still seems pretty trivial, though it was filed in 1989. The main problem is that it makes no sense for software patents to last 20 years from filing... that's an eternity and
Personally... (Score:2)
It is not software patents itself that is a bad idea, it is that math (or anything else) is patentable just because it is executed on a computer that is a bad idea, which do cover many software patents.
Re: (Score:3)
A software patent is a form of thought censorship: it means that there are certain ideas you're not allowed to think up and write down and exploit, even though it's entirely your idea and you came up with it on your own, just because someone you've never met has paid the government for it some time earlier. Worse, you don't even know you had a thoughtcrime until years later when you get sued for infringement.
Re: (Score:2)
That would be an argument for an independent invention defense.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The idea of a patent law is that people don't sit on their ideas and keep them secret. An independent inventor defense would be an incentive for a person NOT to learn what is already out there. Society benefits more if he DOES learn about other ideas. Both to incorporate in his own product to make it even more attractive (from which society benefits by getting better products) and give him new ideas.
A couple of posts higher, I explain why a patent system is a good idea and software patents are a bad idea .
Re: (Score:1)
The patent system is a trade-off. You don't want people to sit on their ideas. If half of the creative, thinking people don't want people to leech off their ideas without compensation, society loses a big part of the forward momentum.
For software, the situation is different:
- Developers don't sit on their ideas.
- Ideas get stale quickly
- Programs use a multitude of (networking, interface, manipulation of objects etc. etc.), so there's tons of opportunity to infringe (not so with a mechanical invention. If s
Mod parent up (Score:2)
Thanks for the post! If I had mod points, I'd give them to you.
Der (Score:2)
...you can patent just about anything if you put "on a computer" at the end of it.
That is by design. If that wasn't a separate patent, then Ikea could hold patents that affect HP devices.
I'm not saying software patents are good, I'm strictly saying that the 'put computer at the end of it' rationale actually has some basis in reason.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not saying software patents are good, I'm strictly saying that the 'put computer at the end of it' rationale actually has some basis in reason.
Okay, that's fair. But look at the examples I give, and tell me that doesn't seem like an abuse of the system. Honestly, assembling a flight plan on a computer [blogspot.com] is an example of going too far.
Re: (Score:2)
What you linked to is a 2001 patent for creating a flight planning system using the client system to generate the flight plan from data served on the internet and from radio signals the device is receiving. There are a lot of specifics in this patent that'd be easy to bypass. Assuming this didn't have any real prior art, I don't see what's not patentable from it. Seriously, all you'd need to do to avoid this patent is to use a custom app instead of a web browser.
There's a reason patents are TLDR.
RunwayFinder and FlighPrep (Score:3)
Yes, patents are often written to be overly broad. Sometimes that's a hedge against a later change in technology, so the patent still is applicable in some way. Other times, it's just to get the patent accepted - if it sounds hard, it must be "new", right?
Richard Stallman wrote a great article about that once, about how they intentionally write these software patent applications to be obscure. I don't see it on my blog, [blogspot.com] so it must be queued for next week (I post one item a day.) Check back next week.
But on
Re: (Score:2)
There is tremendous abuse of software patents, just as there is of traditional patents.
Let's turn the question around... Why should your innovative and novel idea be patentable when designed in a purely mechanical system, but NOT when it is upgraded to do most of the work in software?
Should it be okay that the rom drive in your dvd player has a dozen patents on it, but the video and audio codecs have to be given away for free? If so, say goodbye to open audio and video formats like h.264 and he-aac+, beca
Re: (Score:3)
I think you're missing the point. The thing that is being patented is prior art or not novel. Computers and the Internet are also 'prior art' and their use for storing data, processing data by the application of algorithms, and transmitting data is in the public domain for the all encompassing set of things called data and/or algorithms. Simply taking a single existing (albeit inefficient) process or a particular type of data and putting it on a computer (even if doing so makes it practical) is not patenta
Re: (Score:2)
I would agree with you if integrating a computer into a solution was straightforward or even simple, but it's not. Try building the equivalent of a paper filing cabinet and copy machine out of assembly language, make sure to cover all of the use cases that would apply in that context. To fix your metaphor, it'd be like building a refrigerated truck while everybody else is using wheelbarrows.
Re: (Score:2)
It is straightforward. And pretty simple. First of all, nobody in their right mind would undertake such a task in assembly language. There are powerful SDKs, libraries and run time environments that make such a task childs play. I give you VB and its suite of tools together with all the barely competent programmers that still manage to foist 'usable' apps onto the user community as evidence.
The problem (producing flight plans) is well defined and the client-server/Internet solution follows the prior art i
Re: (Score:2)
The point wasn't that SDK's aren't available, the point was that just attaching a computer to a problem is not simple or straight forward. Think about how the files and folders paradigm was built in the first place. It's not like you just bolt a computer on to something and it magically works, utilizing that processing power takes design, research, and development.
Now, with that in mind, go read the patent.
Re: (Score:2)
And my point is that once the files and folders paradigm was developed for the general case (easy or not), extending the general case to one specific use of 'files and folders' is a trivial task. Even older, the client-server model existed long before the Internet. I worked with some apps using dial up connections.
The obligatory bad car analogy: Back in the old days, farmers carried their produce to market with horse and wagon. Then, someone invents the pickup truck as a replacement for those. Now, the po
Re: (Score:2)
And my point is that once the files and folders paradigm was developed for the general case (easy or not), extending the general case to one specific use of 'files and folders' is a trivial task. Even older, the client-server model existed long before the Internet. I worked with some apps using dial up connections.
You're talking about a generic model and not a specific implementation. Again, the actual process of hooking a computer into a particular business is not a straightforward or easy process. Computers are not magical devices that instantly make everything better. To illustrate, I'm going to fix your metaphor:
Back in the old days, farmers carried their produce to market with horse and wagon. One farmer sees a Model T and thinks "hmm... that could make this heaps easier". So he buys a Model T, then he puts
Re: (Score:2)
You're talking about a generic model and not a specific implementation.
But once the generic model has been developed (arguably the most difficult part) specific implementations drop out of the trees like over-ripe fruit.
Again, the actual process of hooking a computer into a particular business is not a straightforward or easy process.
Yes, it is. In spite of some well publicized failures, thousands of small and medium sized businesses moved from paper and filing cabinets to little icons of file folders on desktops without batting an eyelash (or hiring CS graduates). Those are all what we would call 'specific implementations'.
Re: (Score:2)
But once the generic model has been developed (arguably the most difficult part) specific implementations drop out of the trees like over-ripe fruit.
They seem like that in hind-sight. Look at the year we're talking about.
In spite of some well publicized failures, thousands of small and medium sized businesses moved from paper and filing cabinets to little icons of file folders on desktops without batting an eyelash...
No they didn't. They ponied up cash to hire consultants to design it and get it all running, then they invested in people to maintain it. They didn't 'buy a faster truck', they flipped their businesses inside-out.
Re: (Score:2)
Hold up, what is Ikea going to patent that affects HP devices?
That's the point. The way it is now, they can't. If 'on a computer' wasn't patentable, then Ikea could have a patent on how they pack their boxes that HP would have to license when coming up with a new data compression algorithm.
Seriously, no software patents means once HP puts it "on a computer" Ikea's mythical patent no longer applies, i.e. it *doesn't* affect HP devices/quote.
They can't anyway, so what does the 'no software patents' buy you, now?
More wrongs by government (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
And when you don't want to patent something you developed.... how do you keep someone else from prevent you from your own work with this shit about dumping inventor rights over first to file... Anyone want to go into the patent troll business?
(emphasis mine)
And at least in my case, when I spoke to my Representative's office, they "got it" that "first to file" was a bad idea, and would lead to big problems later. I got the impression that "first to file" was (partly) the reason the America Invents Act has been held up for a vote. The Reps are actually arguing over that.
What first-to-file means (Score:2)
how do you keep someone else from prevent you from your own work
Defensive publication. Google it if you want..
with this shit about dumping inventor rights over first to file
As I understand it, a switch from first-to-invent to first-to-file only affects conflicts of patent vs. patent, not patent vs. published prior art. An invention that is not novel would still be not patentable, and an invention described in a publication in the prior art would still be not novel.
oh they'll listen (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
In this case, I don't think so. They will likely ignore us if we ask for software patents to be completely abolished, however, there's big money on both sides of this one. Consequently, we can probably get things that are more beneficial for the part on the side of reducing the impact of software patents.
USPTO'S RFC mischaracterized (Score:3)
The RFC by the USPTO is limited in scope to restructuring the re-exam process for increased efficiency, quality, and throughput. Comments on this process will need to be framed by the current statute and case law built on the statute, because the USPTO cannot change the statute by itself. Instead, this is talking about changing internal procedure as well as possibly changing the regulations (37 CFR).
Re:USPTO'S RFC mischaracterized (Score:5, Informative)
The RFC by the USPTO is limited in scope to restructuring the re-exam process for increased efficiency, quality, and throughput. Comments on this process will need to be framed by the current statute and case law built on the statute, because the USPTO cannot change the statute by itself. Instead, this is talking about changing internal procedure as well as possibly changing the regulations (37 CFR).
Correct, and as pointed out in TFA:
(emphasis mine) (TFA is mine too, actually)
Maybe I should have made it clearer that I'm advocating two separate actions here:
Re: (Score:2)
Part of the problem, though, is that you really have to understand how re-exams work in order to provide substantive suggestions on how to streamline them. If you speak in generalities and try to grind an axe over software patents, I suspect your comments will find their way to the round file.
constitutional amendment (Score:2)
I'll write to my Rep. He's a Republican, so I'll put it in terms I think will resonate. Patents are government interference! Get the government out of my business!
But I want to go much further than a mere bill. I want to remove the "exclusive" part of both patents and copyrights. No more monopolies. To do that would, I believe, require a constitutional amendment. I'd like to change to a permissive system, in which anyone can use anyone else's work without explicit permission, payment, or anything e
Re: (Score:2)
I recommend the following process:
Is it a patent over software? If so, throw patent in trash can then goto next patent.
Just imagine how much time that would save.
Fixes nothing! (Score:2)
Rrrrriiiight.... (Score:2)
>Your Representatives are very interested in hearing from you.
No... no they're not.
They are interested in how much money they can get from their campaign "donors" to vote one way or the other.
--
BMO
Re:Rrrrriiiight.... (Score:5, Interesting)
No... no they're not. They are interested in how much money they can get from their campaign "donors" to vote one way or the other.
I call BS on that one. Have you actually talked to your Congressperson? They do want to hear from you.
Maybe I'm lucky. I live in Minnesota, so I have Senator Al Franken: privacy [slashdot.org], net neutrality [slashdot.org]. I actually met him a few times, which is what got me interested in doing something about software patent reform. Al made a great comment to me: "It's your job (constituent) to tell me what's important, and my job (Senator) to go do something about that in Washington - but first you need to let me know what's important."
And true to form, when I contacted his office, they listened to me. At my first contact, I spoke with the office's state director. Then I got to meet the constituent affairs person. That led to a conversation with the office's lead counsel on patent issues, and who works with Al on the Senate Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology and the Law. [senate.gov] Everyone was very helpful, and very engaged with what I had to say. His office is the one that pointed out the USPTO RFC to me - I had missed it. (USPTO web site is hard to navigate.)
Don't be defeatist with your "They are interested in how much money they can get from donors" attitude, and do something about it. On Slashdot, we've been bitching about software patent reform for years (and I have a low UID). Finally, now we have a window of opportunity. Don't lose it!
Re:Rrrrriiiight.... (Score:4, Informative)
This is true. I work for a Rep in the US House. And I've been talking to lots of people about this bill. Not too many constituents, though, which is too bad. Lots of business people from our state though. We do want to hear. Especially on bills like this, which are very technical. I'm having trouble offering a recommendation since this is a flawed bill with some good, some bad, and much missing.
But I'll tell you this, too: It's pretty much too late to change this bill on most issues. That was a done deal by leadership and committees over the past 6 months. Rank and filers don't get much of a say on the major issues unless they're on that committee. Big changes (like software patents) will blow it up. There is a small chance the House will have a chance to substantively amend on the floor, which could get interesting. So this advice if you call:
0. Call the House. The Senate voted (something like 95-4) to pass this bill. Now's the time to influence the House process. You can go back to the Senate if there's a conference. ... ... how should the Rep vote given that reality?
1. As for the "LA (Legislative Assistant)" handling patent issues. Talk to them if you can. If you can't, leave a message and ask for a call back. Many LA's will work 12-16 hour days and are still way behind. So the odds are they won't be there. But most will call you back.
2. Don't focus overly on software patents. You can say that they're bad. You can say vote against them in an amendment if you get the chance. But
3. For the most part we'll want to know what you think of this bill. Will things be better or worse if we pass it? Yes, I know it's flawed, but
4. If you want to go deep, look at amendments next week and offer opinions on those if there's something impt.
Yeah... (Score:2)
No matter what rep you work for, their office - through the auspices of a series of elected officials - is known to have completely and utterly broken their solemn oaths; known to have violated the constitution repeatedly and deeply; and you... you suggest we trust the current rep in that office, that we spend our time providing suggestions to them.
You're hilarious, you are.
But I'll tell you what. When the reps you work for rewrite the laws to respect the commerce clause for what it actually was meant to ac
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, the thing is that no matter how much money a politician can get for voting one way or another, it doesn't do them a damned bit of good if it results in 2/3 of the voters voting for somebody else at the next opportunity.
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent up!
Primer on Patents (Score:2)
If you're going to write a primer on patents, at least try to make it sound like you know what you're talking about. Getting basic facts wrong about for example term length makes you look silly.
Re: (Score:2)
If you have a correction, please leave it in the comments. [blogspot.com]
"Represent"atives (Score:2)
your Representatives are very interested in hearing from you
Is there anyone out there who still believes this?
Organizations against (Score:1)
I'm VERY interested in hearing why the American Medical Association and IEEE are against the bill. Perhaps someone can enlighten me?
Re: (Score:3)
I'm VERY interested in hearing why the American Medical Association and IEEE are against the bill. Perhaps someone can enlighten me?
The "First to File" is a major issue for a lot of folks. I believe this is true for IEEE - not sure about AMA, but I'd hazard a "yes" on that too.
Don't get overexited (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a fourth rebranding of the proposed Patent Reform Act. Deckchairs get rearranged but there is little substance to all this and none of the driving forces have computer users in mind.
Some procedures get changed to make X more efficient and to improve quality sometimes for Y.
None of this solves the software patents problem in the USA. The software patents problem *isn't* caused by some bad apple applications slipping through the procedures. The problem is that software has to conform to standards (interfaces and data formats), and these are being covered by thickets of patents.
If there's 900 patents on something (i.e. mpeg), then weeding out the worst 10% changes nothing.
We need abolition, and we need Congress's support in this. The current Supreme Court has shown itself to be reluctant regarding substantial changes to law, and even if we won there, if we have no support in Congress then our victory would be wiped out by a legislative change.
Yes, do work on this proposal. Work to get software clearly excluded - you have to keep trying if you want to have a chance. But don't get overexcited. This is unlikely to be a big turning point - that is, of course, unless you get active and make it happen.
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/The_Patent_Reform_Act_(USA) [swpat.org]
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Harm_to_standards_and_compatibility [swpat.org]
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/MPEG_LA [swpat.org]
Re: (Score:1)
The current Supreme Court has shown itself to be reluctant regarding substantial changes to law
That's because the Supreme Court isn't designed to make changes to law. That's the legislative branch's job, not the judicial.
Re: (Score:3)
AC says:
> the Supreme Court isn't designed to make changes to law.
The Supreme Court has an obligation to make a ruling. If the law is incomplete or unclear (as is the case for software patents), their decision has the same effect as what a legislature can do.
Re: (Score:2)
I think everyone concerned about this sad state of affairs should read Xiph's comments [xiph.org] to the FTC Patent Standards Workshop. Their submission focuses on how software patents affect Standards Setting Orga
IV Supports, I Deny (Score:1)
From reading the Wikipedia article, it is pretty obvious the Intellectual Ventures(Read: Patent Troll Incorporated), is leading the opposition to this bill. If patent trolls like IV oppose the America Invents Act, then that seems like a pretty decent heuristic to determine that the AIA is a good idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless they are using reverse psychology on you!
Ok I sent my letter (Score:3)
Now send yours. Click the "inviting public comments" link above and email the patent office. There is an address in the link.
It's one thing to sit and bitch about the state of things. You have an opportunity to fix it, right now.
So do so. Be heard!
From the other side (Score:2)
Re:From the other side (Score:4)
No, it won't. Because someone else will get another patent covering basically the same area with different language. If you cry "prior art" they'll point out some trivial difference and have the patent upheld. If you actually build the prior art, they'll claim your device is equivalent to theirs and thus covered by the patent... and likely win.
Re: (Score:1)
No they won't win. Gilette defense is the best to have if you're accused of infringement.
If they do use that defense, they're basically admitting it isn't inventive because the difference is trivial.
Bert
Patent attorney
Re: (Score:2)
If they use a trivial difference to repatent, then you can use a trivial difference to evade the patent.
Why is it that... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
banks want patent reforms (Score:1)
After years of fighting Mr. Ballard at the federal Patent Office, in court and across a negotiating table, the banks went to see one of their best friends in Congress, Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, who inserted into a patent overhaul bill a provision that appears largely aimed at helping banks rid themselves of the Ballard problem. The Senate passed the bill easily in March.
Banks do not like “business method” patents.
problem with contacting representative (Score:1)
Food for thought (Score:2)
Patent licenses are one of the main forms of passive income enjoyed by rich people along with copyrights and real state.
Software patents should not exist. These so called inventions should be protected by copyright instead but this is going to be very hard to change since the same rich people earning passive income from them is the people that pays lobbyists or happen to be the lawyers and judges that hear these cases.
Patent reform to the point of eliminating software patents can be done but it would requir
...Need to go further with Software Laws (Score:1)
What should a patent protect? (Score:1)
Jim, your software patents primer page asserts: "A patent protects an invention."
Is that really the case, in your opinion? (Honest question, not sarcasm, since I was personally defrauded of multiple patents by a former employer.)
It seems to me that protecting inventions is a root of the problem: it shouldn't be an invention that is protected, but a right, of an inventor. Inventions don't have rights, inventors do.
The implication of that, in my view, is that intellectual property rights (in the US) should
Re: (Score:1)
I would suggest, by the way, that an invention that has "rights" has another name - it is a "standard." Those may have other kinds of protection, but standards that aren't open are effectively not standards at all, in my opinion.
It seems to me that the law dances around this distinction. What benefits society and what benefits an individual (inventor or otherwise) or an organization may be very different things since, stating the obvious, individuals, organizations, and societies are different things.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Please don't feed the troll.
Re: (Score:2)
Hi. I submitted the story.
Did you bother to read the blog I linked to? I know this is Slashdot, but it helps if you RTFA. I know the America Invents Act doesn't do anything about software patents. From the linked blog: