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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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?

Hear That?

[CanHasDIY]

Anyone else hear a loud sucking noise?

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

[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

[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

[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.

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.

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.

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."

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

[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?

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.

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.

Re:And you expected what...?

[h4rr4r]

I believe you mean from any administration.

Politicians are all cut from the same cloth.

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.

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.

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.

Re:GOVERNMENT SUPPORTS MONOPOLIES

[Jim Hall]

You seem to have a problem with your caps lock.