Slashdot Mirror
Software Patent Reform Stalls Thanks To IBM and Microsoft Lobbying
An anonymous reader writes "The Washington post reports on the progress of a piece of legislation many hoped would address the glut of meaningless software patents used as weapons by patent trolls. Unfortunately, the provision that would have helped the USPTO nix these patents has been nixed itself. The article credits IBM, Microsoft, and other companies with huge patent portfolios for the change, citing an 'aggressive lobbying campaign' that apparently succeeded. Quoting: 'A September letter signed by IBM, Microsoft and several dozen other firms made the case against expanding the program. The proposal, they wrote, "could harm U.S. innovators by unnecessarily undermining the rights of patent holders. Subjecting data processing patents to the CBM program would create uncertainty and risk that discourage investment in any number of fields where we should be trying to spur continued innovation." ... Last week, IBM escalated its campaign against expanding the CBM program. An IBM spokesman told Politico, "While we support what Mr. Goodlatte's trying to do on trolls, if the CBM is included, we'd be forced to oppose the bill." Insiders say the campaign against the CBM provisions of the Goodlatte bill has succeeded. The House Judiciary Committee is scheduled to hold a markup of the legislation Wednesday, and Goodlatte will introduce a "manager's amendment" to remove the CBM language from his own bill. IBM hailed that change in a Monday letter to Goodlatte.'"
FTA: An IBM spokesman told Politico, "While we support what Mr. Goodlatte's trying to do on trolls, if the CBM is included, we'd be forced to oppose the bill."
What about the hundreds of thousands of small developers who support it?
Do they get a "vote", too ... or is it only the people who are rich enough to bribe senators?
No sig today...
Doesn't IBM hold a patent on patent reform?
I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
... that's owned by Jeff "One Click" Bezos?
If you use the word "bribing" instead of "lobbying" it becomes more clear who are the ones that screwed all there. Being governed by people that not only accept bribes, but is also not worried about that being known is almost as bad as citizens taking that as something normal.
Protecting you from the future since 1976.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
It's probably because most large corporations are run by sociopaths. Sociopaths, because they have no empathy or conscience, are more easily able to rise to the top of power structures (if they're smart; the stupid ones become criminals and go to prison), so most of our political and corporate leaders are sociopaths. And since they have no conscience, they don't give a shit about anyone else except maybe immediate family, and happily use their power to try to fuck over everyone else for their own gain.
CBM means "Covered Business Method (patent)"
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Translation: "We love the absurd and unfair amount of power that the broken patent system gives us over any and all future start-ups and rivals, and will oppose any legislation that doesn't maintain the status quo."
Welcome to serfdom, comrade!
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Most people on this forum are IT related, and I do not need to explain how software patents in particular hinder the ability to innovate in the field.
Only the US has terror histories regarding patent trolls and patent dicksizing contests between software companies, which in no way help you be better, faster, and, I would even say more profitable (Lawyers being the only ones profiting out of this)
There is no room for software start ups because of this. Everything that could be patented already is (and a lot that shouldn't is too).
Here, in software patent free world, it's so much better. Whatever you can think of you can do it, and even if you cannot find a solution, you can google for it, code it, and that's it. No lawyers or burocracies needed.
This is a clear situation of the big fish creating rules to eat the small fish. Is that the world you want to live in?
(the same could be applied to the rest of patents, and even things outside patents like equality and justice, but I will stay out of it to keep on topic)
I'm trying to get modded "Interesting Flamebait Informative and Insightful Redundant Troll" *-* Please Help *-*
I'd suggest it's nature's nature, not specific to humans. Cells that are particularly good at growing and competing do the same thing in organisms. The bright side with those asshole cells is that when the host dies of cancer, the cancer cells die too.
Well, usually anyway. HeLa cells are like those asshole billionaires who ruin a country and then move before the depression ruins them.
Translation: "We love the absurd and unfair amount of power that the broken patent system gives us over any and all future start-ups and rivals, and will oppose any legislation that doesn't maintain the status quo."
No - see the summary:
An IBM spokesman told Politico, "While we support what Mr. Goodlatte's trying to do on trolls, if the CBM is included, we'd be forced to oppose the bill."
The proper translation is "yes, we want to stop the troll problem, but this nuclear option you've got goes too far. We like all of your other proposals." Just because you don't like 5% of a proposal doesn't mean you necessarily hate 100% of the proposal.
I'm strongly in favor of patent reform, but CBM is not the answer. CBM allows a subset of patents to be challenged administratively on a fast-track, without having to go to court. That hurts the patent trolls, but it hurts anybody without a phalanx of lawyers even more.
Real patent reform has three key parts:
1. Fix "obviousness." The courts didn't like the examiner affirmatively finding that something was obvious so turn it around and require the applicant to justify why anyone of average skill seeking the same result would not have found the same method. Require the examiner to affirmatively find that it isn't obvious. No justification = no patent.
If anybody asked to do X would have tried your approach and X itself doesn't supply the genius either then no patent should be granted. Nor should a minor tweak on something you or somebody else already invented receive a patent. There are too many "routine inventions" receiving patents.
2. A person of average skill in the art should be able to implement the technology from the contents in the patent. Start rejecting packets where that isn't true. Vague or stilted language in the application = no patent.
3. Patent duration should be from application, not from the grant. Effective protection starts with the application. You can't sue anybody until after the grant, but no one dares use the tech unless they're sure the patent won't be granted. That's been abused by delaying the final grant for years or even a decade.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
1. Fix "obviousness."
Unfortunately, I think you're asking someone to prove a logical negative: the applicant has to prove that something isn't obvious by showing... what, exactly?
I hold six patents, and a few times I've had to prove obviousness to an examiner. The gold standard of obviousness is showing that others tried hard to solve the problem and failed. Sometimes, on problems where others have beaten their heads against the wall and there are failed products and projects in the field, you can point the examiner at prior art which shows obviousness. I was the first person to build a ragdoll physics system which could handle the hard cases. Back in the 1990s, early ragdoll systems tended to have characters flying off in random directions, sometimes with the body parts detaching. (Some physics engines still do that, which is lame, because, fifteen years later, several solutions besides mine are known now.) By pointing to previous failures that extended up to and past my patent application date, I was able to demonstrate non-obviousness.
"Obvious" does not mean "obvious in hindsight".
The patent troll industry exists because, in the last decade, it's become much tougher for inventors to enforce patent rights. Four changes in law did this:
Because of those changes, enforcing a single patent is no longer financially feasible in most cases. A big patent portfolio is needed. You either have to be a big patent holder like IBM or Google, or you have to deal with a company that aggregates patents to monetize them. This created the "patent troll" industry.
HR 3309 is an anti-inventor act, designed to make it more expensive to enforce a patent. After the removal of the "covered business method" patent section, patents are as strong as ever. You just have to be richer to enforce them. That's why this is supported by Google, Facebook, etc.
The current Senate bill on patent trolls, S.1720, the "Patent Transparency and Improvements Act of 2013" is much more narrowly focused than HR 3309. It has most of the anti-trolling provisions, but not loser-pays fee shifting. (Loser-pays means if a little guy sues a big company, they can get stuck with the big guy's big-law legal bills. That's a killer.) Instead, S.1720 has a study for a patent small claims court for small patent cases to get litigation costs down. That could work.