Slashdot Mirror
Why United States Patent Reform Has Stalled
ectoman (594315) writes Proponents of patent reform in the United States glimpsed a potential victory late last year, when the House of Representatives passed H.R. 3309, the Innovation Act, designed to significantly mitigate patent abuse. Just months ago, however, the Senate pulled consideration of the bill. And since then, patent reform has been at a standstill. In a new analysis for Opensource.com, Mark Bohannon, Vice President of Corporate affairs and Global Public Policy at Red Hat, explains three reasons why. "For this year, at least," he writes, "the prospect of addressing abusive patent litigation through Congressional action is on ice"—despite the unavoidable case for reform.
The article seems to explain what is [not] happening, not why. But I thought we already knew why. It's called the influence of money on politics.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
When there is money to be made in perpetuating the problem?
Thirty four characters live here.
Here is the problem.
The Right Wing Media has done such a good job a painting the Democrats and Obama as pure Evil, is that any sign of working with the Democrats on anything is a sign that they are being manipulated. So these politicians cannot dare to do anything that will make Obama side considered a win. As if they did they will get voted out in the next primaries.
The Left Wing Media makes the Right Wing like they are so out of touch and evil, so the Right feels constantly threatened, thus makes their stance more resolved.
This degree of Polarization has gone to the Crazy level.
Simple common sense solutions will not go threw because it was the other side who came up with it first.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Patents in the USA are a monopoly granted by the Constitution and laws that follow in order to provide a way for inventors to make money for a limited time, then depositing the idea in the public domain so others can manufacture the product or use the idea to expand upon it. It's all about encouraging innovation, because without a patent system, there'd be no incentive to do so and the inventor would have to find other jobs.
So once people say we will limit "abusive patent litigation" what does that mean?
You worked for 5 years to solve a particular problem and found a unique way to solve it and successfully got a patent or two or three on your solution.
Should the government now come in and pass a law that says "Bud, you can't sue to get patent royalties?"
That takes away your asset value, does it not? How do you define "abusive"? Is it only when you sue a Fortune 500 company? Is it only when 20 other patent holders sue a particular company? Or is it only when those companies have lots of lawyers to lobby the US Congress?
Answer the questions!