18 ms·

Anti-Patent Troll Bill Passes The House

160 points by oniTony 13y ago

DannyBee 13y ago
Stripped a bit, sadly, but, IMHO, progress overall.
- WildUtah 13y ago
  A month ago we lost the Covered Business Method review that would have been so valuable. Then today we lost venue improvements for patent applicant appeals which is a small issue. We'll see the bill stripped even more in the Senate. That's the essential battle now. Then the conference committee that reconciles the bills will be very important.
  - salient 13y ago
    Any chance for the business method to be banned again in Senate through an amendment?
    - DannyBee 13y ago
      No, because then it would have to get passed again in that form by the house Both houses of congress must pass the same bill for it to go to the president.
samspenc 13y ago
Which part of this is "Google-Backed"? I mean, I understand Google backs this, but aren't Twitter, Rackspace, Newegg, also similarly backing this? Why was only Google mentioned?
- cracell 13y ago
  Because Google is the biggest name of the companies supporting it and the one that will probably get Techcrunch the most clicks.
WildUtah 13y ago
My comment on the vote (originally a comment to a post on PatentlyO): Looks like the Watt (D-NC), Jackson-Lee (D-TX), and Conyers (D-MI) amendments failed. The text of amendments isn't on Thomas yet but the Congressional Black Caucus has been very skeptical of even the hint of loser-pays provisions for a long time and several members emphasized that objection in committee. I'm guessing those amendments were aimed at fee-shifting provisions. Looks like a slim majority of the CBC voted against final passage while non-CBC Democrats voted three-to-one in favor. My favorite CBC members Barbara Lee (D-CA, yes) and Donna Edwards (D-MD, no) were split. I couldn't see any pattern in Republicans that voted no, though I was disappointed in favorite Republican Justin Amash (R-MI). There doesn't seem to be any distinct lean among Progressive, RSC, Hispanic Caucus, Tea Party, regional groups, or other subdivisions for or against the measure. Well, except the SF bay area which is solidly in favor. Maybe the new PTO office there will be the site of protest rallies someday. I don't know what's in the Rohrabacher (R-CA) amendment that was adopted, either. It seems to have passed with mostly Democratic votes.
- WildUtah 13y ago
  See the roll call for your congressman. [1] Roll 629 "On Passage" is the vote on final House passage. Summary of the amendments extracted from the report (only the Rohrabacher amendment passed; Goodlatte's was automatically added since he's the committee chair): (see also Thomas's Rules Committee report [1]) Goodlatte's has technical changes. Watt's amendment weakens the loser-pays provision Polis's Requires claimants to provide additional disclosure information in any pre-suit notification to establish a willful infringement claim. (no vote) Massie's Strikes section 5, the ``Customer-suit exception'' provision. Jackson Lee's first Expands covered customer definition to all small businesses so long as their annual revenue does not exceed $25 million. Jackson Lee's second Requires the Director to conduct a study regarding the economic impact of the changes in current law resulting from Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the bill on the ability of individuals and small businesses owned by women, veterans, and minorities to assert, secure, and vindicate their constitutionally guaranteed exclusive right to their inventions and discoveries. Rohrabacher's moves patent applicant appeals back to district courts such as the Eastern District of Texas instead of the CAFC as the original bill specified. (This is the amendment that passed.) Conyers's essentially waters down the entire bill and replaces it with the much weaker and pro-troll Senate bill. Anybody who voted for this is not really our friend (roll call 628)[1]. This would drop the pleading reform, discovery reform, and loser-pays provisions that constitute essentially all the effective reforms in the bill. [0] http://beta.congress.gov/congressional-report/113th-congress/house-report/283 http://beta.congress.gov/congressional-report/113th-congress... [1] http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/index.asp http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/index.asp
kkangaroo 13y ago
Related: Googles growing patent stockpile. http://www.technologyreview.com/news/521946/googles-growing-patent-stockpile/ http://www.technologyreview.com/news/521946/googles-growing-...
h4pless 13y ago
Would it be outrageous to ask them to slap an MIT (or equivalent) license on some of the 51,000+ patents that they hold that are somewhat "expected behaviors" these days and aren't critical to their infrastructure? In my mind it would be an incredible PR move and would probably inhibit some of my hesitations of trusting Google.
- WildUtah 13y ago
  Google hasn't ever sued anyone for infringing any patent at all unless they've sued Google first. At least, I can't find a single news report in the fifteen year history of the company about it. If Google put out a free license for all their patents, they'd be unable to strike back when unethical companies sue them over garbage patents. If you're big enough to get on their radar, you can ask for a cross-license agreement.
  - danudey 13y ago
    Not technically, but if I recall, during the Motorola acquisition, when the terms of the deal included requiring Google's okay to do any patent lawsuits while the acquisition was pending, Motorola started several patent lawsuits non-defensively.
    - WildUtah 13y ago
      Moto went after Apple and Microsoft that were threatening and trolling and suing Android vendors. Those cases were clearly defensive. But they were surely trolling cases fought with garbage patents on Moto's side. Google grossly overestimated the quality of Motorola's portfolio and was blinded by the sheer number of mostly worthless patents Moto had.
  - h4pless 13y ago
    Well I supposed that was my underlying question. I understand that Google has taken the position where they're effectively holding the patents in good faith, but my question is if it would be beneficial for them to open license them so smaller companies could find them cheaply in a discovery for a patent infringement case so nonsense troll cases like the new law seems to be trying to fight could be more effective or whether it would be better to let google safeguard them just in case. (Possibly my longest run-on sentence ever)
darkarmani 13y ago
"Kentucky Republican and holder of 29 patents, Thomas Massie...claims the bill will 'weaken the patent system overall.'" What kind of of inane statement is that? The system needs to be made weaker as illustrated by the patent trolls. Does he think patents need to be made stronger?
- shawn-furyan 13y ago
  What's funny is that he seems to think that weakening the patent system is an unintended consequence of the bill of which its proponents are unaware.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    That doesn't follow. The way these changes are being billed in Congress is that they're necessary to keep trolls from taking advantage of the patent system. Taking measures to prevent gaming of the system is not the same as weakening the system. Undoubtedly some proponents of the bill see it as a first step towards weakening patents generally, but that's not how it's being billed.
    - shawn-furyan 13y ago
      The current state of the patent system is such that having been granted a patent legally supersedes in power the act of enabling technological advancement. That is to say that the power of the patent system has surpassed its social justification, and therefore should be scaled back to bring those two things in line. Doing so would weaken the patent system, but bring it in line with its intended purpose. If you prefer to think of it in terms of loopholes, I would point out that loopholes in a system of restrictions act to increase the powers enabled by that system. To close those loopholes is to decrease the power that the system is capable of imparting. All of that is to say that taking steps to make it harder for non-practicing entities to abuse the system in a way that has a net detriment on technology and innovation is the very act of closing the areas of copyright law that empower non-practicing entities to the detriment of practicing entities. Ideally such a change would decrease the power of the patent system just enough to shut out those who have a negative net impact on the advancement of technology and innovation.
d23 13y ago
The EFF supports this bill and has a nice summary: https://www.eff.org/cases/six-good-things-about-innovation-act https://www.eff.org/cases/six-good-things-about-innovation-a...
- chongli 13y ago
  The Customer Suit Exception, while nice, seems disturbingly reminiscent of feudalism. Now, as a customer of a corporation we elevate them to the status of lord and master; entrusting them to defend us against threats (lawsuits) to which we are unable to defend ourselves.
  - xiata 13y ago
    Think about the absurdity of being sued for patent infringement if you were a pizza shop and your oven allegedly infringed on a troll patent. You didn't manufacturer the oven, why are you being sued? The vendor's reputation is irreparably damaged by patent trolls who prey on customers due to the patent's apparent weakness. Sometimes corporations need justice too.
    - chongli 13y ago
      Right, I'm not saying that is good either. I'm just calling into question the entire system. How can we go even further?
adventured 13y ago
Why did so many Democrats oppose the bill relative to the number of Republicans that did so?
- ROFISH 13y ago
  Many Democrats are afraid of any "loser pays" system due to the belief that smaller or personal entities won't properly litigate when they aught to due to fear of losing and paying.
- rayiner 13y ago
  "Loser pays" is usually a republican ploy to gut regulation. E.g. you're never going to sue Exxon for polluting your town if you could be on the hook for Exxon's legal bills if you lose.
jd_free 13y ago
"Loser Pays" is the convention in most of the rest of the world, but not America, due to opposition from American liberals who say that poor people will be afraid to sue anyone if they fear having to pay the other side's legal fees if they lose. The problem with the American system, and it's a huge one, is that it allows TONS of legal extortion. Everyone pays their own legal fees even if they win, so all you have to do is threaten a lawsuit, then tell your victim that you'll "settle" for some amount less than it would cost them to go to court. No matter how baseless your lawsuit is, they still pay you because they can't afford to go to court and pay their own legal fees. Thus the poor suffer far more under this system.

160 points by oniTony 13y ago

DannyBee 13y ago

Stripped a bit, sadly, but, IMHO, progress overall.

WildUtah 13y ago
A month ago we lost the Covered Business Method review that would have been so valuable. Then today we lost venue improvements for patent applicant appeals which is a small issue. We'll see the bill stripped even more in the Senate. That's the essential battle now. Then the conference committee that reconciles the bills will be very important.
- salient 13y ago
  Any chance for the business method to be banned again in Senate through an amendment?
  - DannyBee 13y ago
    No, because then it would have to get passed again in that form by the house Both houses of congress must pass the same bill for it to go to the president.

samspenc 13y ago

Which part of this is "Google-Backed"? I mean, I understand Google backs this, but aren't Twitter, Rackspace, Newegg, also similarly backing this? Why was only Google mentioned?

cracell 13y ago
Because Google is the biggest name of the companies supporting it and the one that will probably get Techcrunch the most clicks.

WildUtah 13y ago

My comment on the vote (originally a comment to a post on PatentlyO): Looks like the Watt (D-NC), Jackson-Lee (D-TX), and Conyers (D-MI) amendments failed. The text of amendments isn't on Thomas yet but the Congressional Black Caucus has been very skeptical of even the hint of loser-pays provisions for a long time and several members emphasized that objection in committee. I'm guessing those amendments were aimed at fee-shifting provisions. Looks like a slim majority of the CBC voted against final passage while non-CBC Democrats voted three-to-one in favor. My favorite CBC members Barbara Lee (D-CA, yes) and Donna Edwards (D-MD, no) were split. I couldn't see any pattern in Republicans that voted no, though I was disappointed in favorite Republican Justin Amash (R-MI). There doesn't seem to be any distinct lean among Progressive, RSC, Hispanic Caucus, Tea Party, regional groups, or other subdivisions for or against the measure. Well, except the SF bay area which is solidly in favor. Maybe the new PTO office there will be the site of protest rallies someday. I don't know what's in the Rohrabacher (R-CA) amendment that was adopted, either. It seems to have passed with mostly Democratic votes.

WildUtah 13y ago
See the roll call for your congressman. [1] Roll 629 "On Passage" is the vote on final House passage. Summary of the amendments extracted from the report (only the Rohrabacher amendment passed; Goodlatte's was automatically added since he's the committee chair): (see also Thomas's Rules Committee report [1]) Goodlatte's has technical changes. Watt's amendment weakens the loser-pays provision Polis's Requires claimants to provide additional disclosure information in any pre-suit notification to establish a willful infringement claim. (no vote) Massie's Strikes section 5, the ``Customer-suit exception'' provision. Jackson Lee's first Expands covered customer definition to all small businesses so long as their annual revenue does not exceed $25 million. Jackson Lee's second Requires the Director to conduct a study regarding the economic impact of the changes in current law resulting from Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the bill on the ability of individuals and small businesses owned by women, veterans, and minorities to assert, secure, and vindicate their constitutionally guaranteed exclusive right to their inventions and discoveries. Rohrabacher's moves patent applicant appeals back to district courts such as the Eastern District of Texas instead of the CAFC as the original bill specified. (This is the amendment that passed.) Conyers's essentially waters down the entire bill and replaces it with the much weaker and pro-troll Senate bill. Anybody who voted for this is not really our friend (roll call 628)[1]. This would drop the pleading reform, discovery reform, and loser-pays provisions that constitute essentially all the effective reforms in the bill. [0] http://beta.congress.gov/congressional-report/113th-congress/house-report/283 http://beta.congress.gov/congressional-report/113th-congress... [1] http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/index.asp http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/index.asp

kkangaroo 13y ago

Related: Googles growing patent stockpile. http://www.technologyreview.com/news/521946/googles-growing-patent-stockpile/ http://www.technologyreview.com/news/521946/googles-growing-...

h4pless 13y ago

Would it be outrageous to ask them to slap an MIT (or equivalent) license on some of the 51,000+ patents that they hold that are somewhat "expected behaviors" these days and aren't critical to their infrastructure? In my mind it would be an incredible PR move and would probably inhibit some of my hesitations of trusting Google.

WildUtah 13y ago
Google hasn't ever sued anyone for infringing any patent at all unless they've sued Google first. At least, I can't find a single news report in the fifteen year history of the company about it. If Google put out a free license for all their patents, they'd be unable to strike back when unethical companies sue them over garbage patents. If you're big enough to get on their radar, you can ask for a cross-license agreement.
- danudey 13y ago
  Not technically, but if I recall, during the Motorola acquisition, when the terms of the deal included requiring Google's okay to do any patent lawsuits while the acquisition was pending, Motorola started several patent lawsuits non-defensively.
  - WildUtah 13y ago
    Moto went after Apple and Microsoft that were threatening and trolling and suing Android vendors. Those cases were clearly defensive. But they were surely trolling cases fought with garbage patents on Moto's side. Google grossly overestimated the quality of Motorola's portfolio and was blinded by the sheer number of mostly worthless patents Moto had.
- h4pless 13y ago
  Well I supposed that was my underlying question. I understand that Google has taken the position where they're effectively holding the patents in good faith, but my question is if it would be beneficial for them to open license them so smaller companies could find them cheaply in a discovery for a patent infringement case so nonsense troll cases like the new law seems to be trying to fight could be more effective or whether it would be better to let google safeguard them just in case. (Possibly my longest run-on sentence ever)

darkarmani 13y ago

"Kentucky Republican and holder of 29 patents, Thomas Massie...claims the bill will 'weaken the patent system overall.'" What kind of of inane statement is that? The system needs to be made weaker as illustrated by the patent trolls. Does he think patents need to be made stronger?

shawn-furyan 13y ago
What's funny is that he seems to think that weakening the patent system is an unintended consequence of the bill of which its proponents are unaware.
- rayiner 13y ago
  That doesn't follow. The way these changes are being billed in Congress is that they're necessary to keep trolls from taking advantage of the patent system. Taking measures to prevent gaming of the system is not the same as weakening the system. Undoubtedly some proponents of the bill see it as a first step towards weakening patents generally, but that's not how it's being billed.
  - shawn-furyan 13y ago
    The current state of the patent system is such that having been granted a patent legally supersedes in power the act of enabling technological advancement. That is to say that the power of the patent system has surpassed its social justification, and therefore should be scaled back to bring those two things in line. Doing so would weaken the patent system, but bring it in line with its intended purpose. If you prefer to think of it in terms of loopholes, I would point out that loopholes in a system of restrictions act to increase the powers enabled by that system. To close those loopholes is to decrease the power that the system is capable of imparting. All of that is to say that taking steps to make it harder for non-practicing entities to abuse the system in a way that has a net detriment on technology and innovation is the very act of closing the areas of copyright law that empower non-practicing entities to the detriment of practicing entities. Ideally such a change would decrease the power of the patent system just enough to shut out those who have a negative net impact on the advancement of technology and innovation.

d23 13y ago

The EFF supports this bill and has a nice summary: https://www.eff.org/cases/six-good-things-about-innovation-act https://www.eff.org/cases/six-good-things-about-innovation-a...

chongli 13y ago
The Customer Suit Exception, while nice, seems disturbingly reminiscent of feudalism. Now, as a customer of a corporation we elevate them to the status of lord and master; entrusting them to defend us against threats (lawsuits) to which we are unable to defend ourselves.
- xiata 13y ago
  Think about the absurdity of being sued for patent infringement if you were a pizza shop and your oven allegedly infringed on a troll patent. You didn't manufacturer the oven, why are you being sued? The vendor's reputation is irreparably damaged by patent trolls who prey on customers due to the patent's apparent weakness. Sometimes corporations need justice too.
  - chongli 13y ago
    Right, I'm not saying that is good either. I'm just calling into question the entire system. How can we go even further?

adventured 13y ago

Why did so many Democrats oppose the bill relative to the number of Republicans that did so?

ROFISH 13y ago
Many Democrats are afraid of any "loser pays" system due to the belief that smaller or personal entities won't properly litigate when they aught to due to fear of losing and paying.
rayiner 13y ago
"Loser pays" is usually a republican ploy to gut regulation. E.g. you're never going to sue Exxon for polluting your town if you could be on the hook for Exxon's legal bills if you lose.

jd_free 13y ago

"Loser Pays" is the convention in most of the rest of the world, but not America, due to opposition from American liberals who say that poor people will be afraid to sue anyone if they fear having to pay the other side's legal fees if they lose. The problem with the American system, and it's a huge one, is that it allows TONS of legal extortion. Everyone pays their own legal fees even if they win, so all you have to do is threaten a lawsuit, then tell your victim that you'll "settle" for some amount less than it would cost them to go to court. No matter how baseless your lawsuit is, they still pay you because they can't afford to go to court and pay their own legal fees. Thus the poor suffer far more under this system.