Software Patent Reform Stalls Thanks To IBM and Microsoft Lobbying 239
An anonymous reader writes "The Washington post reports on the progress of a piece of legislation many hoped would address the glut of meaningless software patents used as weapons by patent trolls. Unfortunately, the provision that would have helped the USPTO nix these patents has been nixed itself. The article credits IBM, Microsoft, and other companies with huge patent portfolios for the change, citing an 'aggressive lobbying campaign' that apparently succeeded. Quoting: 'A September letter signed by IBM, Microsoft and several dozen other firms made the case against expanding the program. The proposal, they wrote, "could harm U.S. innovators by unnecessarily undermining the rights of patent holders. Subjecting data processing patents to the CBM program would create uncertainty and risk that discourage investment in any number of fields where we should be trying to spur continued innovation." ... 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." Insiders say the campaign against the CBM provisions of the Goodlatte bill has succeeded. The House Judiciary Committee is scheduled to hold a markup of the legislation Wednesday, and Goodlatte will introduce a "manager's amendment" to remove the CBM language from his own bill. IBM hailed that change in a Monday letter to Goodlatte.'"
Money again... (Score:5, Insightful)
FTA: 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."
What about the hundreds of thousands of small developers who support it?
Do they get a "vote", too ... or is it only the people who are rich enough to bribe senators?
Re:Money again... (Score:5, Insightful)
If money is equal to speech then guess who as more speech than you.
Where the guilt is (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Money again... (Score:5, Insightful)
My favorite part about patent reform is that eventually it's going to pass, and all the small developers will run out and invent shit... and then promptly have it all ripped off by megacorps who make billions on their ideas, and the myopic developers go bankrupt.
If your 'idea' can be 'ripped off' that easily, it sure as heck doesn't deserve a government-granted monopoly.
Re:Human nature? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's probably because most large corporations are run by sociopaths. Sociopaths, because they have no empathy or conscience, are more easily able to rise to the top of power structures (if they're smart; the stupid ones become criminals and go to prison), so most of our political and corporate leaders are sociopaths. And since they have no conscience, they don't give a shit about anyone else except maybe immediate family, and happily use their power to try to fuck over everyone else for their own gain.
Re:Money again... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why would I listen to a bunch of ne'er-do-wells in the face of people who actually know how to generate money (ie, know how to generate tax dollars)?
Don't know about Microsoft and IBM, but don't most big companies these days do everything they can to avoid 'generating tax dollars'?
Entrenched "Innovators" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Money again... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Money again... (Score:5, Insightful)
And one of the reasons patents exist is to encourage companies to reveal enough information so that somebody can implement it after the patent expires.
The problem is that patents neither reveal enough useful information nor expire when they could (theoretically) have been useful.
In Soviet Amerika people have no rights (Score:4, Insightful)
Welcome to serfdom, comrade!
Re:Money again... (Score:4, Insightful)
So here we have an example of our crossroads... (Score:3, Insightful)
So, our choices are apparently either:
- an overbearing nanny state in which the government makes all the decisions, or
- a weak state in which the corporations make all the decisions.
Great. That really illustrates why frustrated people turn to Caesarism, and faith in a single strong personality given despotic powers to "fix the mess".
Unfortunately, while you might get lucky and ACTUALLY get a Gaius Marius or someone genuinely interested in the general well-being of the people and nation, *rarely* is that ever sustainable to whomever inherits (earns/steals/etc) that power next....(Marius himself - in pursuit of very-much-needed reforms - could arguably be blamed for turning the Republic into the Empire)
Re:Human nature? (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, usually anyway. HeLa cells are like those asshole billionaires who ruin a country and then move before the depression ruins them.
All or nothing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Translation: "We love the absurd and unfair amount of power that the broken patent system gives us over any and all future start-ups and rivals, and will oppose any legislation that doesn't maintain the status quo."
No - see the summary:
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."
The proper translation is "yes, we want to stop the troll problem, but this nuclear option you've got goes too far. We like all of your other proposals." Just because you don't like 5% of a proposal doesn't mean you necessarily hate 100% of the proposal.
Re:Money again... (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is not the rich spending their money trying to influence policy, that is to be expected, similar to how we expect a prisoner to attempt escape if left unguarded. Human nature and all that bullshit. The problem is that it is possible to spend money to influence policy. Politicians who were not so easily bribed would secure an equal voice for any citizen, no matter their luck/skill in other things.
CBM is not the answer. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm strongly in favor of patent reform, but CBM is not the answer. CBM allows a subset of patents to be challenged administratively on a fast-track, without having to go to court. That hurts the patent trolls, but it hurts anybody without a phalanx of lawyers even more.
Real patent reform has three key parts:
1. Fix "obviousness." The courts didn't like the examiner affirmatively finding that something was obvious so turn it around and require the applicant to justify why anyone of average skill seeking the same result would not have found the same method. Require the examiner to affirmatively find that it isn't obvious. No justification = no patent.
If anybody asked to do X would have tried your approach and X itself doesn't supply the genius either then no patent should be granted. Nor should a minor tweak on something you or somebody else already invented receive a patent. There are too many "routine inventions" receiving patents.
2. A person of average skill in the art should be able to implement the technology from the contents in the patent. Start rejecting packets where that isn't true. Vague or stilted language in the application = no patent.
3. Patent duration should be from application, not from the grant. Effective protection starts with the application. You can't sue anybody until after the grant, but no one dares use the tech unless they're sure the patent won't be granted. That's been abused by delaying the final grant for years or even a decade.
Re:Where the guilt is (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, and if you use the word "stealing" instead of "make infringing copies", that makes the latter sound a lot worse. But here on Slashdot, you're not allowed to do that, yet it's A-OK to redefine other words for our own feel-good* purposes, apparently?
MAFIAA bribery (or "lobbying") resulted in corporations "stealing from the public domain". And they have managed to re-defined "fair use" as "DMCA violations". But you keep using whatever terms makes you feel good about that.
Re:Money again... (Score:5, Insightful)
"So what if rich companies can communicate more widely than you?"
The "so what" is that they have a darned good whack at drowning out all voices but their own. Inherently undemocratic.
Money as speech seems, to me, to be taking us closer and closer to an authoritarian system.
"I have a suspicion that you want to see some rich people or corporations censored because you disagree with their message. That is not OK."
Agreement is not the issue, their message is not better than anyone else's, and does not deserve amplification.
I don't think that rich people, nor corporations ( who I think should be entirely outside of politics ), nor trade unions, nor teachers unions nor any organization deserve amplification.
You start with "That's a nice little oversimplification of the issue..." then have to go with:
"The definition of a liberal is someone who doesn't care what the law is, as long as it is mandatory..."
( an oversimplification )
Sigh. Is that really all there is to liberals? It is just as un-dimensional ( and inflammatory ) to say "The definition of a conservative is 'I got mine, up yours'".
Which I know not to be true of all or most, only true of some subset.
Here sits a liberal who detests nanny states, censors and undue controls.
And I do care what the law is, but also that the law be fair and fairly applied and reasonable.
( some control seems to be required, and I would argue both sides want controls, it is just a matter of who and what is to be controlled... )
For me, liberalism is caring more about people than institutions ( corporations, powerful people's , states, etc ).
Re:Money again... (Score:2, Insightful)
You're responding to someone criticizing a ruling of the SCOTUS, which has force of law and therefore by definition mandatory. Your point?
The SCOTUS ruling in question was a rarity in that it actually limited the power of government to tell people what they could or couldn't communicate. It was a win for freedom, and I cheer it. Any time the government says "we forbid the forbidding of freedom of speech" I'm OK with that being mandatory. Now back to you, sir -- your point?
Re:Money again... (Score:5, Insightful)
It really is not so short or sweet.
Take the item from today's main page, IBM and MS oppose a part of a bill.
Say for the sake of argument that I and another developer friend support that bill.
4 "persons" involved, but my voice and my friend's voice is rendered inconsequential by IBM and MS's voice.
Why is that OK?
What I want is not censorship of their voice ( they should be able to voice their opinion, as individuals, not as a company ), what I want is to eliminate the censorship of *my* voice. I want their opinion and mine to be able to be evaluated on the opinion's merits, not on the contents of their wallet versus my wallet.
When my voice is drowned out by theirs, how can you argue we have democracy?