Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 20th Nov 2013 18:07 UTC
Legal

On Wednesday, the House Judiciary Committee is scheduled to consider legislation aimed at reining in abusive patent litigation. But one of the bill's most important provisions, designed to make it easier to nix low-quality software patents, will be left on the cutting room floor. That provision was the victim of an aggressive lobbying campaign by patent-rich software companies such as IBM and Microsoft.

These companies also happen to have the largest lobbying corruption budgets. This is never going to change.

Order by: Score:
Of,By,For
by fretinator on Wed 20th Nov 2013 18:24 UTC
fretinator
Member since:
2005-07-06

Now that corporations are people, government is truly "Of the corporation, by the corporation, and for the corporation." In Corp We Trust.

Reply Score: 7

RE: Of,By,For
by Soulbender on Wed 20th Nov 2013 21:25 UTC in reply to "Of,By,For"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

No no no, you're missing the point. Since corporations are people the government is now truly "of the people, by the people and for the people".

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: Of,By,For
by kwan_e on Wed 20th Nov 2013 22:47 UTC in reply to "RE: Of,By,For"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

No no no, you're missing the point. Since corporations are people the government is now truly "of the people, by the people and for the people".


Truly, all people are equal. Some people are more equal than others.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Of,By,For
by anda_skoa on Thu 21st Nov 2013 08:28 UTC in reply to "Of,By,For"
anda_skoa Member since:
2005-07-07

Now that corporations are people, government is truly "Of the corporation, by the corporation, and for the corporation." In Corp We Trust.


Or, slightly mutilated: "The Corp is Mother, The Corp is Father"!
"Well, in this case, I am orphan"

:-)

Reply Score: 3

Comment by Nelson
by Nelson on Wed 20th Nov 2013 19:29 UTC
Nelson
Member since:
2005-11-29

There's still the Senate and a conference committee to reconcile the differences. Strong support in the Senate would probably politically put the House in an awkward position.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by Nelson
by Pro-Competition on Wed 20th Nov 2013 19:57 UTC in reply to "Comment by Nelson"
Pro-Competition Member since:
2007-08-20

We can hope, at least.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Nelson
by tylerdurden on Thu 21st Nov 2013 02:59 UTC in reply to "Comment by Nelson"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

The Senate is even more bought out than the House (by design). So not a chance.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Froyton
by Froyton on Wed 20th Nov 2013 19:40 UTC
Froyton
Member since:
2013-08-29

This makes me a sad panda. ;)

Reply Score: 2

moondevil
Member since:
2005-07-08

It wasn't only IBM and Microsoft, but all these companies:

http://images.politico.com/global/2013/09/22/final_-_letter_opposin...


3M

ActiveVideo Networks, Inc.

Adobe Systems

Advanced Technology Ventures

Allison Transmission, Inc.

Architecture Technology Corporation

Beckman Coulter, Inc.

BGC Partners, Inc.

Bi-Level Technologies

Biotechnology Industry Organization

Boston Scientific

Brash Insight Corp.

BSA - The Software Alliance

Cabochon, Inc.

California Healthcare Institute (CHI)

Cantor Fitzgerald L.P.

Caterpillar, Inc.

Ciencia, Inc.

Cleveland Medical Devices Inc.

Colorado Technology Consultants

CONNECT

Cotera Inc.

The Cummins Allison Corporation

Dolby Laboratories

Domain Associates

Donohue Consulting, Inc.

The Dow Chemical Company

DR Systems, Inc.

DuPont

Eatoni Ergonomics, Inc.

Eli Lilly & Company

Embedded Systems LLC

Entrepreneurs for Growth

Entropic Communications, Inc.

ExploraMed Development, LLC

Fairchild Semiconductor

Fairfield Crystal Technology

Fallbrook Technologies Inc.

Flocel Inc.

Forsight Labs

ForSight VISION4, Inc.

Foundry Newco XII, Inc. (d/b/a Twelve)

Freescale Semiconductor

GearMax USA Ltd.

General Electric

General Nanotechnology LLC

Global Network Computers

Great Lakes Neuro Technologies Inc.

Holaira, Inc.

IBM

IEEE-USA

Illinois Tool Works Inc.

Innovation Alliance

Inogen, Inc.

Insight Legal

Interknowlogy

Inventors Network of the Capital Area

IP Advocate

IP Pipeline Consulting, LLC

Irwin Research & Development, Inc. eptember 19, 2013

Johnson & Johnson

Karbonique, Inc.

KeepSight LLC

Kovogen, LLC

Lauder Partners, LLC

Licensing Executives Society (USA & Canada), Inc.

Lightstone Ventures

MediaFriends, Inc.

Medical Device Manufacturers Association

MH Systems, Inc.

Micron Technologies

Microsoft

Miramar Labs, Inc.

Morgenthaler Ventures-Life Sciences

National Association of Manufacturers (NAM)

Neodyne Biosciences, Inc.

NeoTract, Inc.

NeuroPace, Inc.

NeuroWave Systems Inc.

Nevro Corp.

NuGEN Technologies, Inc.

NuVasive, Inc.

OL2, Inc. (OnLive)

Orbital Research Inc.

Patent Office Professional Association

Power Auctions LLC

Precision Combustion

PreEmptive Solutions

Procter & Gamble

Prometheus Research, LLC

Qualcomm

Rearden Companies, LLC

Restoration Robotics, Inc.

Sapheon, Inc.

Software Partners LLC

Soleon Robotics LLC

Tessera

The Foundry LLC

TM Technologies, Inc.

Trading Technologies

U.S. Business and Industry Council

Vibrynt, Inc.

Xerox Corporation

Reply Score: 11

Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

I don't see Google in the list, so let's create a good guys listing :

AMD
nVidia
Google
Motorola
...

Kochise

Reply Score: 5

shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

Strangely, Apple is missing there too, which is unexpected.

Reply Score: 4

UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

I didn't see Nintendo in there.

Reply Score: 2

CapEnt Member since:
2005-12-18

Not a American company. Foreign lobbying in USA is quite a controversial issue, most pressure groups do not accept these companies on it.

Reply Score: 3

UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

Nintendo of America? Right up the road from Microsoft headquarters practically?

Reply Score: 2

CapEnt Member since:
2005-12-18

Having a subsidiary in USA does not make a company American.

Anyway, nintendo did something shady lately related with patents? I find odd that you suddenly brought it to the table.

Reply Score: 2

kompak Member since:
2011-06-14

Why do you list AMD and not Intel?

Reply Score: 3

majipoor Member since:
2009-01-22

I don't see Google in the list, so let's create a good guys listing :

AMD
nVidia
Google
Motorola
...

Kochise


What a surprise: you missed Apple in your good guys list.

Reply Score: 3

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

What a surprise: you missed Apple in your good guys list.


Apple? A good guy on patents?

They have perpetrated more software patent abuse than just about any other major company. They're the worst of the worst.

Reply Score: 4

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

They have sued more over software patents than Microsoft, Google, Samsung, HTC, Sony, etc. etc. etc.

Sorry, but those are the facts.

Reply Score: 2

MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

Ah, Google the SEP suer (via Motorola of course), but that's just one of the many things you can blame them for. Well, not YOU of course.

All companies, including Apple, do stuff we don't like. You just like to single out Apple and/or promote them to be the biggest baddy of all while you let other companies completely off the hook.

Apple became patent-aggresive after the Google betrayal with Android. Like it or dislike it, but Apple sues within the law and rules. Unlike, let's pick Google and Samsung, who abuse SEPs. Blame the system, not the players.

It's like claiming a sport player is evil, because within the rules he's better than anyone else and promoting players who break the rules in order to stop the best player to heros.

The system is now challenged, but on a list of companies not liking this there is no Apple to be seen, yet still you claim them to be the worst. They are the #1 target for patent trolls. They should love a change of rules.

They can never do any good in your eyes. Even if they do you'll suggest a hidden evil motive.

It's simple, if companies rip off Apple Apple strikes back. But this procedure can be so lengthy and the punishment so small that a company like Samsung will keep doing it because it makes them more money in the end.

Reply Score: 1

shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

like it or dislike it, but Apple sues within the law and rules.


As most patent trolls do. Current laws and rules have too many holes. MS was targeted by patent trolls as well, they don't oppose the reform when it's affecting NPEs, but they oppose reform which affects their fake patents. Why Apple isn't on the list is interesting though, since I don't see their position being too different from Microsoft's on this one.

Edited 2013-11-21 16:09 UTC

Reply Score: 2

tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

Do not worry, that apple fanboi suit doesn't make you look fat...

Reply Score: 4

shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

A bunch of hypocrites, who claim:

The US patent system for more than 200 years has succeeded spectacularly in promoting “the progress of science and useful arts,” as the Founders intended, in part because it has always provided the same incentives for all types of inventions. To expand and make permanent the CBM program would be to turn ill-advisedly and irrevocably in a new direction — discriminating against an entire class of technology innovation.


So, the mess they created with software patents is "spectacular"? Disgusting.

Edited 2013-11-20 20:49 UTC

Reply Score: 5

bnolsen Member since:
2006-01-06

yes it is a spectacular mess. that was what you meant right?

Reply Score: 3

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Caterpillar? WTF?

Also, who the heck are 95% of these companies?

Edited 2013-11-20 21:20 UTC

Reply Score: 3

shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

Looks like some number of medical device manufacturers there.

Reply Score: 3

tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

There is a new breed of biotech companies which are taking things to really really creepy venues. Forget Software Patents, there are groups moving proactively to allow for the patenting genes and other naturally occurring stuffs.

They had some recent setbacks to their positions lately, but they are amassing some serious $$$ for legal battles in that regard. Patenting nature is a greedy asshole's wet dream.

Reply Score: 3

gan17 Member since:
2008-06-03

Caterpillar? WTF?

Never heard that "These boots were made for patenting" song before?

Also, who the heck are 95% of these companies?

That's where it gets tricky. Some of these companies/industries depend on patents just for survival, mainly those in research. In other circles (say the medical or construction equivalent of OSnews), patents may well be revered.

Quite the mess we have here.

Reply Score: 3

shotsman Member since:
2005-07-22

Didn't you know that Caterpillar has an arch rival in JCB? Patents are essential for keeping upstarts (despite their superior products) in check.

You can replace those two companies with pretty well any two major players in any industry.

Reply Score: 4

tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

The IEEE is in that list? Damn...

Reply Score: 2

Hang on a second...
by kwan_e on Wed 20th Nov 2013 22:57 UTC
kwan_e
Member since:
2007-02-18

Last week, IBM escalated its campaign against expanding the CBM program. An IBM spokesman told Politico, "While we support what Mr. Goodlatte’s trying to do on trolls, if the CBM is included, we’d be forced to oppose the bill."


Why should it matter to the government if IBM would be forced to oppose the bill? Is IBM a senator now?

Reply Score: 5

RE: Hang on a second...
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 20th Nov 2013 22:59 UTC in reply to "Hang on a second..."
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

"...we'd be forced to oppose the bill, and cut funding on your or your party's campaign coming elections, redirecting said funds to your rival instead."

Reply Score: 5

RE: Hang on a second...
by saso on Wed 20th Nov 2013 23:30 UTC in reply to "Hang on a second..."
saso Member since:
2007-04-18

Why should it matter to the government if IBM would be forced to oppose the bill? Is IBM a senator now?

Yes, I would see how intuitively a person not familiar with US politics would think this, but since in America money equals speech (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo), political life has become so centered on campaign contributions that pretty much anything having to do with the spirit of democracy has been erased. Your surprise here is quite understandable, as anywhere else in the world people still recognize this as blatant bribery (and many in America still do as well, which is why significant amounts of money are spent on keeping this little tidbit off of the evening cable news cast).

Edited 2013-11-20 23:30 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Hang on a second...
by kwan_e on Thu 21st Nov 2013 01:03 UTC in reply to "RE: Hang on a second..."
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

I'm not surprised that it happened. I'm surprised it was said so openly, and it is openly understood that campaign bribery is what they meant by it. I'm further surprised that there's no real backlash against politicians cowering in the face of such blatant threat and bribery.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Hang on a second...
by blitze on Thu 21st Nov 2013 01:45 UTC in reply to "Hang on a second..."
blitze Member since:
2006-09-15

Why should it matter to the government if IBM would be forced to oppose the bill? Is IBM a senator now? [/q]

Given the state of Politics in the West, why not have IBM and other corporations elected representatives. Cut out the middle man and save in bribes, cough, I mean campaign contributions.

Nothing like a good honest government providing governance for the benefit of society as a whole....

I go now to a corner and weep for humanity.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Hang on a second...
by Soulbender on Thu 21st Nov 2013 05:15 UTC in reply to "Hang on a second..."
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Why should it matter to the government if IBM would be forced to oppose the bill?


Because it would mean that IBM would stop bribing senators. Oh wait, sorry, did I say bribe? I mean "support their campaigns" because we all know that lobbying is absolutely not, in any way at all, legalized corruption.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Hang on a second...
by lucas_maximus on Thu 21st Nov 2013 09:53 UTC in reply to "RE: Hang on a second..."
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

However lobbying is probably the only way that someone outside of politics (since it is now a career) is likely to change how the system works.

Unfortunately it is tied to money, which is why the system is broke.

Edited 2013-11-21 09:54 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Hang on a second...
by Soulbender on Thu 21st Nov 2013 13:03 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Hang on a second..."
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Unfortunately it is tied to money, which is why the system is broke.


And thus lobbying is a net negative. And it's still corruption.

Reply Score: 3

Comment by Lorin
by Lorin on Thu 21st Nov 2013 05:03 UTC
Lorin
Member since:
2010-04-06

Continue taking the jobs offshore and the people will finally stand up and demand change. US courts have no jurisdiction outside that 7 mile limit or is it 11

Reply Score: 2

Sad but true
by sforstall1983 on Thu 21st Nov 2013 21:13 UTC
sforstall1983
Member since:
2012-09-28

Patent troubles affect the open source community as well

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Patent-Trolls-Kill-OS-4-OpenLinux-th...

Reply Score: 0

Nice Try
by bentoo on Thu 21st Nov 2013 22:04 UTC
bentoo
Member since:
2012-09-21

These companies also happen to have the largest lobbying corruption budgets. This is never going to change.


Sorry, Google is the reigning top dog when it comes to lobby spending. (Note that they're also on the top of campaign contributions too.)

2011:
http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indusclient.php?id=B12&year=2011

2012:
http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indusclient.php?id=B12&year=2012

2013:
http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indusclient.php?id=B12&year=2013

Reply Score: 3

Not just a problem with software patents
by cjcox on Mon 25th Nov 2013 17:22 UTC
cjcox
Member since:
2006-12-21

Patents I guess you could say were originally designed to protect invention (some might say intellectual property) so that new "things" could be brought to market effectively without fear of being "stolen" by somebody that was bigger and more powerful than the originator.

Unfortunately, now, if you create a patent, it's likely that any attempt to bring that "invention" to market would likely step on other patents, which means the only hope is to sell out to a bigger patent holder. This seems to be how it usually goes.

So.. here's my proposal. Make the lifetime of the patent be variable based on the "size" (however that is determined) of the patent holder (the true holder not someone licensing). Thus the "little" guy now has a better chance of bring something to market since it's likely that patents that would be used to coerce/force sale of they guy's patent might be expired.

Something has got to be done. Right now, the likes of IBM are gearing up for an ultimate technology war.. where the survivor is the one with the most patents... and can I say, this was not the intention of the patent system?

Reply Score: 1