White House Responds To Software Patents Petition

New submitter obliv!on writes "As previously discussed, the White House has started to reply to petitions on their 'We the People' website. They've now replied to the petition asking for an end to software patents. The response mentions the America Invents Act and encourages the use of the USPTO's open implementation website. Quoting: 'There's a lot we can do through the new law to improve patent quality and to ensure that only true inventions are given patent protection. But it's important to note that the executive branch doesn't set the boundaries of what is patentable all by itself. Congress has set forth broad categories of inventions that are eligible for patent protection. The courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have interpreted the statute to include some software-related inventions.' The response goes on to denote some open source and open data initiatives in government. It's nice to hear that the administration understands 'concerns that overly broad patents on software-based inventions may stifle the very innovative and creative open source software development community.' However, the overall response redirects action to the petitioners through participating in the open implementation site and contacting Congress, instead of a promise to prepare additional legislative measures for Congress to consider on behalf of the petitioners."

Comments

I've got to hand it to the administration

[elrous0]

That's the most politely-worded and voluminous "Fuck you, you're on your own" I've ever read.

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[24-bit Voxel]

One can't help but wonder why they would ever have opened up these channels of communication. What did they expect to get as concerns? Technically the Executive has no power to do anything about any of this, so why bother with the dialogue? Every issue has to be resolved in the other two branches, so what did they hope to accomplish?

Unless of course they're just compiling a list...

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[elrous0]

It's just a political stunt to make it look like the Obama administration gives a shit. Obama has belatedly realized that he might actually need his base to come out and vote for him next year, so he's been putting on a big show of late. It's the same with the "Jobs Bill." He knows it stands no chance getting past the Republicans in the House (hell, he couldn't even get it through the Democrats in the Senate). But it makes it *look* like he's doing something.

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[Anonymous Coward]

What else would you expect from administration lawyers in a coming election year.

Anything less would be down right uncivilized, wouldn't it?

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[Jeng]

It makes for a good campaign promise.

Out of all my dis-appointments with this administration, which actually isn't many dis-appointments, is that they are not taking the petitions seriously.

Instead of saying "I understand why you want the status quo changed and I will work on it." they are instead just telling us why the status quo is the way it is, with not even a hint of changing it.

If we wanted explanations we would read wikipedia, we want action.

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[UnknowingFool]

Well people complain that the government does not listen to their concerns. In this aspect they responded but correctly pointed to the correct part of the government that actually creates legislation. The administration could probably lead an initiative for reform but of course there will be the complaints that "Obama is for patent death panels" and how it is not the job of President to draft legislation.

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[jez9999]

It's the same with the "Jobs Bill." He knows it stands no chance getting past the Republicans in the House (hell, he couldn't even get it through the Democrats in the Senate). But it makes it *look* like he's doing something.

And even with that he's just trying to ride on the tailcoats of a much-loved former CEO.

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[h4rr4r]

Read the one about marijuana. Same sort of nicely worded fuck you, but with the added benefit of lies about effects and completely unsubstantiated claims!

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously you haven't heard the administration speak on any other subject.

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[Anonymous Coward]

They're hoping for the "Won't someone save us from all our hard-earned money and liberty?" petition.

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[Anonymous Coward]

Politicians are often good at that...

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[StevenMaurer]

Yours is the most impolitely worded show of ignorance and stupidity that I've read since I last perused WorldNutDaily.

It's election season. If Obama offered a bill that declared the United States to be the bestest most wonderful nation on the planet which has ever been ever, Republicans in Congress would filibuster it on the grounds that he is a Socielst Muslen Kenyan who hates America and our Troops.

And you think that his recommendation on solving the Patent issue would actually help?

The Administration is right. The only way forward on this is for the "public" (i.e. massive multi-billion dollar companies like Google, Microsoft, etc) to petition Congress, telling them that overly broad patents are bad for business (i.e. bad for GOP campaign contributions).

Everything else implied in your one line screed is bullshit.

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[Godin21]

I thought we wanted change? Action was the previous administration.

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[elrous0]

Yes, Republicans control the House and will block anything he does.

So what was his excuse for his first two years in office?

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[Sir_Sri]

The people who have enough money to be relevant have the whitehouse switchboard on speed dial, and get letters inviting them to fund-raising events that cost more per table than a minimum wage employee makes in a year.

If you think your money is hard earned try listening to one of these politician types beg for more money after you spent thousands of dollars a plate and flew out on your private plane to listen to him. That's the kind of of hard work that gets you liberty, everything else is an illusion created to make you feel better about your shitty job.

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[Anonymous Coward]

Bill Jobs? That sounds like the CEO of an extremely evil company.

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[hairyfeet]

If one needs further proof that "taxation without representation" is the law of the land you must be blind. We tell them to quit sending our kids to die in third world shitholes, they ignore us, tell them to stop throwing kids in jail for pot, they ignore us, tell them to do something about the border, to not give our money away to the top 1% with bailouts, to stop giving the 1% tax breaks, and bonuses for offshoring and H1-Bs...and they ignore us.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson. What else can you call it when your vote no longer matters, the will of the people no longer matters, the corruption has become so bad they blatantly and without fear of repercussion ignore and disparage the will of the people for the TRUE government, by the corporate master and FOR the corporate masters? Tyranny, there is no other word for it.

OWS is only the beginning, as their insatiable greed destroys more and more of the country the people will get nastier and nastier and I doubt VERY seriously they'll quietly slink off to starve like they did during the great depression. When the other three bubbles they've blown, stocks, student loans, and retirement funds ALL blow, my guess is 2013 when that happens, its gonna get nasty folks. When even my late grandma who had voted every year since before WWII, refused to vote any longer because "The thing is so rigged its not like they are gonna listen to us anyway' then you know their little MSM bullshit and lies isn't working any more. Its gonna get nasty folks, maybe even our own Arab Spring.

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[fahrbot-bot]

Executive has no power to do anything about any of this, so why bother with the dialogue?

Two things come to mind.

1. Possibly some ideas for which the Executive does have power to control may be suggested.
2. A vehicle to remind people that the Executive actually has no power over many (most?) things.

I mean, seriously, why do people think the President can perform "magic". Look at all the promises made by the Republican presidential candidates (simply for example), most cannot be fulfilled by the President, but must be done so by Congress.

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[DarkOx]

You really are drinking the Kool-Aide, Look *IF* it was the GOPs fault then Reid would have put the Jobs bill to the senate floor, let it fail in the House. The House has a wide GOP margin, the Senate has a narrow DNC margin. If this was about making the GOP look like obstructionists its a no brainier, let them filibuster in the senate in front of the news cameras or vote it down in the House. That way fault would fall clearly on their shoulders.

There are two reasonable conclusions you draw, one or both may be true:

1) There is little actual DNC support for the bill and they don't want look like there is in fighting between them and the President.

2) Obama recognizes his plan will be failure and the whole thing is just a smoke screen; Reid is complicit and thinks the GOP will be assigned the blame primary rather than congress in general.

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[dkleinsc]

While technically the Executive has no power, if the Obama administration really cared they would call up their pals in the House and say "We need a bill that does XYZ" or even "This is a bill we'd like to see pass. Introduce it please." It's technically correct to say bills originate in the House or Senate, but in practice the President can most definitely push a particular plan through Congress.

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[bluemonq]

Replying to cancel accidental moderation.

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[cayenne8]

Yep....

This site, obviously isn't about 'change' or truly addressing topics the people want addressed. It is theater....and all you're gonna get is mild responses, basically telling you what the law/policy is now and why they want to keep it that way.

They're never gonna do shit....we the people are far too unwashed, and ignorant to know what we want and need for ourselves.

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[CrimsonAvenger]

Look at all the promises made by the Republican presidential candidates (simply for example), most cannot be fulfilled by the President, but must be done so by Congress.

It should, perhaps, be pointed out that almost all the promises made by the Democratic Presidential candidate in 2008 could not have been fulfilled by the President either.

Alas, the Republican Presidential candidate that year was at the top of my list of Republicans NEVER TO VOTE FOR EVER, NO MATTER WHAT. Plus, all his promises were things he couldn't do either.

So, I sat that campaign out. I expect to do the same again next year. Obama has shown some surprising twists, but he basically isn't someone I want in charge. And so far, none of the Republican candidates look like people I want in charge either....

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[TheEyes]

Forty Republicans in the Senate circling the wagons and preventing anything from being done (more fillabusters in two years than any other time in American history; the Obama administration can even get non-controversial middle managers confirmed.)

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[SlippyToad]

It's the same with the "Jobs Bill." He knows it stands no chance getting past the Republicans in the House

Yeah, but now those arrogant sons of whores have to actually come out and vote against a jobs bill. Instead of idiotically grandstanding about so-called "job creators" and doing FUCK-ALL about the economy.

Given the GOP's response vs. Obama's response, I'll take the Obama approach any day, thank you. Vs. the aristocratic, arrogant, self-centered ASSHOLE approach of the GOP, which is to repeatedly do the same thing that hasn't worked for over a decade, and then stand there with their insufferable smug prick-face smiles while the rest of us drown.

I guess it comes down to whose concerns you are going to listen to. The 1%, or the rest of us.

Software patents are somewhere about 1,000,000 miles down the coast from just getting a basic dialogue going in this country among the elite that JOBS GROW THE ECONOMY, NOT RICH PEOPLE.

So, I'm not sure I share the poutraged butt-hurt that the rest of slashdot does over this issue.

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[Jeng]

In order to enact change action must occur.

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[jdbannon]

Really? This one seemed a little worse to me. It's pretty obvious at this point that he doesn't intend to meaningfully respond to any petition that isn't an automatic home run for him.

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[AngryDeuce]

Hell, a few months back Michele Bachman promised $2 a gallon gas if she gets elected.

By spring, I fully expect to hear promises of ice cream for all, no more taxes ever again, and world peace.

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[cayenne8]

Yeah, but now those arrogant sons of whores have to actually come out and vote against a jobs bill.

From what I've read of it...while it does have a very few provisions that actually concern jobs...it is mostly a spending bill, labeled a jobs bill.

And hell, Obama can't even generate Democratic support enough in congress to pass it in the Senate, where they do still have a majority by the way.

So, it isn't all GOP as you ranted....the bill stinks to everyone in DC for the most part.

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[Anonymous Coward]

No excuses, it was stupidity.
Instead of ramming through exactly what he wanted he tried to get consensus. He should have understood the GOP plan after a few weeks, instead it took him a couple of years to realize that the GOP only wanted to destroy him as opposed to trying to govern the country.

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[TheEyes]

You really are drinking the Kool-Aide, Look *IF* it was the GOPs fault then Reid would have put the Jobs bill to the senate floor, let it fail in the House.

Check your facts. Reid did introduce the bill; it was filibustered. Sound familiar? Ever since 2008 the Republicans have been circling the wagons and killing anything that crosses their desk, even routine appointments to mid-level executive departments. That's why the public option was trashed, why meaningful banking reform was replaced by useless drivel, and why we can't have nice things like a AAA credit rating or disclosure of campaign donors (another bill killed by Republican opposition).

I'm not a huge fan of Obama, although I have to admit he has been right about much of his foreign policy decisions, but the Republicans in Congress/Senate these days deserve nothing but contempt. The first step in truly reforming Washington is to get rid of everyone with an (R) in front of his name (the second is to get rid of almost everyone with a (D) in front of their name).

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[StuartHankins]

I think the Dems were shocked enough that they were in power, and got so excited, that they went in all different directions, willy-nilly. Sort of like if you give a bunch of people money they temporarily lose their minds.

What they needed to do was calm down enough to plan what needed to be done -- and sometimes you just have to make a decision even if it eventually turns out to be the wrong one. Too nuanced for the American public, people expected overnight change and became disillusioned. Unexpected catastrophes and turmoil stretched an already intellectually-busy president to the point he couldn't focus on one thing, solve it, and move to the next.

Although I've been disappointed in much that has happened, I think Obama has the right heart, it's just that he's panicked and scrambling for a foothold. It's painful to watch.

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[Bucky24]

the bill stinks to everyone in DC for the most part.

So then wouldn't that mean it's good for the rest of us? :D (I jest, I jest)

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[nine-times]

Though I'm not really that pleased with the administration right now, I do respect their intent here. I think that they're essentially just experimenting with ways to use the Internet to improve communication and create dialogue. That doesn't mean that every petition will result in action by the President to do exactly what the petition asks, but the dialogue itself is something.

I especially think it's worth cutting them some slack because we're still in the early days of these things. The general public hasn't really been using the Internet for 2 whole decades yet, and this is the first administration to make genuine efforts to make use of the Internet for these sorts of things. Some of the first attempts will be clumsy.

And when you look at their page describing what this site is about, this is the only thing they're offering: "If a petition gets enough support, White House staff will review it, ensure it’s sent to the appropriate policy experts, and issue an official response."

I mean, really, did you expect that the President is going to make a huge policy shift against major corporate interests because of a petition with 14k signatures?

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[AngryDeuce]

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

- Thomas Jefferson

Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.

- John F. Kennedy

You are absolutely right, Occupy Wall Street is only the beginning. Things are going to get much worse before they get any better.

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[Bucky24]

Well we did get the bailouts. I suppose if broken down that was a lot of small change....

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[Bucky24]

I almost want to elect her just to see how she manages something like that.... I guess they could start up a company to collect oil from the gulf and refine it but that wouldn't last long.

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice load of 'feed" you're trying to give us. Unfortunately the Jobs Bill got more than 50% of the vote, including most every democrat vote. The bad news is that it needs 66% of the vote (2/3, not half), and the republicans in that final 16% it needed voted against it, not the democrats. Keep beliving Rush "oxi" Limbaugh, and Bill O'Liely, if you want, but don't try to pool the wool over everyone else's eyes. You're not that good of a liar.

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[chronoglass]

republican candidates, democratic candidates.. all the same, MADE IN TIAWAN!

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[MozeeToby]

In this aspect they responded but correctly pointed to the correct part of the government that actually creates legislation.

Oh for crying out loud. The president doesn't enact healthcare law, or pass the budget, or jobs bills, or defense spending or any number of other things. By pretending that they don't influence policy in the other two branches they are, as other people have pointed out, basically just saying "fuck you, we don't want to deal with it".

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[fahrbot-bot]

It should, perhaps, be pointed out that almost all the promises made by the Democratic Presidential candidate in 2008 could not have been fulfilled by the President either.

Yes, I know. As I said, I was simply using the current Republican candidates "(simply for example)".

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[Worthless_Comments]

"JOBS GROW THE ECONOMY, NOT RICH PEOPLE."

And you think....who creates those jobs? Poor people? Government?

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[bberens]

I'm not saying it is, but it could be the most amazing piece of economic wizardry ever concocted by man-kind but the electorate is simply unwilling to put up with any more spending. Both sides of the aisle know this. I think Obama is genuine (at least as genuine as a politician can be) in suggesting that he believes his bill is helpful, but understands it's a non-starter. He has to run around saying they should do it though because otherwise he'll be "the guy with no plan."

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[New Breeze]

I almost wonder if they're counting on it, that's why they're stoking the fires dividing the haves and have nots. Rather than banding together and marching on Washington there will just be rioting where the local business owners houses are assaulted by the former recipients of the nanny state handouts when the system goes belly up.

I used to worry about my buddy the police officer and his stockpile of guns and ammo. He's positively convinced in the next few years we're going to see widespread rioting and looting. Lately I'm not so sure he's wrong.

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[newcastlejon]

You see? This is why punctuation is important!

Somehow, Jobs' Bill sounds frightful. :P

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[houghi]

They are all politicians. What did you expect.

Here is what happens. Republicans screw up, so the Democrats win. Everything that happens will be broken down by the republicans. People will believe it and vote republicans. The democrats then blame the republicans and people will vote Democrats.

Basically it is like taking security from the mafia. They will either break your left leg or your right leg and they convince you that that is what having a choice means and that you went to them for the security.

Keep in mind that you HAVE the second amendment and you should not be afraid to use it if needed.

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[Anonymous Coward]

"a much-loved former CEO" ?!?

Much loved? What the fuck are you smoking? (Or, and if so I'm sorry, were you referring to Clinton?)

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the same with the "Jobs Bill." He knows it stands no chance getting past the Republicans in the House (hell, he couldn't even get it through the Democrats in the Senate). But it makes it *look* like he's doing something.

And even with that he's just trying to ride on the tailcoats of a much-loved former CEO.

as well as another former tech CEO-turned-philanthropist.

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[Anonymous Coward]

Poor people?

If a broke guy who hasn't had a job for over a year can't create a job for himself, who can? After all, it's only because he's lazy that his existence doesn't automatically triple the number of job openings in the country.

At least, if you ask the 1%ers.

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[Darkinspiration]

Poor people you get up and create a startup, a shop, an office. Most of the economy live and die by small buissnes. The more you kill them the less job you get. Also, they are not the 1%

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[marcosdumay]

More often than not, in any country with a minimum level of development it is the middle class.

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[Rolgar]

If you read John Mauldin's book, Endgame, about our current situation, he explains the bind the government is in. If you look at part 1 and 2 of his chapter on basic economics, you might get an understanding of how there is nothing the government CAN do, at least not actively. Obama wants you to believe he can fix these problems, but he can.

From the first page of part 2:
--------------------
Now let's go back to our first equation. You remember,

GDP = C + I + G + Net Exports

We'll spare you the mathematical rigmarole, but if you play with this equation some, you come up with the following:

Savings = Investments

That is, the savings of consumers and businesses are what's available for investment in businesses, which grow the economy. But there's a rather large but.

Those savings are also what finances government debt. Unless a central bank elects to print money, government debt must be financed by the private sector. That means if the fiscal deficit is too large, it will crowd out private investment. But as we've seen, private investment is what fuels productivity growth, so if you don't have enough savings to satisfy private investment needs, you're choking off productivity growth and the creation of new jobs.
----------------------

As you can see from what Mauldin explains here, Government spending hinders job long term job creation. Obama's solution is not the medicine for fixing our situation, it's the poison that's making us sick, just as all of the spending under Bush did the same. On the other hand, reducing spending, and reducing the red tape that prevents companies from hiring workers should allow (over time) entrepreneurs to create the jobs we need.

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[Anonymous Coward]

Government spending hinders job long term job creation.

More and more and more and more and more government regulations don't help either.

The phrase, nibbled to death by ducks comes to mind.

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[anagama]

Given the GOP's response vs. Obama's response, I'll take the Obama approach any day, thank you. Vs. the aristocratic, arrogant, self-centered ASSHOLE approach of the GOP, which is to repeatedly do the same thing that hasn't worked for over a decade, and then stand there with their insufferable smug prick-face smiles while the rest of us drown.

As if Obama is actually different from the GOP. The biggest trick the Republicans and Democrats have perpetrated, is the creation of an illusion that there is a difference between the parties. They comprise a monolithic mono-party where power is "traded" (like one would pass a ball from the left hand to the right hand - in either case you still have the ball) back and forth between them for the benefit of their benefactors.

As an astounding example, Marty Lederman excoriated the Bush Administration for using secret legal memos to justify immoral and unconstitutional behavior. Now that he is part of the Obama administration, he is writing the exact same type of secret legal memos supporting policies even more immoral and unconstitutional.
Citation.

Welcome to Act 6534 of the onging made for TV drama and talk radio drama: "Democrats v. Republicans, Rhetorical Differences, Indistinguishable Practices"

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[c00rdb]

Technically without a filibuster doesn't it just need 50%? Why not call the bluff and force them to go through with the actual filibuster? This is never done anymore...

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[Anonymous Coward]

You mad bro?

Hope you didn't injure yourself with all that shouting. Don't worry, when puberty is over you will feel better. In the mean time have a lollipop and stare lovingly and your Barry-O posters.

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[sl4shd0rk]

> stands no chance getting past the Republicans in the
> House (hell, he couldn't even get it through the Democrats in
> the Senate).

Can't blame the guy for trying. Maybe we need a new House/Senate?

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[Jibekn]

"Filibuster" should be illegal, 1 person should NEVER have the ability to stop the majority, just another flaw in the system you guys can work out once you get to the point of armed revolt.

Seriously, your system is broken beyond repair, time to slaughter your government like feed animals so the next bunch have the proper fear in their eyes. You should never fear your government, your government should fear its people. Hell, look at France, in the last 500 years they have cleaned house what? 4 times? 3? Their government is still terrified, and rightfully so when the people organize and demonstrate, this is because its been proven that if you piss off those people enough, you'll find your head in a guillotine.

The American government needs to learn this lesson that the euros learn a long time ago. If you piss of your citizens enough, they will kill you for it.

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[coldfarnorth]

So, the response says that the office of the president is doing what it can to improve the patent system. The AIA eliminates some (but not all) of the ridiculousness associated with the patent system. The USPTO has issued revised guidance with the hopes that that will cut down on frivolous and low quality patents.

But, they correctly point out that "executive branch doesn't set the boundaries of what is patentable". They also correctly point out that a good way to actually move forward on software patent reform is to contact your congressmen/women.

And you seem to think that this is an unreasonable and/or incorrect? I remind you that the president's real power is to approve or veto legislation, and appoint justices.

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[UnknowingFool]

And look where it got them by trying to affect legislation. A simple provision to pay doctors if they discussed end-of-life decisions with a patient became uninformed ranting about how Obama would ration care and make people justify whether they deserved medical treatment or death. Sometimes you have to pick your battles. This one isn't one that the administration wants to fight at this time.

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[Hatta]

It's just a political stunt to make it look like the Obama administration gives a shit.

Which is backfiring gloriously. What it actually does it prove that Obama never cared about anything but appearing to give a shit. Obama's base has realized that their real hope for change is on the streets of NYC, not the White House.

The only chance Obama has is to bank on the sheer idiocy of the Republican primary voters.

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[roman_mir]

By the way, just calling something a 'Jobs Bill' doesn't make it a bill that can possibly do anything useful to create

It's like that little bill they passed that was not exactly adding to the liberties of people, quite the opposite, but it passed because it was conveniently named 'Patriot Act'.

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[Hatta]

I guess it comes down to whose concerns you are going to listen to. The 1%, or the rest of us.

Don't kid yourself. Obama supports the 1%. He appointed Geithner and reappointed Bernanke. Goldman Sachs was his top contributor in 2008. He hasn't prosecuted a single executive level banker for crimes connected to the 2008 financial crisis. Compare that to Reagan's record of 800 bank executives jailed on felony charges after the S&L crisis. Even his big health care bill was just an excuse to deliver more customers to insurance companies. Notice how he didn't even pretend to entertain single payer for a moment?

Both parties, D and R represent no one but the 1%.

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[Hatta]

Customers create jobs. It doesn't matter how much you give the rich, if no one can afford to buy their product they won't employ people to make that product. The fact of the matter is that wealth trickles up. If you want to jumpstart the economy, you have to start at the bottom.

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[tmarsh86]

If that were true, then the health care bill wouldn't have passed. Obama couldn't get all what he wanted done when he owned both houses so why does he think we are stupid enough to believe he could get anything done now? Unless he really believes the 99% are too stupid to realize he's just blowing smoke up all our butts.

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[Anonymous Coward]

And hell, Obama can't even generate Democratic support enough in congress to pass it in the Senate, where they do still have a majority by the way.

Actually, the bill required 60 votes for cloture in the senate and the dems, at best, have 57 members in their caucus (this includes the independents). Nothing of substance will get done without Republican support, and Nothing is exactly what the Republican seem to want right now.

Regarding spending... yes, the bill did include additional spending. If you want to fund new projects (construction, research, etc.), or hire more public servants (teachers, police, firefighters), this takes money. The bill also included a tax on the wealthy to fund these measures.

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[Sloppy]

My favorite two parts of the response are this:

The America Invents Act was passed with President Obama's strong leadership after nearly a decade of effort to reform the Nation's outdated patent laws.

The president is responsible for any changes that you like.

But it's important to note that the executive branch doesn't set the boundaries of what is patentable all by itself. Congress has set forth broad categories of inventions that are eligible for patent protection.

The president isn't responsible for things you don't like.

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[Hatta]

I mean, really, did you expect that the President is going to make a huge policy shift against major corporate interests because of a petition with 14k signatures?

No, but I expected the questions to be addressed. If I ask "Why can't we regulate marijuana like alcohol." And you respond "because marijuana is harmful", you haven't addressed the question at all. This is disingenuous on Obama's part.

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[Anonymous Coward]

You prefer absolute REFUSAL to work with anyone else, either GOP or DNC in Congress, the better way for the president to act? You like the VP calling American citizens terrorist and murders and rapists if they don't support his tax bill?

I thought Obama was supposed to "bring the country together", but all thats happened is I've been called a "racist" "terrorist" "hostage taker" "murder" and "rapist", not by pundits, but by the TOP people of this administration. But what else should we expect from a liberal? They can't debate issues and go right for name calling instead.

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[burning-toast]

Not that I disagree with you about him putting on a show (this is politics of course), or that it isn't just a feel-good stunt, but I don't really think it's belated nor as necessary for a successful re-election as you make it out to be.

1.) We still have more than a year left before the 2012 presidential elections. Personally, I would rather he NOT campaign but rather manage the country in the mean time.
2.) While the field of candidates is currently thinning, he has the incumbent advantage and no clear competitor on the field to run against him yet.
3.) While not great, he has better approval ratings than congress and indeed many other political offices.
4.) The Republicans are busy stabbing anything with a moderate stance in the face in order to win over the ultra-conservatives in the tea party and other supporting religious groups. This is especially true of the candidates themselves which get dumped wholesale if they aren't right wing enough. Obama can't appeal to those groups anyways so it would be useless to enter that fray.
5.) These initiatives, like the Jobs bill or the online petition thing, aren't even major events really. They do not represent a lot of spent effort or political capital for his administration. However, they can be capitalized by Obama very well later on as long as he isn't too foolish about it. Just consider that it is still appearing to many people as more work spent on the taxpayer's interests than the republicans have appeared to spend during that same time frame.

As the field thins out; the republican vs. republican infighting will be replaced with republican vs. incumbent president debates. But that will require knocking a few more republicans out of the race first. As of this exact moment however; none of the republicans represent a threat to Obama's second term at all (yet). If anything they can't duke it out yet without the fear of another one of their party members deciding to stab them in the back along the way just to prove who is more "conservative".

Just for full disclosure, I consider myself to be a moderate independent voter and I enjoy some good friction and disagreements for sure (it's healthy) but I absolutely loathe the polarization between moderate republicans and the complete wingnuts on the extreme end (tea party, ultra-conservative religious organizations, etc) because they don't just try to revolutionize the government to fit their minority world-view, they actively try to incapacitate it completely for just about anything other than only that (i.e. forcing budget negotiations during debt-ceiling procedures instead of during budget discussions which causes credit rating downgrades and poorly written legislation to be passed under emergency conditions).

Well, I've rambled enough since we effectively can agree on the fact that these actions are mostly fluff from the Obama administration even if we disagree on how important it is. I guess not expecting anything other than fluff in the first place makes it easier to not care one way or another about it now.
- Toast

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[AlamedaStone]

I the electorate is simply unwilling to put up with any more spending

This is simply untrue. The majority of the electorate supports spending and a return to fair taxation. That may not be your position, but the electorate, the voters, don't have a problem with government spending on job creation (us whacko lefties think the proposed spending is insufficient to improve the short term fiscal outlook, but it's better than nothing). It's the oligarchs who want to kill spending, because they're making money hand over fist in this crippled economy and at the expense of ... well, of all of us. Most of the public support for broad spending cuts has been whipped up by the oligarchy to create a kind of political proxy war. It's gays vs creationism or whatever, and "class warfare", which is code for "anyone drinking a latte wants to steal your money".

"The 99%" is catchy, but the reality is it's the 99.9% that suffers. Stuffing cash under your mattress (in Antigua) doesn't create jobs.

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[nine-times]

We live in a country where we aren't willing to repair broken infrastructure (eg crumbling bridges) during a steep recession because half the population thinks that amounts to "socialism", and you're getting angry at the president for refusing to take a controversial stance on marijuana?

I'm not saying that the ban on marijuana isn't a serious issue, but I'm suggesting it's just a bridge too far. If the administration publicly admitted that there might be something to the idea of legalization, the next several months consist in waging a PR war to prevent people from thinking he's a pot-head.

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[anagama]

Small business probably has an even bigger grudge against Wall Street. Governments rape small business on a regular basis while falling all over themselves to give special treatment to the multinationals.

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[Hatta]

I'm not asking him to take a controversial stance. I'm asking him to address the question asked like he promised to do.

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[Altus]

I for one would love to see republicans forced to actually filibuster, it would make good fodder for the Daily Show at least.

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[powerchord84]

We have so many problems in this country, social issues that need to be addressed (life or death decisions for some), economical/debt problems that need a solution and you're worried about whether the government will legalize your right to get high so you don't have to worry about getting in trouble for it? Give me a fucking break.

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[h4rr4r]

Actually I am not worried about that one bit. I am worried about all the fucking money we waste putting people in jail for something so pointless, I think you might call that a debt problem. You don't think that making people felons and in some instances depriving them of life is a big deal, I would think you might call it a social issue.

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the correct step is to get rid of them all, an put a limit to how long any one person can sit in an office. Suggesting that somehow the sole blame lies with solely the GOP is what I would expect from a 7 year olds mouth.

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, Republicans control the House and will block anything he does.

So what was his excuse for his first two years in office?

When Obama was inaugurated, the Senate had 55 Democrats, two independents who caucus with the Democrats, 41 Republicans, and two vacancies.
Even assuming total agreement from those 55 Democrats and two independents, the Democrats controlled just over 58% of the Senate. That's less than the 60% needed to break a filibuster, which the Republicans deployed incessantly from the beginning to the point that it became the threshold requirement for virtually all legislation. (Also, keep in mind that many of the Democrats are conservative-leaning, and one of the independents, Joe Lieberman, campaigned for John McCain and vowed to oppose a public option.)
Now, counting the two independents, and assuming that the Senate Democrats voted in lockstep, they had 60% control starting July 7, 2009, when Al Franken was finally seated following a prolonged Republican effort to drag out the Minnesota Senate recount. By that point, gun-toting Tea Partiers were already shouting down town meetings, and most of the Democrats were being deluged in propaganda like this and this. Cobbling together landmark legislation in that environment was a herculean struggle.
The 60% control ended less than two months later on August 25, with the death of Ted Kennedy. The Democrats did not regain it again until September 25 (when Paul Kirk temporarily replaced him), de-facto lost it in November (when Scott Brown was elected), and lost it for good on February 4, when Brown was seated. They have not regained it since.
That's a grand total of 181 days, or approximately six months. And even at the height of that control, between the aggressive Tea Party astroturfing and Kennedy's debilitating cancer and Scott Brown's demoralizing win, action required the consent of conservative Democrats and/or moderate Republicans (read: Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins) and/or Joe Leiberman.
Given all that, the fact that Obama secured a landmark stimulus package, the rescue of the American auto industry, financial reform, credit card reform, two Supreme Court justices, and healthcare reform (even watered-down) is a remarkable feat.

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't smoke marijuana, but your view is ridiculously short sighted and bordering on blatant stupidity. What about the ridiculous amounts of money we spend on enforcing inane drug laws that clearly aren't working? What about all the people that are being financially devastated and imprisoned because they enjoy smoking marijuana? What about the black market it creates and the money it feeds to criminals - both here and abroad? Drug laws are one of the most important social issues of the last few decades and shouldn't be continuously pushed aside.

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[stephanruby]

Technically the Executive has no power to do anything about any of this, so why bother with the dialogue? Every issue has to be resolved in the other two branches, so what did they hope to accomplish?

The Executive can issue sole executive agreements, sole executive agreements can be done by the President alone, and sole executive agreements have replaced almost all our international treaties at a ratio of 10 to 1. One reason this is important is because even Obama is trying to bully other countries into accepting software patents and super draconian copyright laws (laws that no one would consider politically/legally viable for our own population here in the US).

For instance, the three strikes and you're cut off from the internet law. Do you think that is something France came up on its own? No, that's an American invention. And what levers do you think the US uses when it threatens a country like France? It doesn't use the Congress, a congressional-executive agreement takes too long. It simply uses the President. The President can issue an international threat and back it up with signed piece of paper that very same day (with no oversight from any other body).

Also sometimes, what's agreed through international treaties/executive agreements can come back to us as momentum and pressure to start changing our own internal laws in the same direction.

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the most politely-worded and voluminous "Fuck you, you're on your own" I've ever read.

That's not a "fuck you" at all. Why don't you learn how your government works? The president can't change laws. The executive branch enforces laws, the judicial branch interprets laws, and the legislative branch makes the laws, the president can either accept was comes to him or veto it.

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[Ihmhi]

Exactly! I think it'd be safe to say that a lot of laws the Republican majority are passing wouldn't be able to get enough votes to override a Presidential veto. He can essentially hold whatever law he wants hostage to get his agenda moving along - he just doesn't have the balls to do it.

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[Rob Y.]

Any time a Republican blames 'the Democratic Senate', you know it's bullshit. They should be saying 'the nominally Democratic Senate that now requires a 60-40 majority on any vote, because the big baby Republicans say so'. And don't go saying 'the Democrats filibuster too' - they've never abused it to this extent.

Amazingly, Republican talking heads are allowed to get away with this on just about every 'news' show around.

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[Rockoon]

Amazing that you think that the government should create jobs. That sort of "busy work" doesnt help the economy.. instead it steals from the tax payers (mostly middle class) and gives it to the rich and poor.

Every time you idiots get that shit passed, its shrinks the middle class. Stop it already. Seriously. Fucking stop it. Learn some fucking economics and the governments role.

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[grcumb]

One can't help but wonder why they would ever have opened up these channels of communication. What did they expect to get as concerns? Technically the Executive has no power to do anything about any of this, so why bother with the dialogue? Every issue has to be resolved in the other two branches, so what did they hope to accomplish?

Christ, the cynicism and hopelessness in American society these days is appalling.

Maybe what they hoped to accomplish was to offer some concrete information to voters about how the patent system came to be the way it is, and to provide some pointers about how to go about effecting change...?

People in the US are so quick to whine about the emptiness of the promise to change, but they never lift a finger to change things. Either the politicians are too corrupt, or the party system sucks, or third parties are a waste of time, or the corporation own everything already, or the people are sheep....

Jesus Christ, people! It's all true because you -yes, you- allowed it to happen!

All my life, when I opposed something, I opposed it. I signed petitions, I marched, I got arrested when I felt it was necessary. I voted. I actually spoke to my candidates. I spoke to my neighbours. I still do. I don't always win; most of the time I don't. But at least I get off my ass from time to time and do something.

It's not the government that's fucked. It's the people.

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[Anonymous Coward]

The bill also included a tax on the wealthy to fund these measures.

...this silly fool believes it when the Dems tell him that they can get $500 billion out of 1 million households.

Tell us.. do you believe everything the Dems tell you, or is it just when they prey on your jealousy that you stop fucking thinking?

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[Anonymous Coward]

This analysis is touted by the right, anti-debt crusaders all the time. There are two and a half problems with this analysis in the current economy:

1. There is no shortage of private monies to fund investment. Companies are sitting on record amounts of cash. Moreover, interest rates for borrowing are also at historic lows. While the issue of investment-hindering government-debt may come into play in the long term, it is not at play right now.

2. Private sector growth of the economy stopped circa 2008. There was a solid two years that private sector could not do anything to create jobs much less support private investment. Even the minimal amount of government spending from the Bush/Obama stimulus during the intervening two years seems to have avoided catastrophe and is now being rewarded with the private sector growth that has taken off in a number of industries, which brings me to issue 2.5:

2.5 While private sector employment has grown in many areas in the last year, it is being offset by huge cuts in public sector employment.

As a final point, "long term" and "over time" arguments fail to address current economic realities. At the time (2008), cutting spending (e.g., private contracts to provide government services/goods and public sector employment) and deregulation of industries was not going to revitalize the economy. On the first point, spending, I can't imagine what private companies would have done if you just learned that the only entity spending money and making investments (the government) decided to stop. On the second point, no one was investing money. Making changes to laws was not going to somehow magically get people to create new jobs.

That's just magical thinking.

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[Rockoon]

Because the politicians want the perfect excuse of a "threat" of a filibuster in order to explain all the pork they throw in. Instead of trying to get it passed as-is.. use the excuse to add more fucking spending.. "but the evil [opposite party] will filibuster if we dont get a super-majority so we HAVE to give an extra 2 billion to [the state of an otherwise friendly representative that is holding out for more tribute]"

A now classic example of this is the healthcare bill...

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[Anonymous Coward]

Vote Nader 2012

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[Anonymous Coward]

Because voting for this Jobs bill is somehow indicative that you care about jobs?

If you think that jobs can be legislated into existence, please never vote.

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[Kagetsuki]

Everything on the "We The People" website is an excuse for a cop-out. "As your government we have decided we'd rather make excuses than promises. Don't like something? Well sucks to be you, what do you think this is some sort of system were you make the decisions? Ha! Keep dreaming. Now if you'll excuse us we need to figure out what excuse we'll use next to dramatically devalue the dollar so we can fund programs nobody needs which will be run by the contractors sucking our dicks."

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[Kagetsuki]

I'm not trying to make a case for it but legalization means it's taxable and can be regulated. If people are going to do it anyway may as well make money off of it, and it's not like the effects are worse than alcohol so the reasons they give to keep it illegal are kind of moot.

*Side note: I've never smoked it.

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[Anonymous Coward]

It's Washingtonspeak, dude.

Everything coming out in Washington is sugarcoated and this one is no exception

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[CrimsonAvenger]

It should, perhaps, be pointed out that almost all the promises made by the Democratic Presidential candidate in 2008 could not have been fulfilled by the President either.

Yes, I know. As I said, I was simply using the current Republican candidates "(simply for example)".

I tend to think that people who pick one side as their "example" are trying to bias their readers. Which is why I used both sides as bad examples last go-round.

Note that the likely 2012 Democratic Presidential candidate is still making promises he has no power to keep. Along with, as you say, the Republican candidates for the office.

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[lonecrow]

The presidency has been described as "the worlds largest bully pulpit" because other then the much used (or overused) writs, the power of the presidency is supposed to be the voice of the people. He/She is supposed to be able to walk into congress and say "Hey! You clowns, I speak for all Americans (not just the ones in your district) so clean up your act and get to work on what they care about"

Seen in that light, these petitions seem very appropriate.

Of course, the loose collection of under-educated rabble currently stalking the halls of congress show no respect for their commander-in-chief which seems to undermine the entire apparatus of the US government.

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[Anonymous Coward]

So what was his excuse for his first two years in office?

It's Bush's fault.

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[Anonymous Coward]

Weird thing is that I wish that you were right. I'd put better odds that we sit on asses and do nothing though.

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[Dripdry]

No, the rich don't create jobs. Opportunities through having a healthy middle class, which requires velocity of capital, creates jobs.

Huh, so I guess you really studied up on your economics textbook FROM 1985?

Trickle-down trickle-down ho hum. It really worked well, all things considered, right?

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[mldi]

That's the most politely-worded and voluminous "Fuck you, you're on your own" I've ever read.

Yes, it doesn't take long reading through their "responses" to learn it's nothing but a giant PR stunt set out to make it look like they're in touch with the people.

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[TheEyes]

No, there were still forty Republicans around then; the difference was that one of them called himself "Independent" and went to their clubhouse meetings. If it weren't for Joe Lieberman then we would have a public option today.

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[Anonymous Coward]

Customers create jobs.

Customers support businesses and jobs, but they don't create them.

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[SolusSD]

Amazing. What the fuck do you guys want Obama to do? When he tries something that is inevitably going to fail b/c of the Republicans, you fault him for trying. When his administration points out the realities of the patent system, you fault his administration for not acting where they cannot act. I doubt there is anything Obama could do to appease you.

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[Dwonis]

Technically the Executive has no power to do anything about any of this

I wouldn't let them off the hook so easily. They have lots and lots of influence.

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[JDG1980]

From what I've read of it...while it does have a very few provisions that actually concern jobs...it is mostly a spending bill, labeled a jobs bill.

In the midst of a recession, this amounts to the same thing. Basic Keynesianism.

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[Anonymous Coward]

No no, you're dyslexic. It's not Jobs Bill, it's Bill Jobs ....... not wait it's Bill Gates ........ no Steve Jobs ....... hmmmm computer joke in there somewheres.

Oh yeah, you Americans know your govt. is fucked, right???

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[elrous0]

If excuses were accomplishments, the Democratic Party would be as successful as the Republicans.

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[bberens]

If the people were truly demanding it, the politicians would do it.

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[elrous0]

The bad news is that it needs 66% of the vote (2/3, not half)

Perhaps you've been eating the wrong feed yourself. I'm pretty sure it's just a regular bill, not a fucking Constitutional Amendment. So not sure where you're getting the 66% nonsense from.

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[cayenne8]

Even so....the senate couldn't get ALL the democrats to support it....

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[KnownIssues]

Technically the Executive has no power to do anything about any of this[...]

Funny, that doesn't stop them from making campaign promises to do just that.

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[Anonymous Coward]

I very much agree with you, but, there're still a lot of people out there that believe the opposite (yay for sending our kids off to die, yay for sending those hippies leeches off to rot in a prison, yay for keeping the corporations going with bailout funds). Now, if there are some numbers to show those are the vast minority, great! But with the number of people voted into our government that have this mindset...we have a long way to go because of those brainwashed people. :(

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[rilian4]

we the people are far too unwashed, and ignorant to know what we want and need for ourselves.

...and yet people keep voting for Democrats who just love to tell them what to do.
You want your freedoms back? Stop voting Democrat.

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[rilian4]

JOBS GROW THE ECONOMY, NOT RICH PEOPLE...

Yeah jobs grow the economy...but who pays those salaries? Rich people. Do the math. Make them less rich and they can't pay as many salaries.

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[rilian4]

...The bill also included a tax on the wealthy to fund these measures.

"You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. You cannot build character and courage by taking away mens initiative and independence. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves."

---Abraham Lincoln

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, if you do the math it's small-medium business that make up a large part of the economy, creating jobs and paying salaries.

The rich *also* create jobs, but they aren't the only ones (and the generalization is that the jobs are created in China)

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[Slime-dogg]

The other part of the jobs bill is that it's another way that the Executive Branch is trying to be involved in things it shouldn't be. They give the excuse of "It's not Executive, it's Legislative" when asked about patent reform, but they have absolutely no problems with trying to be legislative when it suits them.

I blame the American public and education for that mess. If the people knew that the Executive Office was more intended to behave like a police chief, and not like a king or dictator, then Obama might have been laughed at with all of his promises 3 years ago.

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[Rob Y.]

So... The Bush tax cuts passed with 51% of the votes. If you're saying it's meaningful to need to get all of one party's members' votes for a bill, you're simply making shit up. 51% is all it takes, and the filibuster is meant to be used in extraordinary circumstances. The current state of affairs in the Senate is one of radical obstructionism. Of course, if and when the Republicans ever take 51% of the Senate, the Democrats will probably try the same thing. Precedent, you know. But the Republicans will scream bloody murder.

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[Anonymous Coward]

That sort of "busy work" doesnt help the economy.

It does if the jobs provide something useful, like improving the road network (assuming it needs improving), that can help the economy because most businesses depend on roads in one way or another. If the jobs really are just busy work, then you are probably right.

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[marnues]

Your math is based on wrong assumptions. Making rich people less rich does not prevent them from paying salaries. Making their company less rich does that. Hence why no one supports raising corporate taxes, even if some of us are against lowering it. Raising income taxes on those making $1 million (not their company, the person/family) does not take away from a company paying people money. Said rich person only needs to balance hiring someone new or paying themselves more. These are separate pools of money and are taxed differently. The decision is the same before or after any tax changes the House (as it is always in their corner) makes. And at the margins, this could create some jobs as rich people decide to pay themselves less to avoid hitting a new tax bracket.

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[marnues]

Sometimes 2nd Amendment activists scare me. Luckily a few of them are also my friends.

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[Anonymous Coward]

And the proposal from OWS? MORE Government!
They are fools and idiots who think they are important because of media coverage.

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[Anonymous Coward]

Which part of a $500 billion dollar "jobs bill" confuses you? Its fucking $500 billion. Use your fucking brain.

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[Anonymous Coward]

If by "on your own" you mean "participating through persistent effort in your democracy" then, yes you are on. your own. Just as the framers intended. It's up to you to get corporations' boot off your government's neck . It's not going to happen just by signing petitions.

Get in the street with ows and create a specific list of demands . Any such list has to include publicly funded elections and ending the fiction of corporate personhood.

Re:I've got to hand it to the administration

[Pence128]

I'm not a US American and I've never heard of the Jobs Bill before, but I grep that the republican party is threatening a filibuster. Basically one person can stick their fingers in their ears and say "La la la I'm not listening" until the bill is amended with enough bribery, everyone just gives up or a 3/5ths super majority tells him to STFU and vote. Don't you just love politics?

Hear That?

[CanHasDIY]

Anyone else hear a loud sucking noise?

Re:Hear That?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no sound in a vacuum.

Re:Hear That?

[Gaygirlie]

Atleast the government officials don't; all they hear is the gentle rustle of money spent by lobbiers.

Re:Hear That?

[Anonymous Coward]

yep, the politicians must be servicing their campaign donors again.

Re:Hear That?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep! It is the sound of the eternally delusional sucking the cocks of the top 1% or so, hoping for a pleasant surprise.

My Prediction

[Anonymous Coward]

My prediction is that every "petition" will be responded to with "We hear you, but this is why its really okay as it is; you really don't want what you think you want"

Re:My Prediction

[elrous0]

I think you're psychic, sir.

Re:My Prediction

[Anonymous Coward]

What they should respond with, "We're glad you dropped by our site. We went to great lengths to convince you that we can doing things for you even though we are just one third of the Givernment. We can't do what you ask now, but no worries. Now that we have you useful idiots on our side we can probably figure a way to circumvent that pesky Constitution and rule be decree."

Re:My Prediction

[h4rr4r]

Quite right, It also means we need to make a new petition.

Why are you even holding this if you are going to respond in such a dismissive manner to every suggestion? What is the purpose of wasting everyones time when you knew from the beginning that you would do this? Instead of dismissing this petition just as flippantly, we urge you to go back and act on the other petitions.

Re:My Prediction

[ShakaUVM]

They're just holding a mirror up to the voting public and pretending that makes it a conversation.

Re:My Prediction

[Cowclops]

https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petition/actually-take-these-petitions-seriously-instead-just-using-them-excuse-pretend-you-are-listening/grQ9mNkN There it is. Slashdot it.

Re:My Prediction

[Anon-Admin]

I would sign that petition!

Re:My Prediction

[Anonymous Coward]

I saw at least 3 of those yesterday looking thru the list...

Re:My Prediction

[DoofusOfDeath]

You didn't think they actually care about the content of the submissions, do you? They're just trying to make the electorate feel listened to, so that they'll give Obama a second chance.

Now if a big corporation asked for the elimination of software patents, that's a different story.

Re:My Prediction

[Steauengeglase]

Sounds like the response to every letter I've ever sent to a Congressman.

Re:My Prediction

[imric]

Signed.

Re:My Prediction

[jdbannon]

Also signed.

Re:My Prediction

[Bucky24]

I can't wait to see what their response to this one is.

Re:My Prediction

[omnichad]

Can't wait to hear the response to this (signed).

Re:My Prediction

[Anonymous Coward]

cant sign... 404 error... WH slashdotted

Re:My Prediction

[Anonymous Coward]

Then sign it, I did! :)

Heck, get a few friends to sign it also. I would love to read their answer to this petition.

Re:My Prediction

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know how to tell you this, guys, but I'm seeing ONLY guy names on that petition.

Re:My Prediction

[Hatta]

Keep spamming this wherever you can. That petition has gained over 2000 votes in the past 24 hours. It should be good for a laugh when they respond to it.

While you're at it, sign this one too.

Re:My Prediction

[Dripdry]

Signed a couple days ago. ALso, we still need ~15K more signatures.

Come on, slashdot! Sure it's meaningless and they won't do anything about it, but we can make ourselves heard for half a second!

Riddle me this, Batman:
For all the whining and discontent I see on this site, given that things like OWS are going on right now and we have at least a snowball's chance in hell of making a dent because other people are beginning to realize what we have for the last 7-8 years, why aren't we all writing our congressmen (paper/pen!), signing petitions, and getting up off our cushy CIO/worn out code monkey/smarter-than-thou asses to DO something for a change? Even if it's just a stupid online petition?

15K should be no problem, and I applaud the creator of this for at least trying and not giving up even if it's just Arguing on the Internet.

Re:My Prediction

[hellkyng]

I'm not sure how to break this to you then... but uh this place is a sausage fest. Naturally when we communally parade our sausages over to some gov site, its bound to feel a bit meaty.

Re:My Prediction

[Kagetsuki]

That link should be added to the bottom of the story. It's worth it just for the response.

Re:My Prediction

[JoeCommodore]

I'm getting it too, I'm signed in and when I get to it, it is requesting me sign in again, when I do it 404s...

Re:My Prediction

[log0n]

Tinfoil hat time?

The petition now seems to be blocked. You can view it fine enough, but if you try to actually sign it (currently ~ 10.4K sigs) it gives you an error.

Democracy at work?

Re:My Prediction

[JoeCommodore]

Got it; signed out - then when I got to sign in on the petition it worked.

Re:My Prediction

[jmactacular]

I signed this one right away. There's also another petition I like to abolish the TSA.

Re:My Prediction

[Anonymous Coward]

https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petition-tool/petition/actually-take-these-petitions-seriously-instead-just-using-them-excuse-pretend-you-are-listening/grQ9mNkN

Updated link, yours appears to have 'mysteriously' broken.

That's correct. Congress sets patentability policy

[Animats]

That's up to Congress, not the Executive Branch.

He'll be our President because we put him there

[Hairy1]

"He'll be our President because we put him there"... I think maybe Democracy is broken. If regardless of who you vote for the result is the same you are living in a Dictatorship. It's not just patents either - Gitmo, Iraq, Patriot Act, Health Care, seems that even when the Republicans aren't in office they are. No wonder the focus has been on security - they are gonna need it when the people find out they have been duped by the DemoRepublican Party for so long.

Re:He'll be our President because we put him there

[Anonymous Coward]

At least we're getting kicked out of Iraq...

Maybe we can get Iraq to kick out software patents here?

Re:He'll be our President because we put him there

[Anonymous Coward]

You know your reasoning has been warped when your personal dissatisfaction with candidates means that the existing (democratic) political order must be overthrown in favor of leadership which is guaranteed to reflect your personal priorities.

Now THAT is Dictatorship

Re:He'll be our President because we put him there

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't have to vote for a republican or democrat. They get to be presidents because everyone votes for them.

Re:He'll be our President because we put him there

[MobyDisk]

If regardless of who you vote for the result is the same you are living in a Dictatorship.

Agreed, so what do you call it when the citizens keep voting for the same two parties?

Re:He'll be our President because we put him there

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is your perception that this is a Republican problem. I know you make it sound like you understand that both parties are to blame at the end but earlier in your post you use the classic ploy of misdirection so that we, the people, make the assumption that it's not a problem with the Democrats but only a problem with a handful of bad Democrats. If you keep thinking and voting this way you're only going to end up further down on the food chain at the end of the day.
 
Either you vote against both parties or you're voting for both parties. The disguise of two seperate parties is so thin now you can blow smoke rings through it.

Re:He'll be our President because we put him there

[pburghdoom]

You would need a third party candidate that is charismatic enough and strong enough politically to garner the votes. Currently that is practically impossible. Most people have been conditioned if they vote for a third party candidate that it is really just "stealing" votes from other viable candidates (Nader/Gore Perot/Bush). Also I fear that the very political process would just corrupt anyone with the credentials to get that far.

Re:He'll be our President because we put him there

[Forty Two Tenfold]

Agreed, so what do you call it when the citizens keep voting for the same two parties?

Stupidity.

Re:He'll be our President because we put him there

[Forty Two Tenfold]

Agreed, so what do you call it when the citizens keep voting for the same two parties?

Stupidity.

Actually, no:

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. — Albert Einstein

Re:He'll be our President because we put him there

[Anonymous Coward]

seems that even when the Republicans aren't in office they are.

Yeah, I agree. But why do you call them Republicans? Why not call them Democrats? Try voting for a 3rd party for a change, it's not throwing your vote away, it's making your voice heard. "Working across the aisle" is BS, and is the status quo.

Re:He'll be our President because we put him there

[Dripdry]

Why not just start telling people that you're not voting for the Republicats?

"I'm not voting Republicrat, I'm voting for the other party"

If it's all about framing the discussion....

Re:He'll be our President because we put him there

[Anonymous Coward]

Lesser of two evils. If we didn't have to worry about the Republicans screwing everything up, we could vote for the Green Party instead of the Democrats until the Dems stopped being corporate shills. Or even just vote for a more liberal Democrat in the primaries.

Re:He'll be our President because we put him there

[CrazyDuke]

Why not both? ...and more?

Re:He'll be our President because we put him there

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that you label the Democrats as Republicans in disguise is the exact problem. These are not left vs right issues, stop labeling them as such. Only when you stop arguing about which side is "good" will you afford real change.

Expect more of this

[loteck]

This whole move to respond to people's questions from the Executive Branch is very clearly a tactic to redirect voter ire to the Legislative Branch, where laws are made and passed. I would expect most of the replies to include some portion urging voters to contact their legislators. Recent administrations have left the American public under the impression that the executive branch can act unilaterally as long as you have Darth Vader as a vice president.

That's not the way this country is supposed to run. Things like this with the Executive communicating with voters directly are great, don't stop that, but call your goddamned lawmaker, too.

Re:Expect more of this

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, so simple solution: Vote Sith Party in 2012!

Re:Expect more of this

[Riceballsan]

Your damn lawmakers and the president all know the same thing, People who listen, and pay attention to specific policies are a minority in this country. Supporting a bill that will greatly improve the lives of thousands of people = +100 votes, accepting a bribe from a corporation for 10 million dollars in campaign money for the next election in exchange for shooting down the bill and then spending that money on a campaign commercial = + 10,000 votes.

I disagree with him.

[khasim]

I like candidate Obama a LOT more than President Obama. Oh well, at least he'll be campaigning for the year now.

It's called the "bully pulpit". The President drives the discussion by TALKING ABOUT IT. What the President says gets media coverage. Particularly if it's about jobs and the economy and innovation now.

By the way, didn't you guys introduce a jobs bill of some kind? So there is a means for you to get legislation started.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/American_Jobs_Act

Translation

[poofmeisterp]

"Hey man, we're just doin' our job. Now get off our lawn."

Re:Translation

[Anonymous Coward]

If I wanted smoke blown up my ass, I'd be at home with a pack of cigarettes and a short length of hose.

Smoke + Ass

[lbmouse]

So they are just blowing smoke up our asses AGAIN.

So naive...

[MikeRT]

Software patents are a government program for creating "fairness" among software developers and companies. Government creating "fairness" is one of those things right up there with sex offender laws that no "right-thinking person" in politics dares to question.

Obama was never going to support something which would be called a scheme to let big interests loot "the little guy." That's how most people see this stuff. They don't get caught up in facts like a little company getting nuked out of the water by a big one using blatantly bad patents. Fair is fair and it's not fair that someone gets rich by taking someone else's ideas and succeeding with them.

Missing The Point

[Bob9113]

'concerns that overly broad patents on software-based inventions may stifle the very innovative and creative open source software development community.'

Let me translate: I know you dirty hippies believe in utopia, and you've done some interesting things, but you are not being realistic. The real producers are Microsoft and Amazon.

Here's the thing though, knucklehead: Microsoft, Amazon, Oracle, Apple, IBM, and eBay -- not one of those companies could make it out of the garage today. It's not just the dirty hippies you are harming, it is entrepreneurs -- the guys building a better mousetrap -- the icons that "America Invents" is pretending to recognize. It is the kinds of people who turned America into a superpower in the 50's and 60's. The engines of tomorrow's economic superiority. That is who patents are harming -- and their blood is running over the alter of a few extra private jets today, for an ever smaller sliver of people who did something great twenty years ago, and have been kicking everyone else off the hill ever since.

Re:Missing The Point

[0123456]

Here's the thing though, knucklehead: Microsoft, Amazon, Oracle, Apple, IBM, and eBay -- not one of those companies could make it out of the garage today. It's not just the dirty hippies you are harming, it is entrepreneurs -- the guys building a better mousetrap -- the icons that "America Invents" is pretending to recognize.

You don't really think that big business campaign donors want entrepeneurs setting up competitors in their garage, do you?

Re:Missing The Point

[Anonymous Coward]

"Here's the thing though, knucklehead: Microsoft, Amazon, Oracle, Apple, IBM, and eBay -- not one of those companies could make it out of the garage today."

And the fun thing is, those people WERE the "dirty hippies" back when they were in their garage. (Take a look at the staff pictures for microsoft from years years ago compared to the same people there current day.)

They know full well what would happen if they continued to let more hippies get out of the garage, which is why they've done what they've done to prevent it.

Re:Missing The Point

[Anonymous Coward]

yeh seems like every startup is just a lawsuit waiting to happen, the very second they start making money or eating into someone biggers business, they'll be struck down and sucked dry by a bunch of laywers

Re:Missing The Point

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should anyone care about entrepreneurs trying to "make it out of the garage"? If the USA is threatened by "tomorrow's economic superiority", we'll change the rules *then*. Today however, the USA owns the IT industry, and if we can push ACTA and copyright change on the EU and the rest of the world we can control the market for years to come. So what if it's going to collapse in the future when real innovation happens outside the USA? You have to focus on today's profits.

Re:Missing The Point

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me translate: I know you dirty hippies believe in utopia, and you've done some interesting things, but you are not being realistic. The real producers are Microsoft and Amazon.

How is that a translation of "we understand the concern and we use your products" in the context of "contact Congress if you want this changed"?

Re:Missing The Point

[Dripdry]

You know what I find hilarious?

If you look at the revenue of some large companies today (let's take Abbott Labs), they are beginning to split off their R&D arms as separate companies as R&D is not producing adequate profit.
Where's the growth? I'll tell you.
These companies have found it easier to grow by funding "small business startups" that do the R&D instead, or buying them.
So, if big companies are growing by buying small businesses (or funding them) that are doing the innovation, aren't they shooting themselves in the foot by locking out the little guys?

On one hand they'll just provide the seed money for the geniuses to get started, then reap most of the benefits since "I made you and I can destroy you too."

On the other hand, if there are fewer and fewer innovations from small companies... what happens then?

Ok... one step further than that: What if small companies are simply going out of style? Just like a lot of programming out there must be done by a well-funded team these days, not the lone cowboy, are small companies which research and develop ideas starting to fade too?

Re:Missing The Point

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

Oh jesus spare me the fucking conspiracy.

Seriously? This is "insightful?"

More to the point, those same big business interests are getting hit pretty hard by patent trolls of all kinds. It's really in the interest of big business to support patent reform. Most big businesses don't use patents to squash competitors, they use other more effective tools.

Re:Missing The Point

[Riceballsan]

umm... which big businesses don't use patents to attack competitors? Type in any fortune 500 companies name into google and add "sues over patent" and I guarantee you you will find tons of results. The company using the least offensive attacks I can think of is google, and even they loaned their patents out to be used offensively by others. Bottom line, most the big guys aren't in favor of patent reform because to them patent trolls are just mosquito. Throw a couple million into a lawyer to defend and problem solved, then the trolls go back to attacking smaller companies that can't afford to fight them, squishing potential risks of market share loss.

The We the People Site

[DarkOx]

This is great, thanks Mr.President for this amazing simplification of the political process. In the past I would have had figure out who my Senator is and write to his office to get a condescending BS laden response, on why its so important we preserve the status quo.

Now all I have to do is post on one easy to remember website and if enough people also want to hear why a certain campaign donator needs to have their economic rent protected the White House will kindly oblige.

Federal Research

[bigsexyjoe]

Corporations benefit greatly from the twin forms of Corporate welfare that are patents and government research.

I believe all knowledge gained from government research should go into something similar to an open source license. So that all technology based on government research should be free, open, and unpatentable.

Re:Federal Research

[Anonymous Coward]

Seconded

How can you patent counting?

[Anonymous Coward]

If it is true that all computer programs can be represented as a string of 0s and 1s, it means all computer programs can be counted to. Now, if all computer programs can be counted to, then computer programs are discoveries and not inventions. If computer programs are not inventions, then computer programs are not patentable.

Re:How can you patent counting?

[omnichad]

Oh, sure. And books are just really big base-127 numbers represented by letters, numbers, and spaces. It's just a number, you can't copyright a number. That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

Re:How can you patent counting?

[chronoglass]

except you can get to the same result with a different purpose or end number.
sort of like saying you can't patent a new type of car because it's just the sum of it's parts.

there IS space for software patents.
there isn't space for component software patents.
sure patent MS office, trademark the "look and feel", but don't patent the "ribbon" that is like "patenting" the sound of a harley.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Office_2007#Patenting_controversy

Re:How can you patent counting?

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe that was my point - patents and copyright are the dumbest things I've ever heard of. The first fool who suggested that some weeks, some months or some years of work should be rewarded for decades - even after death as inheritance - should have been driven out of town.

Re:How can you patent counting?

[LoyalOpposition]

That reminds me of the Swedish Drill. In it, a prisoner was told he was going to be executed next week, but he wouldn't know the day he was to be executed. "Ah!" he said, "then you can't execute me at all! For if I wake up on Saturday then I'll know I'll be executed on that day, and you said I wouldn't. But then if I wake up on Friday, then I'll know you won't execute me on Saturday, so you can't execute me on Friday either. But then if I wake up on Thursday the same conditions apply. That means that I can't be executed on any day whatsoever!" The headsman thought and thought about it. Then on Thursday he executed the prisoner, surprising him completely.

I tell you what, you count up to the Photoshop program, and then I'll see that copyright gets removed from it.

~Loyal
 

And you expected what...?

[Nom du Keyboard]

...However, the overall response redirects action to the petitioners through participating in the open implementation site and contacting Congress, instead of a promise to prepare additional legislative measures for Congress to consider on behalf of the petitioners.

And you expected what else from this administration? I mean, really?

Re:And you expected what...?

[h4rr4r]

I believe you mean from any administration.

Politicians are all cut from the same cloth.

Actually Take These Petitions Seriously Petittion

[bill_mcgonigle]

The responses to these petitions have been so uniformly transparent constituent fluffing through sophistry that there's already a meta-petition:

Actually Take These Petitions Seriously Instead of Just Using Them As An Excuse to Pretend You Are Listening Petition.

Once this one gets answered, the web content filters will be remiss in not filtering the site as entertainment, or masturbatory porn.

Cease and Desist

[Sentrion]

November 1, 2011

Mr. Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. Obama:

If you are represented by legal counsel, please direct this letter to your attorney immediately and have your attorney notify us of such representation.

We are writing to notify you that your unlawful use of a process to respond to software patent petitions infringes upon our client’s exclusive patent(s). Accordingly, you are hereby directed to

CEASE AND DESIST ALL PATENT INFRINGEMENT.

Re:Cease and Desist

[zman58]

If my memory serves me, the government can be considered "exempt" in any case of of patent infringement. Go figure.

Re:That's correct. Congress sets patentability pol

[DoofusOfDeath]

That's up to Congress, not the Executive Branch.

I partially disagree. The White House has plenty of influence on the legislative process due to deal-making.

I'm more concerned with biotech patents

[thepainguy]

While I don't have a problem with people patenting an organism or process they have created, I have a massive problem with people being able to patent a gene or other aspect of the body that they merely discovered.

into the wind

[zman58]

Oh yea. I did just sign that petition. Spitting into the wind... Thanks.

seems impossible to fix this ...

[swframe]

The our government is broken but no solution can garner enough support to make a difference.

And?

[khasim]

So because the mean people are being mean, he's not going to do ANYTHING?

At least get the legislation STARTED.
Then name and shame anyone who tries to stop it.
He's the President of the USofA. He gets worldwide coverage of his speeches.
Then repeat the process.

There would be change if he was on TV every other week saying Senator X blocked the "tax incentive for working Christian Moms with poor babies who need milk" bill.

Part of politics is being able to frame your opposition as the "bad" guys. Obama doesn't want to do that because he's always looking for a way to compromise with people who are willing to let this country DEFAULT rather than give an inch.

Re:And?

[TheEyes]

He's already doing this with that jobs bill. Nothing in there is controversial; at this point, the Republicans are voting against teachers and infrastructure projects. Doing the same with a software patent bill, something too technical for anyone but the Slashdot crowd to automatically know how important it is, would only dilute the message.

It's about the companies

[Jim Hall]

I think part of the problem is that companies don't entirely want software patents to go away.

When I first started speaking with my Senator's office (Franken - D-MN) about software patents, I gave examples how software patents are a hindrance to American companies, how patent troll lawsuits use the US court system as their revenue stream.

The Senator's office said that they had met with several large US companies (Microsoft, Google, Apple, etc) and while the companies agree that software patents are a problem that need to be curbed, they also need them to "protect their business." I'm told Bill Gates said he's never worried about the next Google, he's worried about some kid in his garage creating the "next Big Thing". So these companies use software patents to sue or threaten the little start-ups before they can become a competitor.

I pointed out that Gates started as a kid in his basement, and Apple started as a couple of guys in a garage, and Amazon started as Bezos doing mail-order from his garage. All these big tech companies started that way. And if we block the next Amazon or the next Microsoft from happening, that's not going to help the US economy. The Senator's office had to agree it was a fair point.

I think if you reduced the term for software patents, you might have a workable solution. Certainly it would be better than what we have now, and I'm prepared to accept that as a next-step. In most cases today, anyway, it may take a few years for something to pop up on the radar, and a patent troll to realize that it's using something from their portfolio.

Re:It's about the companies

[Anonymous Coward]

The Senator's office said that they had met with several large US companies (Microsoft, Google, Apple, etc)

Interesting, no mention of meeting with some small guys also? Scary how they don't even pretend anymore, they just come right out and basically say "we pass the laws for the large corporations and those corporations only."

Re:It's about the companies

[Anonymous Coward]

The Senator's office had to agree it was a fair point.

If you are not a LAMER, then you should keep the senator at is word. Keep in touch with this senator to find out how he is acting on this "fair point".

I can guarantee you that you will be disappointed. I hope you prove me wrong.

Re:It's about the companies

[Jim Hall]

The Senator's office had to agree it was a fair point.

If you are not a LAMER, then you should keep the senator at is word. Keep in touch with this senator to find out how he is acting on this "fair point".

I can guarantee you that you will be disappointed. I hope you prove me wrong.

I hope I do prove you wrong. Look at my other posts on Slashdot, or Google some of the other things I've been up to, and you'll see I've been doing quite a lot to fight against software patents. I fought especially hard against AIA, although that got passed anyway.

I've been working with Sen Franken's office throughout, he's been very responsive generally, moreso than other Senators. Right now, I'm working with Franken's office to send a message to USPTO, urging them to update their policies regarding software patents, to make it harder to award a patent for software, and raise the obviousness test in general.

So... they punted

[Wokan]

Translation: We can't be bothered by this issue that never hits the mass media news cycles.

Do we owe him any money?

[flanders_down]

I mean, he's been jacking us off for a few years now. He should be compensated.

All the cynics are right...

[fooslacker]

This is a ridiculous response that basically says "we're not interested given that our donors like patents". That said the way you respond to a ridiculous response is by continuing to hound them until it becomes a major issue. Here is one I created to end all patents as I believe the system itself is corrupt and needs to be replaced by open competition.

http://wh.gov/bjZ

I encourage everyone to sign it or create your own and post them here. Slashdot has shown the ability to nuke major sites due to the size of it's audience/community...let's make it clear we feel strongly about the issue. At the very least maybe they will take down their fake petition site which is offensive due to the fact they don't pay any attention to it. =)

He DOESN'T have a plan.

[khasim]

I think Obama is genuine (at least as genuine as a politician can be) in suggesting that he believes his bill is helpful, but understands it's a non-starter. He has to run around saying they should do it though because otherwise he'll be "the guy with no plan."

In which case he should be finding a way to CHANGE THE SITUATION.

Instead he's capitulating to the Republicans on every single issue that they disagree with.

He should be on TV every single night making his case for his changes directly to the people and naming those who oppose the improvements.

No he's not.

[khasim]

He's already doing this with that jobs bill.

No he's not. He's out campaigning for re-election.

In which speech did he specifically identify an individual Senator who opposed his bill?

Compare his current behaviour to Bush-2's campaigning for just about anything that he got.

We the People - are we sure this isn't a joke site

[Kreylix]

run by the Republicans? It's no wonder some say the Obama is the best Republican president in years.

Now project that forward.

[khasim]

Innovation isn't going stop.
It's just going to die in the USofA.
Worldwide, it will continue.

And they outnumber us.

The goal should be to keep it difficult for the big industries to sit back while someone else overtakes us ... while making it easy for our home-grown inventors to build the next generation of products.

Instead, we have a situation where the government is protecting the existing businesses at the expense of the next generation.

I wish I had mod points.

[khasim]

Exactly. He will only pass this is enough people get enough votes in Congress to make it politically unsupportable for him to veto it.

In which case, why even have an office of the President?

Where's the media blitz?
Where's the national discussion?
Where's the FAILED bill and the PUBLIC discussion of who killed it?

No We Can't

[perpenso]

That's the most politely-worded and voluminous "Fuck you, you're on your own" I've ever read.

That seems an overstatement. Its more of a "No We Can't". Sigh.

Estimated cost of software patents in court?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are there any guru's out there that follow this closely enough to give a rough estimate of the amount of money paid through the court system for violations of software patents? It would be nice to have some numbers to use in an argument :) Also, did anyone else notice how the Whitehouse petition site had multiples of the same petitions that were worded only slightly differently? Doesn't that water down the true number of petitioners? I have a feeling that there are more than 14k people that signed this petition...

--Tim

How To Build Muscle Fast For Men

[etrafficoptimizer]

Something very hard to do but necessary if you want to build that lean muscle you deserve is a to have a good diet.This is one of the things that I lacked the most when I first started and I could Not understand why I was not getting ripped or hard.Learning How To Build Muscle Fast For Men was a challenge

The petition site doesn't even work.

[Animats]

The White House petition site is barely working. I'm in some limbo state there where the "sign petition" page wants me to log in, and clicking on the "log in" link gets a popup which offers me only the option of logging out. Clicking on the the "Sign Out" link comes back with "Gateway Timeout The proxy server did not receive a timely response from the upstream server. Reference #1.c8e8dfad.1320178618.b97d68 "

Looking at the page source, it uses Drupal. Badly. In the middle of the document, the page starts over, in the middle of the BODY section, with a new DOCTYPE element and a new HEAD section. The W3C validator finds 41 errors.

Lame.

Re:The petition site doesn't even work.

[Hatta]

Yes, everyone gets bit by this bug. The workaround I found was to log in on the front page, and only then navigate to the petition you wish to sign. If you do it the other way around, you're stuck in authentication limbo.

I do like the banner at the top

[gallondr00nk]

Your voice in our government

Sorry, I was mistaken into thinking (in an ideal world) the people were the government. My mistake. It's your government.

The U.S. continues on with its reputation...

[thenewt]

... as being the litigious laughingstock of the rest of the world. The U.S. is lucky it's still rich enough, for now, that it can afford to let armies of bloodsucking lawyers and lobbyists sap innovation from key industries. How long can that be sustained? Free-market capitalist democracy - what a load of tripe.

Re:The U.S. continues on with its reputation...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, because government backed monopolies on ideas in the form of patents are the cornerstone of the free market...

Let me guess, you're a smelly hippie typing this from some other smelly person's MacBook in between drum circle sessions on Wall Street? Because you have the intelligence of a rutabaga.

Preparing legislation doesn't get things done

[DragonWriter]

However, the overall response redirects action to the petitioners through participating in the open implementation site and contacting Congress, instead of a promise to prepare additional legislative measures for Congress to consider on behalf of the petitioners.

As a practical matter, absent substantial political pressure from the electorate, the administration preparing legislation doesn't mean a whole lot. You get legislation that is prepared, and then dead-on-arrival in the Congress.

We don't have a monarchy. You aren't going to get a meaningful solution to problems that aren't specifically within the executive domain by petitioning the President alone. If you want changes in patent law (or anything else set in statute), you need to put pressure on Congress, first and foremost.

Also trying to get the White House on board probably doesn't hurt, but its not the main place you need to expend effort.

Re:That's correct. Congress sets patentability pol

[DragonWriter]

I partially disagree. The White House has plenty of influence on the legislative process due to deal-making.

If Congress is interested in making deals. If the Congressional majority (even if its just in one of the two houses) is more interested in grandstanding by symbolic measures to appeal to the most extreme faction of their base rather than making deals to actually pass legislation, the White House's legislative influence is essentially non-existent.

Re:Actually Take These Petitions Seriously Petitti

[kermidge]

Thanks for link.

Online petitions at White House? PR, making malcontent lists, safety valve (the illusion of participating, etc.), and even, possibly, useful feedback. Yet, nothing ventured, nothing gained, maybe.

I started learning in the late Sixties that the powers that be don't need to listen, but only need to pretend to do so.

Patents aren't about fairness

[DragonWriter]

Software patents are a government program for creating "fairness" among software developers and companies.

No, they aren't.

They are a government program for creating an incentive to create inventions that end up contributing to the common good. It says so right in the Constitutional provision that authorizes them.

Creating "fairness" isn't a factor.

Re:Patents aren't about fairness

[Anonymous Coward]

Software patents are a government program for creating "fairness" among software developers and companies.

No, they aren't.

They are a government program for creating an incentive to create inventions that end up contributing to the common good. It says so right in the Constitutional provision that authorizes them.

Creating "fairness" isn't a factor.

Check your reading comprehension.

The GP was stating that patents are part of the classic "it's only fair" excuse for doing stupid shit then failing to back-pedal after it turns out to be a terrible mistake. When someone tries to sell you a regulation because it is "fair", make sure you check the fine print as unintended consequences abound.

GOVERNMENT SUPPORTS MONOPOLIES

[roman_mir]

You are exactly right. Government supports monopolies. It prefers monopolies. It creates monopolies. Every single unelected office, every single regulation, every single bit of business and money that government gets into is about supporting, promoting, subsidizing and protecting/bailing out/stimulating monopolies.

Government loves monopolies. It gives out franchise licenses and other types of licenses and it puts its hands all over the market, distorting it, creating artificial scarcity and preventing competition.

The RICH are getting RICHER because GOVERNMENT PROTECTS THEM from the next big thing - something somebody makes on their own.

There is no way to compete ONLY when there is government standing with a gun to your head, and don't be mistaken - government power, all of it is about having a gun to your head.

Re:GOVERNMENT SUPPORTS MONOPOLIES

[Jim Hall]

You seem to have a problem with your caps lock.

Re:GOVERNMENT SUPPORTS MONOPOLIES

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

Who do you blame when your car doesn't start?

Re:GOVERNMENT SUPPORTS MONOPOLIES

[roman_mir]

myself. It means I didn't take care of it and I fix it. Is that relevant?

Re:GOVERNMENT SUPPORTS MONOPOLIES

[damn_registrars]

Who do you blame when your car doesn't start?

myself. It means I didn't take care of it and I fix it. Is that relevant?

Bullshit. You'd sit in your driveway and curse at Obama - twice.

Once, for (what you perceive as) his socialized takover of transportation.

Then a second time, because the highway administration hasn't approved the sale of the least expensive Chinese / Indian / Eastern European cars in this country, thus preventing you from buying unsafe and unreliable vehicles at rock-bottom bargain-basement prices.

Re:GOVERNMENT SUPPORTS MONOPOLIES

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

How dare you besmirch the good name of the Dacia Sandero

Did you miss the last few years?

[khasim]

A simple provision to pay doctors if they discussed end-of-life decisions with a patient became uninformed ranting about how Obama would ration care and make people justify whether they deserved medical treatment or death.

There are people ranting about him not even being born in the USofA.

You CANNOT base policy on what the opposition will say about you.

Man up! Grow a pair of balls and FIGHT FOR WHAT YOU BELIEVE IN.

Re:Did you miss the last few years?

[reasterling]

Man up! Grow a pair of balls and FIGHT FOR WHAT YOU BELIEVE IN.

As a republican (kinda) I would like to say AMEN!!

I may not support all that he would do, but I hate politics. These parasites in washington should not be allowed to hide their true beliefs. What we need are statesmen who really care about the people they represent. What we get are a bunch of cowards who are only interested in there own pocketbooks.

---------- Unrelated ----------

All our laws should have an expiration date. Congress should have re-evaluate every law on the books every so many years that way they are too tied up keeping the system going to constantly pass bad laws, and they would also have an incentive to keep the laws simple to expedite the system. Bad laws can simply disappear by the inaction of a future congress. Our laws (and our government) need to be downsized to the point that the average citizen can understand what they can and cannot do.

With a expiration limit of say 10 years I bet our law makers would be so busy that even the lobbyist couldn't keep up with them. It would also be neat to see big business have to spend lobbying dollars repeatedly for their favourite pet law instead of just once.

Re:Did you miss the last few years?

[UnknowingFool]

So you have unlimited time and energy to fight every fight that comes your way? Also everything is priority #1 in your life and you don't have to let some things wait? I would guess that the answer is no. The problem is that this is important to you thus the administration is being cowardly while some people don't give a damn about it. In fact some people might be upset that the administration spent valuable resources answering questions instead of creating new jobs.

Re:Actually Take These Petitions Seriously Petitti

[DanLake]

The White House can increase the threshold to receive a response at any time. The threshold on the 'Take these petitions seriously" petition is 25,000 signatures in the next 2 weeks. Other petitions which have NOT been taken seriously had much lower thresholds of 5,000 signatures. So.. a petition to not ignore the 5,000 signatures requires 25,000 signatures. Nice.

patents are an outdated concept

[ivrogne]

In a time when information doubles every 2 years or so, what is insightful one day rapidly becomes an obvious solution for anyone taking the time to research the problem. One-click checkout? Come on! That's the obvious way to make your e-commerce site easier to use. It makes no sense that whoever comes up first with an idea should have a monopoly on it for decades and collect money from everyone wanting to do something similar. Patents should be valid for one year maximum, and only if one can prove that developing the invention required a massive investment. That's plenty of time to make money before one should give back to the people, so everyone can benefit, find more economical ways to produce it, improve upon the idea, and so on. The argument that nobody will bother to invent/create if there were no patents is absurd. It's exactly the opposite. This is a system designed for big companies (mostly American) which want to stifle competition and make more money. Because of patents, millions of people in the third world die because they can't afford medicines which could save their lives. Enough with this nonsense.

Re:Actually Take These Petitions Seriously Petitti

[Anonymous Coward]

Only a bit over 9000 votes right now. I think this petition needs to be on Slashdot's front page. I'm worried they'll just outright ignore it if it's even slightly under the 15000.

Course, if they suddenly get a ton of votes because it's on Slashdot's main page, I wonder if they'll maybe remove it outright and claim it was being spammed or auto-signed or some crap to boost the numbers.

Taking it slow

[Anonymous Coward]

To me, it sounds like they are just trying to take it slow on the patent issue rather than force it during an economically precarious time. Although I am definitely for the abolition of software patents, doing so immediately would definitely create some chaos that the White House wants to avoid this year. It seems like they are ramping up use of open source things internally -- maybe if someone sues the govt. for a patent violation they'll start paying more attention. to patent issues.

Re:That's correct. Congress sets patentability pol

[Nemo137]

Because one thing our current president has shown himself to be great at is congressional horse-trading. I mean, I like the guy, but LBJ he ain't.

Unlimited means unlimilted.

[khasim]

So you have unlimited time and energy to fight every fight that comes your way?

Why would it have to be "unlimited"? No one is asking him to colonize the universe.

Also everything is priority #1 in your life and you don't have to let some things wait?

Wouldn't the top priority things be the top priorities? Isn't that what makes the top priorities?

The problem is that this is important to you thus the administration is being cowardly while some people don't give a damn about it.

Nope. You weren't paying attention.

The problem is once the "people" had identified a priority, the response was along the lines of "yeah, so make it easy for Obama to approve it once you get it through Congress and we'll see what we can do".

In fact some people might be upset that the administration spent valuable resources answering questions instead of creating new jobs.

Yeah, because answering questions means that you and your staff cannot be doing ANYTHING else at the same time. And the answering takes so long that it negatively impacts the other tasks WHICH YOU AREN'T DOING IN THE FIRST PLACE WHICH IS WHY YOUR APPROVAL RATING IS SO LOW.

Innovation means jobs. New jobs. Jobs to replace the lost jobs.
Software patents (and other overly broad patents) hurt innovation.
That means that they hurt jobs.

Re:Unlimited means unlimilted.

[UnknowingFool]

Why would it have to be "unlimited"? No one is asking him to colonize the universe.

Because you are not the only constituent the government serves. The next person will want the administration to do more for schools. The next person wants marijuana legalization. But everyone wants their cause addressed. Now.

Wouldn't the top priority things be the top priorities? Isn't that what makes the top priorities?

If all your priorities are #1, do you really have any priorities? There has to be stratification.

The problem is once the "people" had identified a priority, the response was along the lines of "yeah, so make it easy for Obama to approve it once you get it through Congress and we'll see what we can do".

Again this is a priority for some people, namely you. At this point they will not do anything about this particular issue; however, those concerned can contact Congress which is the appropriate body to create new legislation. Or would you rather they lie to you and promise you they would work on it when they won't?

Yeah, because answering questions means that you and your staff cannot be doing ANYTHING else at the same time. And the answering takes so long that it negatively impacts the other tasks WHICH YOU AREN'T DOING IN THE FIRST PLACE WHICH IS WHY YOUR APPROVAL RATING IS SO LOW.

Staff=people. Do you think that things magically get done? That Obama's staff are not constrained by a 24 hour day? Most likely the person answering it is a lowly paid (and sometimes not even paid), highly worked staff member. And there are 132 other issues they have to address.

Innovation means jobs. New jobs. Jobs to replace the lost jobs. Software patents (and other overly broad patents) hurt innovation. That means that they hurt jobs.

I don't disagree that the issue is important; I disagree that somehow it's cowardly that the administration has decided not to take on this issue at this time.

I'd agree to that.

[khasim]

Yep, having laws automatically expire would (in my opinion) be a good thing.

And I'm a raving Liberal.

On a related note, how about having the various Congress Critters identify ONE law that they would fight to immediately revoke once elected. Per year. And no duplicates! Everyone cannot choose health care reform as what they'd revoke.

We have 200+ years of laws on the books. Let's get some of them cleaned off. And let's use that to process to learn more about the candidates.

Who should write the responses?

[highlander76]

There is a fairly high bar to get a reply. It would be nice if the President responded to them himself. Take some direct accountability for a response about an issue obviously a lot of people care about.

But gas only costs a dime!

[AnotherScratchMonkey]

Ron Paul can do better: He can get you a gallon of gas for a dime today!

SO in otherwords

[Osgeld]

Just a bunch of hot air and bullshit to keep those whom are lining the pockets happy

I the government would have it no other way, where the fuck is my pitchfork?

US OUT OF NORTH AMERICA!

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Back when I proposed that OWS topple statues of Ronald Reagan, I wasn't actually sure if any had been established.

But now, we have the object for our contempt: Nine foot statues of the Patron Saint of Corporate Fascism.

Read this closely, and I think we can discover from where Cain derived his '9, 9, 9".

If you crack the head open, is there a miniature, bronze GHW Bush, spinning knobs and pulling puppet-levers?

I AM OZYMANDIAS! KING of MOTHERFUCKING KINGS! LOOK UPON MY WORKS, OH YE MIGHTY MOTHERFUCKERS, AND DESPAIR!

You're not following, are you?

[khasim]

Because you are not the only constituent the government serves.

The discussion was about the petitions on the government's web site. If a petition gets enough support, that means it should be a priority.

The question is, why are they not dealing with the subjects that the people have identified as priorities to many of them?

If all your priorities are #1, do you really have any priorities? There has to be stratification.

Again, the petition site. Did you miss it? It's in the summary.

Staff=people. Do you think that things magically get done? That Obama's staff are not constrained by a 24 hour day?

So now you're claiming that just answering questions takes magic?

No, answering questions does not take magic.

I don't disagree that the issue is important; I disagree that somehow it's cowardly that the administration has decided not to take on this issue at this time.

No. YOUR EXCUSE for why it wouldn't be addressed is cowardly.

Here's what you ORIGINALLY posted:

A simple provision to pay doctors if they discussed end-of-life decisions with a patient became uninformed ranting about how Obama would ration care and make people justify whether they deserved medical treatment or death. Sometimes you have to pick your battles. This one isn't one that the administration wants to fight at this time.

Fuck that! Who cares if the mean people say mean things about him? Most of us got over that in grade school.

If he doesn't fight for what he believes in then he is a coward.

If he doesn't fight because the mean people are mean, then he is a coward.

And it doesn't involve magic.

Re:You're not following, are you?

[UnknowingFool]

The discussion was about the petitions on the government's web site. If a petition gets enough support, that means it should be a priority.
The question is, why are they not dealing with the subjects that the people have identified as priorities to many of them?

Again the problem is that this is important to you and some people. What you're not understanding is that it's not important to everyone. All you can see it that you want it done. Other people have other issues. Far more people wanted to remove religious references in the Pledge of Allegiance and on coinage. Far more people right now have an open petition to bring back Glass-Steagall separating investment banking and commercial banking. Should they not get what they want because you got what you wanted.

Again, the petition site. Did you miss it? It's in the summary.

Again it's all about you.

So now you're claiming that just answering questions takes magic? No, answering questions does not take magic.

So when someone answers the petition, they open a six pack of beer, head down to the nearest pub and bang out a response in a few hours because this is the only thing they were hired to do? They just make up whatever they want? Or is someone assigned a particular petition. They have to talk to the right people in the administration as to what the position and response should be. Then there are probably meetings on the draft and final version. And this is on top of their normal job in the administration.

Fuck that! Who cares if the mean people say mean things about him? Most of us got over that in grade school.

Seriously what world do you live in where you don't have to pick your battles and priorities? And when someone doesn't pick your priority for practical reasons (like the fight may be too much right now), it's "cowardly".

Penalize the USPTO for poor patents...

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is a link to my petition to the administration to penalize the USPTO for issuing bad patents:

http://wh.gov/bDh

The following link is my petition against software patents from years ago...

http://www.petitiononline.com/pasp01/petition.html

GC

Re:That's correct. Congress sets patentability pol

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

48 Republicans can't even agree to raise the debt ceiling with out dragging their feet. As much as I do think this administration has been meek, the political calculus is in extremely weird places. Common wisdom wasn't even that wise to begin with but even that's gone out the window.

Petition makes no sense

[Anonymous Coward]

From the petition:

The patent office's original interpretation of software as language and therefor patentable is much closer to reality and more productive for innovation than it's current practice of issuing software patents with no understanding of the patents being issued.

What in the fuck is that mess?

As far as I can tell, the petition starts by asserting that software-as-a-language should be patentable. It asserts that this view was the Patent Office's original interpretation (which is false), and then it says that this view is "closer to reality". Whaaaa? It contains misspellings and grammar errors like "therefor" and "it's".

This petition is nearly nonsensical. What little sense I can get out of it conveys the exact opposite of its title. This petition is a complete joke and a pathetic embarrassment.

Re:That's correct. Congress sets patentability pol

[Dachannien]

Except this wasn't what the petition was about. The petition asked the White House to direct the USPTO to stop issuing software patents. Such an act would shortly thereafter be referred to the courts, where it would likely be reversed.

Re:Actually Take These Petitions Seriously Petitti

[Anonymous Coward]

Lol, is that like the meta-dance to make rain dances finally work?
Or the prayer to god that he should finally listen to your prayers?
What about a computer analogy? So it is it like when your TCP ping to a unconnected IP address doesn't come back, you try to send it a ICMP echo request?
Wail, wait, is it like on your last days in the deathbed, when all the homeopathy didn't work, you order the most ultrapure water ever made to save yourself?
How about a car analogy? Maybe it really is like when you sit in a car wreck from the junk yard without a motor, and turning the key doesn't work, you try to jump-start it? ^^

EPIC FAIL!

Re:Actually Take These Petitions Seriously Petitti

[bill_mcgonigle]

Only a bit over 9000 votes right now.

Hey, cool, it was about 7400 yesterday and about 7800 just before I posted it to Slashdot. What a cool machine.

I think this petition needs to be on Slashdot's front page

By all means go for it. I don't have much luck getting anything through that's overtly critical of the government. Like the story they rejected about Redbox's fee increases being stated by Redbox as being caused by Durbin Amendment.

But hey, if I wanted fame I'd just post stuff about Google investing in graphene.

Re:Actually Take These Petitions Seriously Petitti

[bill_mcgonigle]

So true.

Something has to give.

[Dripdry]

As someone who is in the financial sector I can tell you flat out that some of the major money managers out there are fielding LIVE conference calls where advisors/brokers are getting VERY worried at them about the current state of things.

When you ask about what's coming, they give a bullshit answer, when you press them (a couple have cracked a little bit on these calls) they are thinking the same things we are: This country is FUCKED economically for the next 5-10 years, and that's if we get our shit together last month, not in 2013.

These guys are trying desperately to find some way of safeguarding money in the market (i know, i know, taboo words), but this is for money that belongs to your grandma, your neighbor, you and I. This isn't some hedge fund crazy, this is everyday bucks from everyday people, and top to bottom people are VERY worried.

Something WILL give. I have no idea what, but even the big guys are starting to feel like shit could get quite real in the next couple years.

Re:Something has to give.

[hairyfeet]

If I was trying to protect money? Metals and weapon stocks. Take a look at what always continues, even in times of world war, you need all major metals to forge new weapons and weapon merchants tend to make out like bandits.

I predict the Arab springs will continue to spread until they are no longer contained in the middle east. EU will be next, the USA by 2013 or 2014. You can't go around gorging at the trough while ignoring the suffering of the people because before long they turn on you, just ask the French what happens when you tell them to eat cake. Gold, Silver, Copper, Aluminum, and gun stocks, that is where I'd put my money if the inflation wasn't quickly taking it all that is.

We don't care a flying fuck abour your proposal...

[Anonymous Coward]

...but thank you very much for trying, anyway.

Yours,

your Government.

Melted down right on scheduele. The Lying Began.

[BrendaEM]

U.S. Research modeled those reactors, finding that they would melt down something like 16 hours after a coolant failure. In Japan, they lied about the extent of the accident, and needlessly endangering people's lives.

Up front, it was evident that the explosions were from fuel cladding degradation and radiolysis from fuel damage, and they lied. What is it about nuclear power that makes people lie so readily?

I still suspect that the nitrogen injection was not to prevent an explosion, as I find it dubious that nitrogen would prevent an explosion whereas the radiolsys would also supply oxygen as well as fuel for the explosion, but in reality, the nitrogen was to help put out the many nuclear fuel fires they had, just like the Windscale fire.

America Invents Act?

[Anonymous Coward]

Some people may say America no longer invents, just consumes. Phoooey, I say. Lawyers are the most inventive people around, closely followed by accountants.

A response is better than no response

[jddimarco]

I don't understand all the disillusionment here: the Obama administration didn't actually have to respond to the software patent petition. But they did, and clearly put some work into the response too. This is a good thing, not a bad thing.

It needed repeated

[Anonymous Coward]

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson.

Re:Actually Take These Petitions Seriously Petitti

[Anonymous Coward]

https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petition-tool/petition/actually-take-these-petitions-seriously-instead-just-using-them-excuse-pretend-you-are-listening/grQ9mNkN

Updated link.

Brainwashing

[Anonymous Coward]

Just another avenue for them to try and convince you of their position, while seeming like they give a shit.

How long do software patents last?

[Pallidrone]

I know that some patents last 20 years and other around 14 years. Either one is too long when it comes to software. Maybe the answer is to limit the length of how long a company can have a software patent, which would help both sides out.

Re:Actually Take These Petitions Seriously Petitti

[Anonymous Coward]

You know they are going to give the same old bullshit even for this one, right? Still worth doing, I guess, it might make more people realise just how little they care for the views of the public.

For the wingnuts modding my comment as "troll"...

[StevenMaurer]

...here is a Groklaw link backing up absolutely everything I just wrote. (fair use snippet follows - emphasis mine)

The White House has launched a new citizen input process that allows citizens to propose and post petitions to the White House suggesting government action on issues of interest. One such petition calls for the Administration to direct the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to cease issuing software patents. The White House has issued a response to the petition, and you will note that it barely responds to what the petitioners are requesting. Why? Because the White House has no direct power to do what the petition asks.

So what has the public reaction to that response been? Why, another petition screaming even louder for the White House to do something. Right idea; wrong forum.

We have software patents in the U.S. because Congress has essentially said that "anything under the sun made by man" is patentable. This well worn quote was provided during testimony in the consideration and adoption of the Patent Reform Act of 1952, and since then the U.S. court system has done its best to embrace that concept, giving us patents on software, business method, and the human genome. The administrative branch of our federal government had no hand in either legislating or interpreting legislation.Those activities are the purview of Congress and the Courts. The Administration can only enforce the law of the land (and on occasion, influence legislation or file an amicus brief in a court case), so our right-headed petitioners who want to rid the U.S. of software patents need to shift targets. They need to focus on Congress and the Courts.

So what are the odds that Congress will actually ever act to revoke software patents? Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Greens, etc., would all probably peg those odds at less than one in a googol, since Congress appears to only answer to those who fund their campaigns with massive contributions beyond the reach of average voters. It is no secret that the largest players in the information technology sector all hold large patent portfolios, and it's a bit hard to imagine them walking away from the investment in patents willingly.

Basically Just Answering 25,000+ Letters At Once

[Anonymous Coward]

The steps for these petitions are "1) Create a petition; 2) Collect signatures; 3) Receive response from administration". We've always been able to write a letter to our elected officials. I mean, you can already "1) Write a letter to an elected official; 2) Mail it; 3) Receive response from official". The answers this "We The People" petition site are generating aren't really any different from the form letters you can get out of any elected official with just one letter.

lobbying?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's probably true that the executive branch wouldn't have that much jurisdiction over he software patent issue. Not only that, but I'd guess the White House wouldn't have much political will to fight or the issue, particularly since it just helped muscle the new patent reform bill through Congress. Unfortunately, the legislature is so easily influenced by lobbyists and special interests that I'm not sure it's too likely to side with software developers on this issue. Maybe developers need to start their own lobbying campaign?