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)."

Comments

Well can't say I blame em.

[Chris Burke]

I mean, it's not like substantive patent reform -- in particular reform that as a side effect fixes this specific case -- is something they can exactly toss together before the term is up. And now that pretty much everyone realizes our economy is treading water before a recession, keeping the banks up seems like a good idea. I mean if we're going to be spending billions in tax payer money to keep banks afloat after the subprime mortgage fiasco, this doesn't seem like that big a deal.

Sometimes a band aid is better than a hastily planned and thus ill-conceived surgery.

Re:Well can't say I blame em.

[TubeSteak]

FTFA:

The banks allege that DataTreasury bought up patents for the system that underlies electronic transfers and is trying to shake down companies for licensing fees. But DataTreasury asserts that Ballard is the inventor of the system and built a company to sell it before being squashed by banks that stole his idea. Court battles have raged between the two sides for six years.
...
He said he talked to some bank officials at an early stage of the check system's development and, despite having signed nondisclosure agreements with them, soon lost control over his invention. It sounds like maybe the banks got themselves into this mess and perhaps deserve what is coming to them.

Not to mention that Senator Session's explanation sounds a bit dishonest:
"in the wake of the grounding of aircraft laden with billions of dollars in checks after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks -- federal law was changed to allow electronic transfers as well."

"Stephen Boyd, a spokesman for Sessions, said the provision "is designed to protect banking institutions complying with post-9/11 security requirements from the abusive practices of patent trolling trial lawyers"

Which is it?
Were electronic transfers allowed by the Feds or required by post 9/11 security requirements?
This whole thing reeks of corporate asshattery.

Is anyone really surprised by this?

[ashridah]

If you consider that pretty much all money in existence today is backed solely by debt, is anyone really surprised?

Why does anyone entertain the idea that the banks need to be bailed out? 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.

Re:Is anyone really surprised by this?

[twiddlingbits]

Ok, approach it scientifically and

You'll see stock prices are random. Study after study proves it. It's not a mystery but there isn't a formula either.

You'll see that cutting tax rates leads to increased Gov't revenues by growing the economy. (Don't give me the crap about Reagan, he spent it and then some but it busted the Soviet Union..not a bad use of the money).

You'll see the greater than 50% of the Budget goes to Social Programs started in the New Deal and continued to this day. Remember the real cost of Social Security is not well known, it's an off-budget item. And these costs are growing. Medicare alone is predicted to outgrow the growth in GNP (and thus increases in taxes if rates remanin constant) by several hundred percent.

You'll see most people who are retired can't live on Social Security alone. So much for that program.

You'll see that black Americans still are very improverished, and we now have a class of citizens who have been on welfare for generations. Is that helping anyone?

You'll see that other than in 1996 when the Republicans kept their majorities in both the Senate and the House, marking the first time since the late 1920s that Republicans comprised a majority of the House for two consecutive sessions. Republicans held a majority in the U.S. Senate from 1981 through 1986 as well (Reagan 1st term), for one year in 2000 again in 2002 but not since. You can't blame long term problems on groups who haven't been in control of the process.

You'll see a failure to increase a program budget by the proposed X% is called a "cut". If your boss didn't give you that 10% raise did your salary go down?

It's just flat incorrect when you look at facts (scientific methods look at facts not opinions) to blame anyone but the liberal Democrats for the social spending problems we have. Democrats controlled Congress for 80% of the time, and they built the programs and they continued to fund them at increasing rates. Yes, the War in Iraq has taken money in recent years and made things worse but that's a blip of 6 yrs on the radar screen of close to 70 yrs of social spending.

other option...

[youthoftoday]

The US government has consistently demonstrated innovation in this area. I think the ideal course of action would be to bomb the headquarters of the patent troll company. End of bank cheque problem. End of patent troll problem. Zero litigation.

I Can See The Future...

[GaryPatterson]

... and it's not pretty.

Giving a patent holder a billion dollars to buy their patent will encourage patent trolls to come out in force. The government's giving away billions here, why not give it a go? You can patent something obvious, sue the banks and donate to the political parties. Soon enough someone will buy you out, and you get to retire a very wealthy person!

Sure, it may not work out so easily, but what's to stop anyone from trying?

Business methods should not be patentable

[belg4mit]

And that includes 1-click, etc. BofA has a patent on "Keep the Change," an admittedly clever idea,
and so Wachovia has to opt for the less user-friendly: take a dollar on every transaction. (Actually,
they could presumably go for the "X% of the transaction value")