10 ms·

Who’s behind the last-minute push to thwart patent reform?

75 points by RougeFemme 12y ago

scotch_drinker 12y ago
Every day, it becomes more apparent that our democracy has been thwarted and overrun with oligarchs and special interests. Each party is beholden to its own oligarchs and the best solution I see is term limits of some sort. Politics shouldn't be a career. Because it currently is a career, our politicians must cater to those who are their bosses. The people are no longer the boss and that is the core problem. Even if this is an overreach that would "treat every patent holder as a patent troll" (a claim I find highly suspect), doing nothing has the effect of harming the very people that can move our economy forward, the innovators and entrepreneurs. When making a decision between a bill that helps this group versus trial lawyers, it's unfortunate that our leadership chooses the latter to protect.
- jobu 12y ago
  Term limits would help in some ways, but as another poster mentioned it can give even more power to those that control the political money. The most interesting proposal I've heard is to give tax rebates for political contributions. If you agree with the SCOTUS ruling that money equals speech then giving everyone some cash to spend on politics might give a voice to the masses.
- Amezarak 12y ago
  How will term limits help limit the power of oligarchs and special interests? If the term limit is more than one term, they still need funding to run their re-election campaign. If a politician finds himself in his legally mandated final term, then he also has no reason to listen to the people - unless he's running for another office, in which case he still needs the funding from special interests and oligarchs. Even if he's not running for another office, whose opinion do you think he's going to care more about - John Q Public's or Special Interest ABC, which is prepared to offer him a cushy consulting/lobbying position or directorship after his public service ends? Even if you limited congressional service to a single term, you still wouldn't solve the problem - they'd still need financial support to get elected in the first place, they'd still get cushy job offers for after they leave, etc. Additionally, history (and current events) show us that congressional inexperience matters: you end up with a much more partisan Congress that tends to more strongly toe the party line, and you rely more on outside "experts" (lobbyists) to write effective legislation. Partisanship tends to be a little more muted when you've eaten lunch with the guy on the other side of the aisle for the past 40 years, and when your voting district has known you their entire lives rather than voting for you solely because of the R or D on your name. The US has been oligarchic from day one - indeed, much of the founders thought we had gone far too democratic as it was and would have preferred a king and parliament. And as it was, by and large, only propertied white men could vote - and senators were chosen by the state legislatures (who obviously chose people of power and/or wealth) rather than direct election, as it is now. In almost every way, we're better off now than we were to start with - though I do think we're on the downslope of a curve here lately. I just don't think you can reduce the problem to "it's the career politicians!" - there's a lot more to do it than that, and I'm not so sure being a career politician is even a problem. I'm sure most of these politicians don't even really think they're doing something wrong - they see Americans and American businesses and what they perceive as experts trying to "educate" them that we need things like software patents. I don't think simply replacing the politician is going to help at all there.
- protomyth 12y ago
  Term limits won't do anything except cycle the politicians faster. There are two systems that need to be cut in DC to change the tenor. The first is the cycle of government employees overseeing contracts and then going to work as lobbyists or employees for the people they were overseeing. Passing an amendment that says no government appointee or senior staff member can go work for any company they had contact with while holding the position for 5 or 10 years will end the first cycle. The lobbyist / I need $ for reelection is harder. Some say only government funded campaigns, but I'm pretty sure I don't want the government's current parties making those rules and frankly it doesn't seem to help elsewhere. I am more for an amendment that says groups (corp or union) cannot contribute money to politicians / political parties. Both corporations and unions are gatherings of people and no more deserving of protection than the other. The biggest problem with all that is the news media is run by corporations and the ink is still going to be there. I'm afraid the second cycle is going to be with us for a long while.
  - maxerickson 12y ago
    That seems like it might have some negative effects on the pool of people willing to take those jobs. One thing that would probably help but will never happen would be to figure out how to make committee chairs service positions that had less influence over the output of the committee than the other members.
    - protomyth 12y ago
      > That seems like it might have some negative effects on the pool of people willing to take those jobs. Good. I think the people using these government jobs in this manner are the people we don't need overseeing those contracts.
      - maxerickson 12y ago
        I don't think you can make enough rules to stop the wrong sort of people. I guess I would prefer amending the overall process to make it less interesting to even try to exploit (rather than enumerating and banning a bunch of different ways of collecting the reward). Also, a 10 year ban is worth negative hundreds of thousands of dollars to the sort of person that is competent and understands the field they are working in. That's a pretty big disincentive, never mind that 'government job' already sort of has a negative association for lots of motivated people.
- spikels 12y ago
  Term limits seem like a good idea but have been shown over and over again at the state and local level not to work. What happens is that power moves to unelected party bosses who control the sources of money. Sorry but there are no simple technical fixes. As long as politicians have these powers special interests will find a way to influence them. In my opinion the only thing that will help are limits on political power.
larrydag 12y ago
I wonder if the original framers of Constitutions around the world thought that one day the lawyers would ultimately rule public policy.
- rayiner 12y ago
  I don't know about around the world, but about two-thirds of the framers of the U.S. Constitution were lawyers. The rest were businessmen of some sort (counting owning large-scale farms as a business). Doesn't seem like an appreciable change in who sets the tone for public policy, although I think if anything the power has shifted more towards businessmen.
  - larrydag 12y ago
    I wonder how that lawyer ratio has changed over the years with members of U.S. Congress. I'm guessing not a whole lot. Is it me or is the trial lawyer lobby the most powerful in Washington, D.C.?
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
- afarrell 12y ago
  I never understand the surprise some people have that most of the people writing laws are the people who went to school to study how laws work. Are they also similarly surprised and dismayed that many of the people writing software studied computer science?
digitalcreate 12y ago
As a small business owner, I applied for a patent that could protect my startup's key innovation. I am actually glad that the patent "reform" as shelved. IMO, it is a far bigger threat to small business patent holders that a tech industry giant would ignore / steal their IP, than to fall victim to a patent troll. If the proposed legislation goes through, simply trying to protect your own property could end up destroying you if you are forced to pay for the legal costs of the deep-pocketed industry player.
- jp555 12y ago
  A patent is nothing until it is tested in court; which is very expensive, patent reform or not.
  - logicallee 12y ago
    But that's completely false isn't it, just like saying that copyright is nothing until it's tested in court? There is absolutely a difference between a copyrighted image and a free to use image, even if I know the copyright holder is in no position to sue me. Likewise, there is a clear difference between someone's protected invention (if they have passed a very high bar over prior art, obviousness, etc) and the way the problem is always and usually solved. (If at all.) I can respect a real patent just as easily as I can respect a copyright, and so it is hardly fair to say that a patent is nothing until it is tested in court.
    - afarrell 12y ago
      But we don't have a system in place that a lay person can use to distinguish between legitimate patents and illigitimate ones, do we?
      - logicallee 12y ago
        Lay people can't infringe a patent even if you hand them the patent and ask them to create an infringement. Definition of lay. (i.e. if you can create something in the domain you are not lay.) On the other hand, actual practitioners can use their judgment. The standard is supposed to be non-obvious to someone skilled in the art. For most patents, this is going to be fairly simple, just as most cases where we respect copyright are fairly simple.
gyardley 12y ago
Grousing about oligarchs, special interests, and the political system as a whole is unproductive and misguided. After all, patent reform has already passed with huge bipartisan support in the House of Representatives. Instead, you should focus on the politician most responsible for blocking patent reform - Harry Reid, and the power he wields as Senate Majority Leader. He might not be up for re-election until 2016, but your donations and votes can help remove him from his position as majority leader in November.
- scotch_drinker 12y ago
  It's not a zero sum game. You can both grouse about those things AND contribute at the grassroots or whatever level you choose. It's entirely consistent to express dismay at the system as a whole in response to an article like this and do things to actual effect change. If we only took action and never groused publicly, man, HN would be a boring place.
  - gyardley 12y ago
    Like I said, patent reform has already passed with huge bipartisan support in the House of Representatives. It's clear here that the problems aren't with 'American democracy' (or any other incredibly-broad and incredibly-hard-to-change system) but with a few ever-so-ejectable politicians. We can agree to disagree, but I believe that blaming the problem on structural issues encourages apathy and helplessness in a way that focusing on Reid does not.
    - Fando 12y ago
      Agreed.
    - rosser 12y ago
      And focusing on Reid lets the actual bad actors continue to get away with it. Reid is a symptom. Or do you honestly think that if Reid is voted out or loses his leadership post for this kind of behavior, the next guy won't step up, hands out in supplication to the very same special interests?
angrybits 12y ago
The top story on their homepage is about how some Fox News anchor got arrested at an airport bar. I am not convinced that Mr. Reid will be fearing for his job as a result of this little stunt.
disdev 12y ago
Interesting to compare the Partnership for American Innovation with this list: http://www.bloomberg.com/infographics/2014-03-12/offshore-profits-avoid-irs-reach.html http://www.bloomberg.com/infographics/2014-03-12/offshore-pr... And, Apple and Microsoft have previously funded patent trolls (IV). And IBM has more than 50,000 patents and brings in over $1 billion annually in licensing revenue.
brokentone 12y ago
It's establishment politicians on both sides who receive massive lobbying efforts from big hollywood and the recording industry. There is some young blood taking these issues seriously though: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-party-of-innovation/ http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-party-of...
lowbloodsugar 12y ago
"The bipartisan compromise on patents was headed for a markup on Thursday. But Leahy suddenly took it off the table after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) intervened at the last minute, according to multiple people close to the negotiations." Would these be multiple Republican people? Kill the bill and blame it on Reid! Twofer! Not saying its true, just awed by the credulity of some of the comments here.
- AnimalMuppet 12y ago
  That could work... if Reid was stupid. Stupid enough to be manipulated by the Republicans, and then stupid enough to just silently take the blame. I don't think that Reid got where he is by being politically stupid. Therefore, I don't buy your scenario. [Edit: I just re-read the parent, and realized the claim was that Republicans did the killing, not that they manipulated Reid into doing the killing. I still don't buy it.]
  - lowbloodsugar 12y ago
    "[It was Reid's fault] say numerous sources". I'm not saying he did it. I'm not saying he didn't do it. I'm saying the washington post reported unnamed sources said Reid did it. I think that's a pretty low bar of evidence, is all I'm saying.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- 0xdeadbeefbabe 12y ago
  No it's ruled by lawyers making a show of how much they love law and order.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

75 points by RougeFemme 12y ago

Every day, it becomes more apparent that our democracy has been thwarted and overrun with oligarchs and special interests. Each party is beholden to its own oligarchs and the best solution I see is term limits of some sort. Politics shouldn't be a career. Because it currently is a career, our politicians must cater to those who are their bosses. The people are no longer the boss and that is the core problem. Even if this is an overreach that would "treat every patent holder as a patent troll" (a claim I find highly suspect), doing nothing has the effect of harming the very people that can move our economy forward, the innovators and entrepreneurs. When making a decision between a bill that helps this group versus trial lawyers, it's unfortunate that our leadership chooses the latter to protect.

jobu 12y ago
Term limits would help in some ways, but as another poster mentioned it can give even more power to those that control the political money. The most interesting proposal I've heard is to give tax rebates for political contributions. If you agree with the SCOTUS ruling that money equals speech then giving everyone some cash to spend on politics might give a voice to the masses.
Amezarak 12y ago
How will term limits help limit the power of oligarchs and special interests? If the term limit is more than one term, they still need funding to run their re-election campaign. If a politician finds himself in his legally mandated final term, then he also has no reason to listen to the people - unless he's running for another office, in which case he still needs the funding from special interests and oligarchs. Even if he's not running for another office, whose opinion do you think he's going to care more about - John Q Public's or Special Interest ABC, which is prepared to offer him a cushy consulting/lobbying position or directorship after his public service ends? Even if you limited congressional service to a single term, you still wouldn't solve the problem - they'd still need financial support to get elected in the first place, they'd still get cushy job offers for after they leave, etc. Additionally, history (and current events) show us that congressional inexperience matters: you end up with a much more partisan Congress that tends to more strongly toe the party line, and you rely more on outside "experts" (lobbyists) to write effective legislation. Partisanship tends to be a little more muted when you've eaten lunch with the guy on the other side of the aisle for the past 40 years, and when your voting district has known you their entire lives rather than voting for you solely because of the R or D on your name. The US has been oligarchic from day one - indeed, much of the founders thought we had gone far too democratic as it was and would have preferred a king and parliament. And as it was, by and large, only propertied white men could vote - and senators were chosen by the state legislatures (who obviously chose people of power and/or wealth) rather than direct election, as it is now. In almost every way, we're better off now than we were to start with - though I do think we're on the downslope of a curve here lately. I just don't think you can reduce the problem to "it's the career politicians!" - there's a lot more to do it than that, and I'm not so sure being a career politician is even a problem. I'm sure most of these politicians don't even really think they're doing something wrong - they see Americans and American businesses and what they perceive as experts trying to "educate" them that we need things like software patents. I don't think simply replacing the politician is going to help at all there.
protomyth 12y ago
Term limits won't do anything except cycle the politicians faster. There are two systems that need to be cut in DC to change the tenor. The first is the cycle of government employees overseeing contracts and then going to work as lobbyists or employees for the people they were overseeing. Passing an amendment that says no government appointee or senior staff member can go work for any company they had contact with while holding the position for 5 or 10 years will end the first cycle. The lobbyist / I need $ for reelection is harder. Some say only government funded campaigns, but I'm pretty sure I don't want the government's current parties making those rules and frankly it doesn't seem to help elsewhere. I am more for an amendment that says groups (corp or union) cannot contribute money to politicians / political parties. Both corporations and unions are gatherings of people and no more deserving of protection than the other. The biggest problem with all that is the news media is run by corporations and the ink is still going to be there. I'm afraid the second cycle is going to be with us for a long while.
- maxerickson 12y ago
  That seems like it might have some negative effects on the pool of people willing to take those jobs. One thing that would probably help but will never happen would be to figure out how to make committee chairs service positions that had less influence over the output of the committee than the other members.
  - protomyth 12y ago
    > That seems like it might have some negative effects on the pool of people willing to take those jobs. Good. I think the people using these government jobs in this manner are the people we don't need overseeing those contracts.
    - maxerickson 12y ago
      I don't think you can make enough rules to stop the wrong sort of people. I guess I would prefer amending the overall process to make it less interesting to even try to exploit (rather than enumerating and banning a bunch of different ways of collecting the reward). Also, a 10 year ban is worth negative hundreds of thousands of dollars to the sort of person that is competent and understands the field they are working in. That's a pretty big disincentive, never mind that 'government job' already sort of has a negative association for lots of motivated people.
spikels 12y ago
Term limits seem like a good idea but have been shown over and over again at the state and local level not to work. What happens is that power moves to unelected party bosses who control the sources of money. Sorry but there are no simple technical fixes. As long as politicians have these powers special interests will find a way to influence them. In my opinion the only thing that will help are limits on political power.

larrydag 12y ago

I wonder if the original framers of Constitutions around the world thought that one day the lawyers would ultimately rule public policy.

rayiner 12y ago
I don't know about around the world, but about two-thirds of the framers of the U.S. Constitution were lawyers. The rest were businessmen of some sort (counting owning large-scale farms as a business). Doesn't seem like an appreciable change in who sets the tone for public policy, although I think if anything the power has shifted more towards businessmen.
- larrydag 12y ago
  I wonder how that lawyer ratio has changed over the years with members of U.S. Congress. I'm guessing not a whole lot. Is it me or is the trial lawyer lobby the most powerful in Washington, D.C.?
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
afarrell 12y ago
I never understand the surprise some people have that most of the people writing laws are the people who went to school to study how laws work. Are they also similarly surprised and dismayed that many of the people writing software studied computer science?

digitalcreate 12y ago

As a small business owner, I applied for a patent that could protect my startup's key innovation. I am actually glad that the patent "reform" as shelved. IMO, it is a far bigger threat to small business patent holders that a tech industry giant would ignore / steal their IP, than to fall victim to a patent troll. If the proposed legislation goes through, simply trying to protect your own property could end up destroying you if you are forced to pay for the legal costs of the deep-pocketed industry player.

jp555 12y ago
A patent is nothing until it is tested in court; which is very expensive, patent reform or not.
- logicallee 12y ago
  But that's completely false isn't it, just like saying that copyright is nothing until it's tested in court? There is absolutely a difference between a copyrighted image and a free to use image, even if I know the copyright holder is in no position to sue me. Likewise, there is a clear difference between someone's protected invention (if they have passed a very high bar over prior art, obviousness, etc) and the way the problem is always and usually solved. (If at all.) I can respect a real patent just as easily as I can respect a copyright, and so it is hardly fair to say that a patent is nothing until it is tested in court.
  - afarrell 12y ago
    But we don't have a system in place that a lay person can use to distinguish between legitimate patents and illigitimate ones, do we?
    - logicallee 12y ago
      Lay people can't infringe a patent even if you hand them the patent and ask them to create an infringement. Definition of lay. (i.e. if you can create something in the domain you are not lay.) On the other hand, actual practitioners can use their judgment. The standard is supposed to be non-obvious to someone skilled in the art. For most patents, this is going to be fairly simple, just as most cases where we respect copyright are fairly simple.

gyardley 12y ago

Grousing about oligarchs, special interests, and the political system as a whole is unproductive and misguided. After all, patent reform has already passed with huge bipartisan support in the House of Representatives. Instead, you should focus on the politician most responsible for blocking patent reform - Harry Reid, and the power he wields as Senate Majority Leader. He might not be up for re-election until 2016, but your donations and votes can help remove him from his position as majority leader in November.

scotch_drinker 12y ago
It's not a zero sum game. You can both grouse about those things AND contribute at the grassroots or whatever level you choose. It's entirely consistent to express dismay at the system as a whole in response to an article like this and do things to actual effect change. If we only took action and never groused publicly, man, HN would be a boring place.
- gyardley 12y ago
  Like I said, patent reform has already passed with huge bipartisan support in the House of Representatives. It's clear here that the problems aren't with 'American democracy' (or any other incredibly-broad and incredibly-hard-to-change system) but with a few ever-so-ejectable politicians. We can agree to disagree, but I believe that blaming the problem on structural issues encourages apathy and helplessness in a way that focusing on Reid does not.
  - Fando 12y ago
    Agreed.
  - rosser 12y ago
    And focusing on Reid lets the actual bad actors continue to get away with it. Reid is a symptom. Or do you honestly think that if Reid is voted out or loses his leadership post for this kind of behavior, the next guy won't step up, hands out in supplication to the very same special interests?

angrybits 12y ago

The top story on their homepage is about how some Fox News anchor got arrested at an airport bar. I am not convinced that Mr. Reid will be fearing for his job as a result of this little stunt.

disdev 12y ago

Interesting to compare the Partnership for American Innovation with this list: http://www.bloomberg.com/infographics/2014-03-12/offshore-profits-avoid-irs-reach.html http://www.bloomberg.com/infographics/2014-03-12/offshore-pr... And, Apple and Microsoft have previously funded patent trolls (IV). And IBM has more than 50,000 patents and brings in over $1 billion annually in licensing revenue.

brokentone 12y ago

It's establishment politicians on both sides who receive massive lobbying efforts from big hollywood and the recording industry. There is some young blood taking these issues seriously though: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-party-of-innovation/ http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-party-of...

lowbloodsugar 12y ago

"The bipartisan compromise on patents was headed for a markup on Thursday. But Leahy suddenly took it off the table after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) intervened at the last minute, according to multiple people close to the negotiations." Would these be multiple Republican people? Kill the bill and blame it on Reid! Twofer! Not saying its true, just awed by the credulity of some of the comments here.

AnimalMuppet 12y ago
That could work... if Reid was stupid. Stupid enough to be manipulated by the Republicans, and then stupid enough to just silently take the blame. I don't think that Reid got where he is by being politically stupid. Therefore, I don't buy your scenario. [Edit: I just re-read the parent, and realized the claim was that Republicans did the killing, not that they manipulated Reid into doing the killing. I still don't buy it.]
- lowbloodsugar 12y ago
  "[It was Reid's fault] say numerous sources". I'm not saying he did it. I'm not saying he didn't do it. I'm saying the washington post reported unnamed sources said Reid did it. I think that's a pretty low bar of evidence, is all I'm saying.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

0xdeadbeefbabe 12y ago
No it's ruled by lawyers making a show of how much they love law and order.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]