Companies Petition Congress To Reform 'Business Method' Patent Process

ectoman writes "This week, a coalition of more than 40 companies sent a letter to Congress asking for legislation that expands the Covered Business Method (CBM) program, a move some feel would stem patent abuse in the United States. Expanding the scope of CBM—a program that grants the Patent and Trademark Office the power to challenge the validity of certain business methods patents—would expedite the patent review process and significantly cut litigation costs, they say. "The vague and sweeping scope of many business method claims covering straight forward, common sense steps has led to an explosion of patent claims against processes used every day in common technologies by thousands of businesses and millions of Americans," says the letter, signed by companies like Amazon, Netflix, Red Hat, Macy's, and Kroger)."

Comments

Prediction

[schneidafunk]

With that kind of lobbying money, I expect a bipartisan majority pushing this through quite quickly.

Re:Prediction

[ackthpt]

With that kind of lobbying money, I expect a bipartisan majority pushing this through quite quickly.

Depends... is there sufficient lobbying money opposing it. You know, shadowy patent trolls and such.

they call these 'dollar votes', those with the most dollars get the votes

Re:Prediction

[bkmoore]

Who's supposed to lobby for the people?...oh, right, the representatives whom were elected by the people should be the lobbyists for the people...I'm feeling a bit naive today.

You see!

[briancox2]

Business is not always evil. In fact sometimes business interests are very good.

But people are prone to make sweeping assumptions because of one company at one particular time making a bad decision. In truth, as with all things, businesses need to be evaluated on a case by case basis.

Re:You see!

[tocsy]

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic right now, but I'm going to respond as if you aren't:

Businesses are, by DEFINITION, primarily interested in profits. Given a choice, they will do what they can to maximize their profits. It seems as if in this case, expanding the CBM is good for their businesses - I'd guess because it will make it more difficult for them to be sued, allowing them to increase profits.

Money is ALWAYS the bottom line. What we may interpret to be "good will" is nothing more than the business determining that is a better/easier/quicker way to make more money.

Re:You see!

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, of course. The point is that the pursuit of profit is neither good nor evil.
Our task as a society is to adjust the system's incentives so that businesses' pursuit of profit aligns with our best interests.

Re:You see!

[MightyMartian]

In other words we have to harness the amoral powers of sociopathy to good ends. We have to convince the psychopaths we've allowed to rule our society that it's in their best interests (which is all they give a flying fuck about) not to harvest us for our flesh, but rather to use their absolute lack of concern for any human being other than themselves for the greater good.

Does that just about sum it up?

Re:You see!

[briancox2]

There's an underlying assumption in your response that profits are bad.

Because we have a finite amount of resources as a nation (man hours, kilowatts, lumber, etc.) at any given time, the only way to make everyone richer is to use those resources as efficiently as we possibly can to provide what people need and want.

Profit is the measurement of how efficiently an endeavor is providing what is needed and wanted. Therefore, it is not always evil and always has an element of good to it.

Notice I didn't say it is always good. If a company makes decisions that deny to some people what is needed and wanted, in order to provide to a select few what is needed and wanted for the purpose of profit, then they have not been as good as they could have been. So thus, Microsoft is more evil and Red Hat is more good.

But to over-simplify the truth and say, "Profits are an evil motivator," is, as over-simplification always is, ignorant. There's an unwillingness to really look at everything when you over-simplify so you are by default being ignorant of the whole truth.

Re:You see!

[briancox2]

I must assume that someone who paints every CEO in the entire country as a sociopath has probably never gotten to know one.

Re:You see!

[gstoddart]

Because we have a finite amount of resources as a nation (man hours, kilowatts, lumber, etc.) at any given time, the only way to make everyone richer is to use those resources as efficiently as we possibly can to provide what people need and want.

And what evidence do you have to suggest that is happening? The gap between rich and poor grows every year, which means it isn't making 'everyone richer'. In fact, it certainly looks like the opposite is happening.

And as far as using those resources as efficiently as possible, again, I'm not convinced we do. How is it more 'efficient' to make Larry Ellison even more wealthy and a bigger asshole? Is he proportionally doing more work, or is he just the guy at the top collecting massive rewards?

Profit is the measurement of how efficiently an endeavor is providing what is needed and wanted.

Bullshit. It's a measure of how much it costs you to extract money from your clients relative to how much you rake in.

A credit card scam can be hugely profitable, but it has no relation whatsoever to 'how efficiently an endeavor is providing what is needed and wanted'.

So many corporate profits these days are a shell game to make one thing look more expensive and defray the costs to someone else. You think Hollywood accounting is about 'how efficiently an endeavor is providing what is needed and wanted'? Or do you think it's about shuffling around money to tell one group of people you lost massive amounts of money and can't pay them, and tell another group how much money you raked in.

There's an unwillingness to really look at everything when you over-simplify so you are by default being ignorant of the whole truth.

And you have so over simplified what 'profits' mean as to make everything you said meaningless drivel.

Re:You see!

[Logger]

Yes. And that's one of the reasons why we need regulated capitalism. It's a means of harnessing sociopaths. In unregulated capitalism, the sociopaths will run rampant with their businesses. In communist societies, lacking other outlets, the sociopaths seem to take power in the government where they tend to do a lot more harm.

Re:You see!

[bill_mcgonigle]

sociopaths seem to take power in the government where they tend to do a lot more harm

To work in the government, you have to be OK with forcing people to do things against their will, even if they're harming nobody else. That's a very self-selecting job description.

Now, you want to let them tell businesses how they need to operate too? Think they'll have a moral problem with those businesses paying for special treatment?

Exhibit A: Wall Street.
Exhibit B: K Street.

Re:You see!

[s.petry]

Profits are bad, because profits are not the point of society nor a benefit to society. Society is a benefit to society, not profits.

Understanding that the ideal just expressed is utopian and unrealistic at this point in time does not change the fact that profits are bad.

Consider Socrates and the Allegory of the Artisan. The duty of the Republic is to ensure that a good artisan remains a good artisan. Pay him too much, and he will no longer produce works. He will not only stop producing, but spend his time and money meddling in other peoples affairs. The Republic has given him an opportunity to harm others as well as no longer be productive for society. If the Republic does not pay the Artisan enough, he will no longer produce. The artisan will be worried about the welfare of his children and home, and seek opportunities other than being an artisan to ensure survival.

The duty of the Republic is to ensure that people are rewarded for producing in society, but never so much that they become unproductive. This does not just go for the artisan, but also the farmer and cobbler and baker and every other job we have deemed critical to societies purpose and function.

Now if you consider that among Americans if you ask people "How much money is too much money?", you know damn well that the answer will be "no such thing". This is a socially deficient teaching which is not beneficial to society. People have been duped.

**and now I step down from my philanthropic soap box.**

Re:You see!

[Alomex]

The gap between rich and poor grows every year, which means it isn't making 'everyone richer'.

Seriously dude? If I have $1 and you have $2 and we both double our wealth, now I have $2 and you have $4. Everyone is richer yet the gap grew from $1 to $2. Now lets say you tripled your money while I doubled mine. The gap is even bigger but still we are both richer.

It is perfectly possible for the gap to grow and everyone get richer. I'm not saying this is or isn't happening right now. I'm just pointing out that your mathematical reasoning is flawed.

Re:You see!

[Alomex]

Businesses are, by DEFINITION, primarily interested in profits.

Not in Germany, where by law they must consider the social good as well.

Re:You see!

[TapeCutter]

Businesses, at least corporations, are required by law to maximize profits

I hear this often but have never seen such a law. In simplistic terms the board of publicly traded companies are required to do what the shareholders (ie: the owners) tell them to do, normally they say "maximise profits" but not because it's required by law.

FTFA: Interesting consortium

[sl4shd0rk]

I wonder why the lack of Microsoft and Apple.

Amazon.com, Inc.
AOL Inc.
Dell Inc.
Demandware, Inc.
Dropbox Inc.
EarthLink, Inc.
eBay, Inc.
Eddie Bauer LLC.
Facebook, Inc.
Gilt Groupe, Inc.
Google Inc.
Hearst Corporation
HomeAway, Inc.
HTC Americas Inc.
J.Crew Group, Inc.
Netflix, Inc.
Newegg.com Inc.
Overstock.com
Priceline.com Incorporated
Public Service Enterprise Group Inc.
QVC Inc.
Rackspace Inc.
Red Hat, Inc.
Safeway Inc.
Salesforce.com Inc.
Samsung Electronics America
SAS Institute Inc.
Southern Company
Spotify USA Inc.
SurveyMonkey
Jewelry Television
The Kroger Co.
LinkedIn Corporation
Macyâ(TM)s, Inc.
Media Temple, Inc.
Morgan Stanley
Mozilla
Twitter, Inc.
Verizon Communications Inc.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Whataburger
XO Communications
Yahoo! Inc.
Zynga, Inc.

Re:FTFA: Interesting consortium

[i kan reed]

Amazon.com Inc.

Amazon is the very definition of very definition of a holder of a stupid Business Method patent. I'm now afraid that reform means what copyright reform meant in 1998.

You're too cynical

[sjbe]

Businesses are, by DEFINITION, primarily interested in profits.

Primarily but not exclusively. The degree of their interest depends very much on who is running the business. Even the biggest businesses have stakeholders whose interest is not in maximizing corporate profits - many employees of the company not the least among them. And a profit motive does not mean that a company cannot engage in social good at the same time. Sometimes the two will conflict but often they will not.

Furthermore there are not-for-profit businesses who typically have some sort of dominant social agenda to which profit is merely an enabler rather than a driving force.

Money is ALWAYS the bottom line. What we may interpret to be "good will" is nothing more than the business determining that is a better/easier/quicker way to make more money.

I disagree that money is "always" the bottom line. Often, yes. Usually, maybe. Always, no. If your assertion were true then there are a lot of corporate activities that make little sense, starting with charitable giving. (for the cynics among you, charity generally makes for a terrible ROI even if you think of it as marketing) Furthermore a profit motive can, and often does, align with a social good. The two are not fundamentally incompatible. Reducing energy use has both an environmental benefit and an economic one. Reforming patent law can accomplish the same thing.

Re:You're too cynical

[lgw]

You have a very simple model of businesses. It's easier to think about things if all of your models are very simple, to be sure, but it's not the best approach to getting the right answer.

Many strongly moral people own companies. Many strongly moral people own stock. Many strongly moral people run companies. It's not the norm, but it's about as common as strongly moral are in society in general.

Profits are a goal, to be sure. Companies exist that have no other goals, and no compunction whatsoever about hurting any number of people to make a profit, to be sure. But companies like that are not the norm, because most people: most owners, most bosses, most workers, have moral lines they will not cross.

Some companies do give to charity just to give to charity, not for some marketing return (and any tax writeoff just means it costs less to give that money away, never that you come out ahead). Many people give money to charity because they enjoy helping others, and some of those people own, run, and work for companies.

Thinking in terms of simple, black-and-white, wholly-good-or-wholly-evil models is simply childish.

More useless bullshit

[SCHecklerX]

Business methods should not be patentable, nor should software. Period.