The Story Behind Recent Patent Reform 102
rmstar writes "In an article titled 'The Spoilsmen: How Congress Corrupted Patent Reform,' Huffington Post reporter Zach Carter takes a look at the story behind the recent patent reform effort. It is an interesting and scary account of just how broken the legislative process is when it comes to intellectual property."
...when it comes to intellectual property. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure she is. She wants that cold, hard cash and will say whatever it takes to keep it comin'.
Re:...when it comes to intellectual property. (Score:5, Informative)
Sorry, but how is the Tea Party involved in this story, or are you just spewing rhetoric everywhere?
OK, so you didn't read the article. At issue is an anti-patent troll provision in the bill which only applies to banks, and makes it easy for them to challenge stupid patents. A company that holds a patent on transmitting check numbers over the Internet (I am not kidding) lobbied Tea Party leaders and launched an astroturf campaign targeted at Tea Party members and depicting the provisions as "another bank bailout" (I am not kidding).
As a result, the normally pro-bank Republican party was split, with Tea Party affiliated congressman voting against the anti-patent troll language.
The Democrats are also split on this provision, and the situation there is equally squalid but more complicated. On one side are the Democrats with ties tot he financial industry, of course. On the other are the proverbial strange bedfellows: those with ties to the patent trolls and their lobbyists, and those with ties to high tech industries opposed to patent trolls but afraid that a special provision for the financial industry would weaken a future bid to get the same deal for themselves.
This all takes place in the context of a longer term fight between High Tech and Big Pharma, which is a bit like the TMBG song "Particle Man". High Tech doesn't like the status quo because it makes it difficult if not impossible to create a product like a smartphone without tripping over some crazy patent. Big Pharma, which doesn't have this problem (it sells and patents molecules), likes the status quo. They had a fight and Pharma won, so finance stepped in to get the things High Tech wanted, but only for themselves so they wouldn't have to fight Pharma too.
That in turn takes place in the context of international trade treaties the US has signed that aren't very consistently observed, but give a convenient monkey wrench to throw into the reform works for anyone who prefers the status quo. Despite this, the banking industry was able to get its reforms (which are reasonable except that they only apply to the banks) passed in the Senate, only for the Tea Party to split the Republican support in the House.
So to conclude: across the board reform targeting stupid patents is blocked by Big Pharma. Industry targeted reform is difficult to pass because of treaty obligations, and High Tech doesn't have the clout to make it happen. The banks had enough clout to get industry specific reform into a bill, but where shot down by Tea Partiers who were sold a framing of the issue by the patent trolls that was even dumber than the patents the trolls wanted protected.
The upshot is that the only patent "reform" we're going to get is to make the system more favorable to large companies and less favorable to small ones. Apparently that's the one thing all our legislators can agree upon.
Re: (Score:2)
You see all those other words in the post to which you are replying? You might want to try reading them, it could be educational.
Re: (Score:2)
Go up two more levels. The thread is about tea party support for the repealing a section of the bill, as though they are the driving force behind it. They aren't, a law firm with strong Democratic ties is.
Ranting about astroturfing is kind of pointless when the minority leader of the house of reps is in the pocket of special interests.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
'very much against the will of most people in it"
you see, that's part of the problem with your argument. most of the people in it want to be babied. hence people voting for the government they've built over the past century.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you should work harder and shoulder your fair burden of taxes. I subsidize your services.
Neoliberal capitalism hits the fan (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality [wikipedia.org]
"In economics, an externality (or transaction spillover) is a cost or benefit, not transmitted through prices,[1] incurred by a party who did not agree to the action causing the cost or benefit. A benefit in this case is called a positive externality or external benefit, while a cost is called a negative externality or external cost."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclosure [wikipedia.org]
"The process of enclosure has sometimes been accompanied by force, resistance, and bloodshed, and
Re: (Score:2)
Re:...when it comes to intellectual property. (Score:5, Insightful)
No, you can own tangible things, like a share in a company, or a debt someone owes to you.
I think you're confusing intangibility with non-rivalry. If something is non-rivalrous, it means that multiple people can possess the whole of it without lessening the possession of anyone else. An idea is not rivalrous because if Alice tells her idea to Bob, she doesn't lose it, but rather they now both have it.
Re: (Score:1)
No, you can own tangible things, like a share in a company, or a debt someone owes to you.
I am currently to believe that a share in a company is indeed an intangible good. It's not something you can hold in your hands. Mind you, you may have a piece of paper or something similar that represents it, but the share itself if not a tangible object.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, that was a typo. I meant to say intangible.
Re: (Score:1)
Exactly.
This one article by itself is excellent; there have been sufficient others in recent years. Or, of course, one could read law, an exercise I cannot recommend even thought one might have the time and the stomach for it. Things have gotten seriously that bad. (I know. I had to become expert viz. copyright regarding software lending libraries circa '90)
I apologize for not reading all of the comments, some of them sure to cogent and on point, and certainly more insightful and learned than this, but
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see why you can't. You don't really "own" anything. You simply believe that you do (and laws may state that you do).
Re: (Score:2)
Patents were meant to be a solution to avoid secrets and guild like behaviour, in exchange for a certain protection for the inventions. The problem is that patents are no longer limited to inventions and are used far beyond the original scope.
I certainly would like the intangible patents to be denied, since for the most part cost very little in terms of invention effort and time. For this reason any loss incurred is likely very small.
Re: (Score:2)
the difference between intellectual property and real property is the fact real property can be taken away from you. No one can "take" an idea away from you, they can only copy it.
I can take your car, kick you out of your house, but I can only ever copy your trademark, copyright, or patent.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, well, what stops someone from believing that all copies are theirs and theirs alone? I don't agree with owning ideas, but I don't see why it's impossible when "ownership" is nothing more than a state of mind (you believe that something is yours and yours alone and the law agrees with you).
Re: (Score:2)
How can you prove there isn't another copy ever? once you show it to someone it is copied into their memory. the only way to be sure is to kill the person.
Also since most ideas are derivative of previous work, the probability that someone else had a similar idea is very very high.
Bell, was the first to file for patent on the telephone.
Wright brothers weren't the first to fly, but the first to take off with a motor., and they were the first to patent it.
America was the first to build and deploy a nuclear b
Re: (Score:2)
How can you prove there isn't another copy ever? once you show it to someone it is copied into their memory. the only way to be sure is to kill the person.
I didn't claim that it makes sense. I only claimed that it was possible for someone to feel that way. They could take a less drastic approach and only believe that digital copies belong to them, for instance. Again, I myself think that intellectual property is ridiculous. I'm only claiming that "property" is just an idea itself.
Re: (Score:3)
I have said it before, and I think people got the wrong message, but I will say it again: eventually we will look back on copyright and patents like we now do on slavery. Slavery, too, was an important part of our economy, which was utterly immoral, and many understood it was wrong. Slavery just happens to have been a LOT worse. However, it will happen to copyright/pa
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, then you claim that somehow, I am advocating "crimes against humanity" by suggesting the above and a logical course of action given it. I think, at least; it isn't really clear where that comment came from. Assuming that, let me guess - you're one of th
Re: (Score:2)
I truly hope you're right. But I doubt it will happen in our lifetime. And it might never happen. It seems like, in order for it to happen, corporate power over government would have to decrease, but it seems like it's only increasing, all over the world.
scary? (Score:4, Interesting)
Scary? You think that is scary? No, this [kleptocracy.us] is scary.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not scary? You apparently do not comprehend the implications.
Not including future increases in planned U.S government spending, solely to fund spending which government has already promised to Social Security beneficiaries, Welfare recipients, Medicare and Medicaid recipients, recipients of government pesions, U.S. debt holders and other groups, every household in the U.S. today will have to pay, on average, an additional $1,016,774.00 more in taxes than what they pay at current rates. That is, on aver
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The wealthiest people in this country pay less taxes now than at any time this century. Maybe that's the problem.
Supply side economics is the reason for the short fall not the existence of social security or medicare. The people who put such thoughts into your head know this is true. The short fall is intentional, the hoped for result is a mob of fools clamoring for their own demise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics#Effect_on_tax_revenues [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Now, if we want to talk about deductions that is a whole different ball game.
Actually that is the only ball game. So nope, not rhetoric.
Also, what's with this phrase "class warfare" that conservatives seem to think of as a magical trump card in any argument? What the wealthy pay keeps going down while social programs and living wage jobs evaporate, yet "you people" try to frame things as if the working class are waging war on the wealthy (as if it were possible). If anything it's the opposite. The
Is there an area where legislative process is OK? (Score:1, Insightful)
Seems to me that Congress is bought and paid for by the oligarchy, ditto every state legislature, therefore democracy doesn't work any longer.
Ditto all of our chief executives -- it isn't an accident that Obama is little different than Bush in most of his policies, actually worse in civil liberties for US citizens.
US governments at all levels no longer adhere to the US Constitution.
US governments are therefore completely illegitimate, as bad as any Middle Eastern gov controlled by an obvious strongman.
The p
Re: (Score:1)
Then who did you vote for last election? Did you vote independent or third party? Did you vote at all? Because it should be apparent to everyone here that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are going to help anyone but themselves and the rich.
I can say proudly that I have voted in every General Election since I've been old enough, and I've been voting against both the Dems and Reps all this time. I keep wondering just how bad Congress has to get before enough other voters wake up and join me.
Re: (Score:1)
I applaud your windmill tilting skills.
Alas, the oligarchy has the voting masses controlled via television lies, and by this even more than by direct corruption (poorly disguised as campaign funding) controls the elected government. And they like their tame monkeys in Washington, and will not replace them.
The system has been hijacked.
Re: (Score:2)
I applaud your windmill tilting skills.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.- E. Debs
Re: (Score:2)
Voting third party doesn't help. In my country I voted for the fourth party along with a lot of other people. Suddenly they're the second party and the first thing they did was change their platform to be much like the old party they replaced. Most of the things they removed from their platform were the reasons that I voted for them.
A couple of elections ago the provincial right wing party self-destructed. Suddenly third party did well with a bunch of unknowns getting voted in. The members of the right wing
sudo chown (Score:1)
Pathetic. (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow... That article has left me aghast, but I'd be lying if I said I was surprised.
What really surprises me is that anyone can remain loyal to either party. But I know what the mindset is for most people; "my guy might be bad, but at least he's not as bad as the other guy." So while people continue to delude themselves politicians keep screwing everyone.
By reveling in their own ignorance Americans have abrogated their responsibility to politicians, sometimes intentionally sometimes not. And when that happens the government starts making decisions for us, and inevitably they're going to do what's in their own best interests. So we get stuck with crap.
And the sad thing is that patent reform should be a no-brainer for anyone, regardless of political ideology. I mean, even a staunch believer in the free market should fully support the revocation of most patents. If a corporation can't remain competitive without the government stepping in to protect every little idea they come up with then they deserve to fail.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Or as the late great Douglas Adams put it:
"I come in peace," it said, adding after a long moment of further
grinding, "take me to your Lizard."
Ford Prefect, of course, had an explanation for this, as he sat with Arthur and watched the nonstop frenetic news reports on television, none of which had anything to say other than to record that the thing had done this amount of damage which was valued at that amount of billions of pounds and had killed this totally other number of people, and then say it again, because the robot was doing nothing more than standing there, swaying very slightly, and emitting short incomprehensible error messages.
"It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see..."
"You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"
"No," said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like so straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."
"Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."
"I did," said Ford. "It is."
"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't the people get rid of the lizards?"
"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."
"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"
"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."
"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"
"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard
might get in. Got any gin?"
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't vote third party -- I don't care who -- you're part of the problem. No exceptions. Any vote for D or R is a vote for corruption.
Re: (Score:2)
Not exactly. There are mavericks. Look for the members that the other members call crazy. Those are the people to vote for.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that most of them actually *are* crazy.
Try this - find the person whom you think has the best ideas, and the most credibility, and vote for them. Of course, it will have to be a write-in, because the system is rigged against anyone not belonging to and conforming to the dogma of one or another group seeking only its own power.
Re: (Score:2)
The trouble is that a lot of them are crazy - you kind of have to be in order to think you stand a chance of getting into power that way, aside from anything else - and they're generally not as maverick as you might think either. Especially once the money starts rolling in...
Re: (Score:1)
Not exactly. There are mavericks. Look for the members that the other members call crazy. Those are the people to vote for.
And what do the mavericks do once it becomes inconvenient to be a maverick?
John McCain's presidential campaign says it all.
Even The Maverick was shown to be a fully owned subsidiary of The Republican Party.
Re: (Score:2)
They stand by their principles, otherwise they are not mavericks.
Dennis Kucinich brought up impeachment as a possibility for Obama, for ignoring presidential responsibility to ask congress for permission to bomb the crap out of Libya.
Ron Paul votes down nearly every piece of legislation he doesn't agree with, even when it's backed by Republicans.
Re: (Score:2)
Though now days I don't think it makes a lot of difference.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that while democracy might seem to be the best of all options with regards to how one obtains a government, without an educated population who is willing to understand the problems and elect politicians who can resolve the issues in the most intelligent and beneficial means, we get a government that is really not much better than that which any other system might produce.
Essentially, it looks like that for the past 30 years the US Government has been spending money it doesn't actually collect
Re: (Score:1)
"By reveling in their own ignorance...."
Yarderhey.
Unintentional or no, the American people have been derelict in their duty, since the days we turned the factories from tanks and machine guns towards cars and refrigerators. Every generation has gotten worse. Part of what I saw since grade school in the Fifties was the denigration of the slightest attempt by anyone to learn anything. One might show a guy how to lace up a glove or throw a curveball, but don't ever make the mistake of raising your hand in c
IP == Immoral Property (Score:3, Insightful)
I can not see a moral, nor ethical, reason for honoring IP laws in the US. I've held this view for a while, but articles such as this simply reinforce the idea. Every citizen has a moral obligation to ignore laws which have been bought and paid for by corporations. Every single politician in Washington has accepted bribes and they have made sure that the Supreme Court allows them under the name "campaign contributions". The entire system is corrupt and no longer has a mandate to govern.
Re: (Score:2)
However, as we now see, patents essentially ensure that a small investor such as the one you mention could never manage to profit off his work, because he would be sued into oblivion for violating other patents. This is not a flaw in the patent system, it is a flaw in the concept of ideas being property. It needs abolished outright.
Also,
Re: (Score:2)
I can already copy the fashions, architecture, storytelling style, business models, cooking recipes, general look and feel, and many other things that have taken years of real hard R&D by some small (or large) inventor and copy it and hence give no monetary reward for the inventor's hard work, all completely without legal repercussion.
Why are algorithms and physical/chemical recipes and other such things different?
Re: (Score:2)
One should always do what's right, it's just that what's right and what the law says are orthogonal and increasingly divergent.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure makes you think, doesn't it.
We only need 10 percent (Score:5, Funny)
So all we have to do is educate 10 percent of the population and make them understand patents are bad.
It gives me hope.
Re: (Score:2)
Patents are not bad. However, our patent system is seriously flawed, and has been corrupted.
Unfortunately, I think we've got a long way to go to get to 10%.
Re: (Score:2)
You can understand the confusion one might have about patents which can only remove products from the market, regardless of the total lack of intention or knowledge of infringement on the part of product
Re: (Score:2)
Patents weren't intended to protect the interests of big companies, they're intended to protect the interests of individual inventors. Apply for a patent, publish the info, use the patent to help bring products to market, and prevent bigger, better funded competitors from using your idea without paying you a royalty.
That the system is broken (patents issued that clearly shouldn't be, etc.), has been corrupted by big money, and has been abused by "patent trolls", doesn't make patents bad or evil. It makes fo
Re: (Score:2)
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. (Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the U.S. Constitution)
See? Nothing there about a goal of protecting ANYBODY'S economic interests, whether big corporation or individual inventor. The ONLY goal is to promote progress. In as far as the patent system fails to promote
Re: (Score:2)
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. (Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the U.S. Constitution)
Promote progress. That is the goal. When you have a goal, then you may use some strategy to reach that goal, i
Re: (Score:2)
Without patents, companies and people that wish to produce products can do so, and can compete based on the quality/timeliness/price of their products.
With patents, companies and people that wish to produce products do so under the cover of lawyers, and leverage those lawyers to stomp out smaller, less established competition.
There isn't any proof that competition without patents is in any way more brutal than competition using patents.
Re: (Score:2)
"...by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
I'm not wrong. Yes, the goal is to promote progress, and yes the mechanism is be protecting the inventors. I have nothing confused, you assumed things that I didn't say. You want to argue semantics, but the fact is they are intended to protect the inventors, just like I stated.
Your experience at IBM demonstrates my point quite clearly. Had the patents been yours (as the inventor), not
Re: (Score:2)
1. something that is intended; purpose; design; intention: The original intent of the committee was to raise funds.
What is intended by this clause is to promote progress. There is no stated intent for the government to protect the economic welfare of authors or inventors. In fact, no citizenship requirements are attached, so we have applied these protections universally, not just to American inventors and authors, because, again, the intent is to promote progress.
If we can promote p
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt 10% of the US population knows what a patent is, never mind comprehending the flaws in the system.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, all the lawyers and people in office.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm glad you can still maintain hope.
From circa '95 'til 2000 I polled an adhoc universe on the simple question of when the Millenium would arrive. Out of perhaps 500, eight or nine got it right. [sigh] When otherwise supposed grownups can't even count to ten, just what hope is there?
The end of the article is particularly chilling (Score:2, Redundant)
"A one-size-fits all system doesn't work in the 21st Century," says Manheim, before acknowledging: "The problem with that argument is that it might violate international law."
Unfortunately, tailoring patent laws to better suit different types of technology may run afoul of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), a treaty that countries must sign in order to join the World Trade Organization. Article 27 of TRIPS reads:
Re: (Score:3)
From my European perspective, the main problem in the US is not patent law as such, but a insane litigation system, inflicting costs on small-time guys that they just can't bear, thereby op
this part says it all (Score:2)
"Amid 9 percent unemployment, Congress was bickering over two check-processing patents."
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Because government regulation is just so much worse than a corporate monopoly.
Re: (Score:2)
Because the same government that has proved itself irretrievably corrupt in dealing with Intellectual Property will never ever be corrupted by regulated telecoms and internet service providers.
Re: (Score:2)
Standard Oil was broken up. So was Bell and American Tobacco. Microsoft was smacked around quite a bit.
When was the last time the government ceded control of anything?
Corporate monopoly control exists as long as consumers, or the government, permit it. Governmental control is unending.
So why not a Patent 2.0 system? (Score:2)
Grandfather it in like this: if you file a patent by the rules of Patent 2.0, then you can no longer sue or be sued using the Patent 1.0 system. Furthermore, you have to abandon all existing Patent 1.0 lawsuits. In exchange, any Patent 1.0 lawsuits filed against your organization are void.
How much would that level the playing field?
Simple Corporate Reform (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That's an interesting idea. But what if rich executives and board members of corporations made the contributions personally?