Companies Petition Congress To Reform 'Business Method' Patent Process 78
ectoman writes "This week, a coalition of more than 40 companies sent a letter to Congress asking for legislation that expands the Covered Business Method (CBM) program, a move some feel would stem patent abuse in the United States. Expanding the scope of CBM—a program that grants the Patent and Trademark Office the power to challenge the validity of certain business methods patents—would expedite the patent review process and significantly cut litigation costs, they say. "The vague and sweeping scope of many business method claims covering straight forward, common sense steps has led to an explosion of patent claims against processes used every day in common technologies by thousands of businesses and millions of Americans," says the letter, signed by companies like Amazon, Netflix, Red Hat, Macy's, and Kroger)."
Prediction (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
With that kind of lobbying money, I expect a bipartisan majority pushing this through quite quickly.
Depends... is there sufficient lobbying money opposing it. You know, shadowy patent trolls and such.
they call these 'dollar votes', those with the most dollars get the votes
Re: (Score:3)
You see! (Score:4, Insightful)
But people are prone to make sweeping assumptions because of one company at one particular time making a bad decision. In truth, as with all things, businesses need to be evaluated on a case by case basis.
Re:You see! (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic right now, but I'm going to respond as if you aren't:
Businesses are, by DEFINITION, primarily interested in profits. Given a choice, they will do what they can to maximize their profits. It seems as if in this case, expanding the CBM is good for their businesses - I'd guess because it will make it more difficult for them to be sued, allowing them to increase profits.
Money is ALWAYS the bottom line. What we may interpret to be "good will" is nothing more than the business determining that is a better/easier/quicker way to make more money.
Re:You see! (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, of course. The point is that the pursuit of profit is neither good nor evil.
Our task as a society is to adjust the system's incentives so that businesses' pursuit of profit aligns with our best interests.
Re:You see! (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words we have to harness the amoral powers of sociopathy to good ends. We have to convince the psychopaths we've allowed to rule our society that it's in their best interests (which is all they give a flying fuck about) not to harvest us for our flesh, but rather to use their absolute lack of concern for any human being other than themselves for the greater good.
Does that just about sum it up?
Re:You see! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A company cannot make any decision that isn't made by a person who made that decision. And the CEO makes the final decision in a company.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A company cannot make any decision that isn't made by a person who made that decision.
Nonsense. A computer as a whole can take a decision that wasn't made by a single transistor in any sense of the word. It is also well known that people in groups do things that they wouldn't do alone.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They are responsible for their actions if they are or should reasonably be aware of the consequences. The point is that the system, as a whole can end up "making" decisions that no individual person made. This is the whole basis of the "invisible hand" economic theory from Adam Smith.
Re:You see! (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes. And that's one of the reasons why we need regulated capitalism. It's a means of harnessing sociopaths. In unregulated capitalism, the sociopaths will run rampant with their businesses. In communist societies, lacking other outlets, the sociopaths seem to take power in the government where they tend to do a lot more harm.
Re:You see! (Score:5, Insightful)
sociopaths seem to take power in the government where they tend to do a lot more harm
To work in the government, you have to be OK with forcing people to do things against their will, even if they're harming nobody else. That's a very self-selecting job description.
Now, you want to let them tell businesses how they need to operate too? Think they'll have a moral problem with those businesses paying for special treatment?
Exhibit A: Wall Street.
Exhibit B: K Street.
Re: (Score:2)
I look at corporate management as being like a torturers' club. Sure, when you first join, you're shocked that your coworkers like to clamp jumper cables on to peoples' penises, but after a bit of desensitization, you're eager to take part as well.
In other words, corporations encourage sociopathic behavior, to the point that even normal people become inhuman monsters who justify the most depraved activities with the phrase "We're responsible for good returns for the shareholders". You know, much like how al
Re:You see! (Score:5, Insightful)
Because we have a finite amount of resources as a nation (man hours, kilowatts, lumber, etc.) at any given time, the only way to make everyone richer is to use those resources as efficiently as we possibly can to provide what people need and want.
Profit is the measurement of how efficiently an endeavor is providing what is needed and wanted. Therefore, it is not always evil and always has an element of good to it.
Notice I didn't say it is always good. If a company makes decisions that deny to some people what is needed and wanted, in order to provide to a select few what is needed and wanted for the purpose of profit, then they have not been as good as they could have been. So thus, Microsoft is more evil and Red Hat is more good.
But to over-simplify the truth and say, "Profits are an evil motivator," is, as over-simplification always is, ignorant. There's an unwillingness to really look at everything when you over-simplify so you are by default being ignorant of the whole truth.
Re:You see! (Score:5, Insightful)
And what evidence do you have to suggest that is happening? The gap between rich and poor grows every year, which means it isn't making 'everyone richer'. In fact, it certainly looks like the opposite is happening.
And as far as using those resources as efficiently as possible, again, I'm not convinced we do. How is it more 'efficient' to make Larry Ellison even more wealthy and a bigger asshole? Is he proportionally doing more work, or is he just the guy at the top collecting massive rewards?
Bullshit. It's a measure of how much it costs you to extract money from your clients relative to how much you rake in.
A credit card scam can be hugely profitable, but it has no relation whatsoever to 'how efficiently an endeavor is providing what is needed and wanted'.
So many corporate profits these days are a shell game to make one thing look more expensive and defray the costs to someone else. You think Hollywood accounting is about 'how efficiently an endeavor is providing what is needed and wanted'? Or do you think it's about shuffling around money to tell one group of people you lost massive amounts of money and can't pay them, and tell another group how much money you raked in.
And you have so over simplified what 'profits' mean as to make everything you said meaningless drivel.
Re: (Score:3)
The gap between rich and poor grows every year, which means it isn't making 'everyone richer'.
Seriously dude? If I have $1 and you have $2 and we both double our wealth, now I have $2 and you have $4. Everyone is richer yet the gap grew from $1 to $2. Now lets say you tripled your money while I doubled mine. The gap is even bigger but still we are both richer.
It is perfectly possible for the gap to grow and everyone get richer. I'm not saying this is or isn't happening right now. I'm just pointing out that your mathematical reasoning is flawed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously dude?
The gap between rich and poor (gini coefficient) is invariant to (among other things) linear scalings. IOW if everyone doubles their wealth, the coefficient does not change.
It is perfectly possible for the gap to grow and everyone get richer.
The very reason that no one measures it the way you think they do is precisely for all the bad reasons you'e pointed out.
Re:You see! (Score:4, Interesting)
Profits are bad, because profits are not the point of society nor a benefit to society. Society is a benefit to society, not profits.
Understanding that the ideal just expressed is utopian and unrealistic at this point in time does not change the fact that profits are bad.
Consider Socrates and the Allegory of the Artisan. The duty of the Republic is to ensure that a good artisan remains a good artisan. Pay him too much, and he will no longer produce works. He will not only stop producing, but spend his time and money meddling in other peoples affairs. The Republic has given him an opportunity to harm others as well as no longer be productive for society. If the Republic does not pay the Artisan enough, he will no longer produce. The artisan will be worried about the welfare of his children and home, and seek opportunities other than being an artisan to ensure survival.
The duty of the Republic is to ensure that people are rewarded for producing in society, but never so much that they become unproductive. This does not just go for the artisan, but also the farmer and cobbler and baker and every other job we have deemed critical to societies purpose and function.
Now if you consider that among Americans if you ask people "How much money is too much money?", you know damn well that the answer will be "no such thing". This is a socially deficient teaching which is not beneficial to society. People have been duped.
**and now I step down from my philanthropic soap box.**
Re: (Score:1)
Your perspective strikes me as deeply naive -- almost to the point that it isn't worth responding to, but I guess I've already started typing. What kind of a fool would say "profits are bad"? Profits are neither good nor bad, obviously.......... You do know that just about every pharmaceutical / computer / technology you rely on has been pursued for the sake of profit. You should read Wealth of Nations.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, Socrates was just an idiot and nobody should ever study that guy right?
Sarcasm aside, the logic is given. If you choose not to read or comprehend the logic, that is not something I can not possibly repair. That also does not reflect on your ability to comprehend data and desire to use ad hominem to attack his words.
To put those thoughts to real practical use, why do we have the Sherman Act to prevent monopolies? It is an extension of profits which allows monopolies to occur, not someone trying to b
Re: (Score:1)
Socrates never says profits are bad, that is you saying that. If you actually read the passage above that you quote, you'd see Socrates is arguing for an incentives system to encourage the artisan to produce... one such incentives system is the pursuit of profits and all of its benefits. In econ 101 you learn that it is competition that drives down profits, and monopolies are discouraged because they harm competition (they are not going after profits... they are going after anti-compeititive activity). T
Re: (Score:2)
If you bothered to read instead of spewing your opinion you would find that Socrates does state that profits are bad. He states, very clearly, numerous reasons for profits being bad. The summary in the Allegory of the Artisan is a logical conclusion of a much longer discussion claiming the need for purposeful control of profits by the Republic.
I'm sure you won't let a little fact get into the way of your fantasy, but I'll recommend that you not speculate on verifiable history in the future. If your argume
Re: (Score:1)
You're the one that's saying Socrates says profits are bad -- if he says it "very clearly" certainly you can easily provide such text to back up your assertion. Please provide.
Do you think any pharma company would develop a new drug without a patent system in place? There are obviously downsides to the patent system, but anybody who just critiques it's downsides without appreciating its upsides is just whining and short-sighted.
You aren't seeing the enormous benefit *your* life has had based on the system
Re: (Score:2)
No, I'm not going to quote over 900 pages of text because you don't want to visit the Library. It's a nonsense request so that you can maintain your delusional opinion. I own 3 separate translations of each of his works, and most can be found on Amazon for a nominal $30.00USD price tag.
Your Pharma comment continues to show you are devoid of any research at all and simply wish to back your opinion using fantasy. In fact I'll go further and point out that you fail to consider extremely recent history in yo
Re: (Score:1)
Seems it should be pretty simple to just quote where Socrates says "profits are bad"... you're the one asserting it; you carry the burden of proof. The fact is he's never said such a silly thing, and if it takes him 900 pages to say what you think he's saying, you're over-simplifying what he's saying by several orders of magnitude.
Whether the patent system is a net detriment or benefit to society is an interesting debate -- hard to prove either way. At best anybody that looks at it should admit the quest
Re: (Score:2)
It should be painfully obvious in the allegory provided that profits are problem but you refuse to see, acknowledge, or read anything that hurts your belief. If Socrates was not of the belief that profits were a detriment beyond an obvious point why would he state that the Republic needed to regulate them? I realize that many people today have difficulty with critical thinking, but the Allegory of the Artisan makes the point very obvious. If you are having difficulty because Socrates does not use the spe
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Profit is the measurement of how efficiently an endeavor is providing what is needed and wanted. Therefore, it is not always evil and always has an element of good to it.
Thanks for explaining the tenets of your religion. Now, any time you want to discuss economics, let us know.
You're too cynical (Score:5, Insightful)
Businesses are, by DEFINITION, primarily interested in profits.
Primarily but not exclusively. The degree of their interest depends very much on who is running the business. Even the biggest businesses have stakeholders whose interest is not in maximizing corporate profits - many employees of the company not the least among them. And a profit motive does not mean that a company cannot engage in social good at the same time. Sometimes the two will conflict but often they will not.
Furthermore there are not-for-profit businesses who typically have some sort of dominant social agenda to which profit is merely an enabler rather than a driving force.
Money is ALWAYS the bottom line. What we may interpret to be "good will" is nothing more than the business determining that is a better/easier/quicker way to make more money.
I disagree that money is "always" the bottom line. Often, yes. Usually, maybe. Always, no. If your assertion were true then there are a lot of corporate activities that make little sense, starting with charitable giving. (for the cynics among you, charity generally makes for a terrible ROI even if you think of it as marketing) Furthermore a profit motive can, and often does, align with a social good. The two are not fundamentally incompatible. Reducing energy use has both an environmental benefit and an economic one. Reforming patent law can accomplish the same thing.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
You have a very simple model of businesses. It's easier to think about things if all of your models are very simple, to be sure, but it's not the best approach to getting the right answer.
Many strongly moral people own companies. Many strongly moral people own stock. Many strongly moral people run companies. It's not the norm, but it's about as common as strongly moral are in society in general.
Profits are a goal, to be sure. Companies exist that have no other goals, and no compunction whatsoever about
Re: (Score:2)
tax write off
A tax write off benifits the charity not the donor. Say my company has $1,000. If I give it all away to charity the taxman asks for nothing, if I keep the $1,000 in my own pocket then the taxman will demands his cut (around $300 in the US). What that does is ensure that charitable donations go to the charity in full and is not counted as income by the taxman. From the company's POV, it makes no difference to the what the taxman does, they are still down $1,000.
Not for profits and charitable giving (Score:2)
Business are not non-profit, those are organizations.
Not-for-profits absolutely can be a form of business. Most are treated as a type of corporation by law and they can and do engage in many of the same practices as for-profit businesses. I've served on the board of several non-profits and with the better run ones you'd have to look carefully at times to tell that they are not profit seeking institutions. Lots of hospitals are non-profits but I assure you that they are without question businesses.
Money is always the bottom line, charitable givings are a tax right off and good publicity
Tax write offs due to charitable giving are typically not re
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Businesses, at least corporations, are required by law to maximize profits
I hear this often but have never seen such a law. In simplistic terms the board of publicly traded companies are required to do what the shareholders (ie: the owners) tell them to do, normally they say "maximise profits" but not because it's required by law.
Re:You see! (Score:4, Interesting)
Businesses are, by DEFINITION, primarily interested in profits.
Not in Germany, where by law they must consider the social good as well.
Groovey times (Score:1)
This will crush the groove of lots of lawyers -- lawyers who also donate. Watch the votes.
FTFA: Interesting consortium (Score:4, Interesting)
I wonder why the lack of Microsoft and Apple.
Amazon.com, Inc.
AOL Inc.
Dell Inc.
Demandware, Inc.
Dropbox Inc.
EarthLink, Inc.
eBay, Inc.
Eddie Bauer LLC.
Facebook, Inc.
Gilt Groupe, Inc.
Google Inc.
Hearst Corporation
HomeAway, Inc.
HTC Americas Inc.
J.Crew Group, Inc.
Netflix, Inc.
Newegg.com Inc.
Overstock.com
Priceline.com Incorporated
Public Service Enterprise Group Inc.
QVC Inc.
Rackspace Inc.
Red Hat, Inc.
Safeway Inc.
Salesforce.com Inc.
Samsung Electronics America
SAS Institute Inc.
Southern Company
Spotify USA Inc.
SurveyMonkey
Jewelry Television
The Kroger Co.
LinkedIn Corporation
Macyâ(TM)s, Inc.
Media Temple, Inc.
Morgan Stanley
Mozilla
Twitter, Inc.
Verizon Communications Inc.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Whataburger
XO Communications
Yahoo! Inc.
Zynga, Inc.
Re:FTFA: Interesting consortium (Score:4, Insightful)
Amazon.com Inc.
Amazon is the very definition of very definition of a holder of a stupid Business Method patent. I'm now afraid that reform means what copyright reform meant in 1998.
Re: (Score:1)
referring to one-click, i'm guessing. that dates back to september 1999, so it's nearing its end. maybe that is why amazon in on-board this future so-called "reform" of business method patents?
Re: (Score:1)
Also note no IBM. IBM's business model now relies on billion dollar annual revenues from licensing patents, many of dubious validity ("but we have so many of them, some of them are bound to stick in court so you'd better license.")
A Moment of Clarity (Score:2)
Can it be a sensible act of congress? Perhaps they will even revive ethics in business, a move in the right direction... can it be?
Re: A Moment of Clarity (Score:2)
Amazon signed this? (Score:1)
They're one of the worst offenders. Seriously. Bezos...license out, in free terms, your one-click patent and those like it and **MAYBE** we'll believe you on this score.
More useless bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
Business methods should not be patentable, nor should software. Period.
Re: (Score:1)
This is very narrow minded. There's a reason the vast majority of every software company doing cool things is in the USA, which has protection for software innovations. If a new algorithm is novel and unobvious, why should it not be protectable?
Re: More useless bullshit (Score:2)
Money money money... (Score:2)
What do these companies pay in taxes vs. the peoples tax payments. But I suppose as a matter of accountability is to also consider what these companies lobbyists put in politicians pockets.
Still, The people most probably pay a great deal more.... And with this, where is teh tax return paper work that allows the people to say where their taxes are to be used? Rather than corporate tax avoidance saying?
Patents that stifle or hinder benefits the people would otherwise have......
What's a "business method" patent? (Score:1)
the vast majority of patents that "trolls" use to sue companies are not "business methods" -- I know everybody loves to hate business methods but the fact is nobody knows what a business method is, except in the most extreme cases (and such cases are very rare). Recent legislation did away with some kinds of things that might be called business methods (tax strategies being one). This is a fundamental problem -- most that bitch about business methods never define what they're talking about.
Re: (Score:1)
I think you agree with me. Unless you can define what a BM patent is, you can't really regulate it. The best def. for BM patents I've heard is they are the ones you're being sued on that you really really hate.
Reform? Why not ban? (Score:2)
Translation: (Score:2)
the patent office is out of its mind (Score:1)