Slashdot Mirror
Lawmakers Debate Patent Immunity For Banks
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Now that a small Texas company has a patent on scanning and archiving checks — something every bank does — that has survived a USPTO challenge, lawmakers feel they have to do something about it. Rather than reform patent law, they seem to think it wiser to protect the banks from having to pay billions in royalties by using eminent domain to buy the patent for an estimated $1 billion in taxpayer money, immunizing the banks. The bill is sponsored by Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL)."
Can't really say more than that, unfortunately.
Problem is, in this case it might be required as such a distinction in law might not exist.
They can cashier the USPTO Commissioner, appoint a new one, and order a comprehensive review.
A billion dollars. Talk about misuse of taxpayer funds.
WTF?
Patents are supposed to benefit the common good. That's their only purpose. Now that they recognize one case (in many) where patents are crippling productivity, harming the economy, and working against the common good, they do nothing to address the problem of people abusing the patent system. Instead, they take more money from the people, harming the common good further, in order to bail out banks.
That is completely absurd.
You're close. It's not C, it's an unholy combination of COBOL (used for bit manipulation and other detailed machine-level stuff), FORTRAN (used for database access), and SQL (used for business logic). With plenty of assembler thrown in, and gotos galore.
(OK, there may be some C in there. Used for string manipulation, probably).
Probably the worst thing about this fiasco is that, by creating this law, they're admitting that there's a problem with the patent system, but not fixing it. If congress were to have plans to enact real patent reform, but they want to get this done first so banks don't have to wait, that'd be reasonable. Instead, we have a congress that's only going to do anything this time because it's affecting a rich industry.
if we fix it the right way.
And what makes you think we would do better the second time around? Is there any actual evidence that anyone knows how to do better (as in, backed by at least a modicum of data, not just a few papers and manifestos)? Is there any evidence that if they do, the people actually rebuilding the economy would pay any attention?
What makes you think that drastic economic changes would actually succeed? Do you know of any significant examples of replacing a capitalist system with something drastically different and having it work?
So in effect, the banks are stealing technology, asking Congress to litigate their loses, and now this Senator is front-man for a huge expenditure of _our_ money to bail them out?
Something is amiss here, because I'm still paying for my checks. Let the banks and their huge reservoir of money pay for their technologies. With interest.
I don't care one bit if the banks invested so much of their capital into inflated mortgage loans. That's their problem for not making _sound_ investments. They freaking have _economists_ working in those high-rise offices.
If I understand correctly, Ballard claims to have developed these techniques and methods in the mid-90's, at a time when physical transfer of checks was required - federal law would not have allowed those methods at that time.
Then, the world turned upside-down - and his invention became a necessity.
DataTreasury has negotiated licencing with some financial institutions, but there are others that seem to feel that they shouldn't have to pay and aren't afraid to try to make the US taxpayer pay instead.
While it may be possible to characterise DataTreasury as a "patent troll" by some readings of the term, Ballard appears to be the first to have come up with and documented those methods and techniques and that's been upheld by the USPTO. DataTreasury claims to have attempted to sell the patent-protected system to the banks, who went ahead and ran with their own implementations. Isn't the patent system supposed to be about providing a limited-term monopoly for those who come up with ideas, whether it's an idea for a better mousetrap or a method of performing financial transfers? Isn't it possible that the banks are trying to use their sheer size and influence to avoid paying for something that they really ought to?
Was it the Banks' idea? Was it the patent troll's?
It's moronic. Congress can simply act to invalidate the patent to favor public interest or need. They don't need to BUY it! "Eminent Domain" is about actual property, not Intellectual property! The concept of Intellectual Property is about TEMPORARY monopoly or ownership of something that is to be later claimed, owned or otherwise available for public or private use. It's a privilege given to people by the government. When that privilege is misused or otherwise to the detriment of the public interest, that privilege should simply be REVOKED.
The sources of the current problems are not mysterious. We know how every one happened. There's just too much misdirection by the Neo-Conservatives and Libertarians ranting about how the market is so "magical" and "mysterious" that no one can understand it. That's bullshit. You approach scientifically just like any other field of study.
In this instance, if you have this great idea and can't get the money any other way, what's the use of the patent you have currently? All it's doing is stopping others from making the best thing since sliced bread while you'll never be able to do so. If you were to approach one of the corporations that would profit from your invention, work out a licensing deal with the company so that they can use the patent and nobody else can.
This is in your best interest since you'll get the money to develop the invention and you will, presumably, be getting large amounts of money for it. It's in the corporation's best interest since they have a monopoly for a while. It's in the economy's best interest because the person with enough talent to come up with the idea in the first place now has the money and the leisure to come up with more ideas while schoolteachers can show their students how all they need are brains and creativity to make it in this country.
The biggest problem is that nobody wants to stop the party.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Fine. Tell me why it is novel?
...SERVER!!!
I could say the same about lawyer paperwork... I propose a patent on using auto-document feeders, OCR, and ODF data formats for storage on a
Oh wait. Thats what many higher-tech lawyers do at their law firms, as do doctors with MR's, and other professional peoples.
There is nothing in that statement about congress purchasing someone's rights.
Consider another intellectual right. Congress has retroactively extended copyrights with every copyright extension in history. Certainly they should be able to retroactively shorten it. But if that day ever comes copyright holders are going to start screaming eminent domain.
I have to disagree. The problem here isn't the banks; it's the patent system.
Patents were designed to help people with new, nontrivial ideas (or new nontrivial ways of doing things that provided some great benefit) protect their investments. They were primarily used for mechanical processes. Unfortunately, when America went from being an industrial nation to a service-oriented one, the rules about patents were perverted into our current catastrophic state. They're more of a legal weapon now than they are a means to secure the fruits of labor.
There once was a time when the scientific masses used patents as a way to ensure their research would pay off. Modern parents are usually loopholes or technicalities discovered by legal teams; the businesses and the lawyers get rich; the companies that would benefit from the ability to use such technologies to help the economy progress and make the lives of the average Joe easier end up at the short end of the stick.
Really, patents are about greed and hindering technological progress. They discourage innovation by providing an instant monopoly on technology.
"You could almost look at defense of Microsoft as a form of the Stockholm syndrome." -neapolitan
I would be inclined to let the economy finally crumble, and rebuild it. Sure, it'll suck, but we'll be better off because of it, if we fix it the right way.
That is a big if. I have basically completely lost confidence in our culture and government when it comes to The Big Issues.
Great. Whatever happened to the party of the free market?
When Democrats spend tax dollars propping up "unsuccessful" citizens its called welfare-state communism.
When Republicans spend tax dollars propping up "unsuccessful" corporations its called...what exactly?
The patent system may be knackered but the answer isn't this absurd gesture of government largesse.
You would have to be an idiot not to see this idea as the most obvious thing to anyone with even half a wit. This idea was inevitable and the idiot that got the patent didn't "invent" anything. It was simply an idea waiting for the cost of the technology and the legal system to catch up with it. That this patent was upheld pretty proves the USPTO is run by morons who would think tying your shoe with a double knot is original enough to be patentable. Digitally scanning documents and using the scans as legal instruments, yeah that took a genius to think up. The banks didn't steal this guy's idea they just took the obvious next step probably oblivious that anyone even talked to the shyster with the patent. I come up with 100's of more original ideas every month in my daily work.
Who is John Galt?
There's a reason the business cycle was a lot more exaggerated before the institution of the Federal Reserve at the beginning of the 20th century. The Great Depression was a pretty big fuck-up by the Fed, but that's because they did the exactly wrong thing: contracted the money supply to prevent deflation, instead of expanding the money supply to prevent recession. Since learning that lesson, the economic cycle has been enviably smooth by historical standards, although there's no way for a free market system to ever get away from the basic boom-bust cycle of capitalism.
All those people who worship at the altar of gold tout the benefits of a fixed quantity of gold, but that's actually a rather huge detriment. And it's not even really true, either; the Spanish imported shipload after shipload of gold after their conquest of the Americas, and it just ended up causing huge amounts of inflation and eliminating any incentives to develop an industrial economy... unlike gold-strapped Britain (and we all know what happened after that).
Let's see the data. Seriously. I've seen a lot of people attempt to see the Laffer curve in the data (my favorite being this train wreck of reasoning, but as far as I can tell, they're not doing much better than the people who are attempting to see Jesus in their toast.
I don't remember seeing a lot of vetoes of profligate spending under Republican presidencies when Democrats ran congress, and for the brief period when they ran both, I can't say that they were an example of fiscal restraint. Face it: Politicians have strong incentives to borrow and spend.
If inflation is greater than 10%, yes it did.
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
Invention: Apparatus for scanning a document.
Invention: Mechanism for archiving scanned data to a new medium I've invented and will describe herein.
Invention: I've discovered a new way to compress check images, using this very specific algorithm which is entirely new.
NOT invention: I can scan a check (technology for this is old) and use it for this specific purpose!
It's stupid and indefensible.
I am sorry, but this is NOT an example of conservatism. This is assuming someone has not defined a new type of conservatism to explain it, which happens too often. Spending lots of money on stupid ideas is not a conservative value.
;)
Unfortunately, it does seem a lot of "fiscal conservatives" have stolen the title from the real fiscal conservatives. Too bad that truth in advertising is outlawed in politics.
Wrong.
If a bunch of people calling themselves Scotsmen behaved a certain way, would you say that Scotsmen generally behave that way? No, not if they're not true Scotsmen. How do you determine if they're true Scotsmen or not? That's simple: where were they born? What country are they citizens of? These facts are easily checked. I, an American, could call myself a Scotsman, but it wouldn't make me one, since I have no known ancestral ties to Scotland, don't live there, and have never even been there. I'd just be a liar if I claimed myself to be a Scotsman.
The same goes for someone calling themselves "fiscally conservative". The words have a well-known meaning: that that person is careful with spending money. It's what "fiscally conservative" means, regardless of context. It doesn't even have to have a political context. A private person who is "fiscally conservative" with his own money tends to not spend too much of it. The same meaning scales up to the national level.
So someone who binges on deficit spending is not "fiscally conservative", no matter how much they may try to claim that title, just like a private individual who maxes out all his credit cards is also not "fiscally conservative".
The "no true Scotsman" argument only makes sense for groups of people who use arbitrary terms to identify their groups, rather than specific words which have a meaning outside of that group. If a group of people calling themselves, say, "Masons", tended to exhibit a certain behavior, then yes, you could generalize that to all Masons, even if a few Masons try to claim that they're not "true Masons", or "Masons 100 years ago didn't behave that way", etc. Same goes for religious groups: if most Christians exhibit a certain behavior, it's valid to say "Christians do xxxxx", even though a few may complain that all those others aren't "true Christians". We see this argument a LOT here on Slashdot.
This is exactly why the term "neocon" was made up, because today's "conservatives" don't act conservative with money at all.