6 ms·

Grousing about oligarchs, special interests, and the political system as a whole is unproductive and misguided. After all, patent reform has already passed with

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?
    - AnimalMuppet 12y ago
      If doing so costs Reid the next election, then his successor may well not obey those special interests.
      - rosser 12y ago
        ...and said successor would find himself un-funded, and thus unable to run in the next election cycle. Being a congresscritter is expensive, and the state doesn't pay for it. That means incumbent or prospective legislators have to appeal to the very special interests to whom they're subsequently beholden to get the job in the first place. If you demonstrate that you're unwilling to do what they want, you won't get the money you need.
rosser 12y ago
Because this is totally Reid's fault. Yeah, he's one of the tooliest tools that ever tooled, but blaming him for the structural problems in the American political system is myopic, at best.
- gyardley 12y ago
  Yes, this is exactly the problem I'm talking about. The barrier to patent reform is not structural. It has a name and face, and when you handwave it away to 'structural problems' you just encourage everyone to do nothing.
  - Joeri 12y ago
    The problem is structural though. Replace the first past the post voting rules with a system that allows for coalition government, and you will magically see the diminishment of special interest influence across the board.
    - freehunter 12y ago
      But that can't be done without the right people in office, and the first step towards getting the right people in office is to identify who the wrong people in office are.
      - rosser 12y ago
        It's a much smaller, and probably far easier to identify set to enumerate the "right" ones currently in office. I'm pretty sure that set could be counted on the fingers of one hand, across both houses.
    - afarrell 12y ago
      You are trying to shave a yak, but political yaks are much harder to shave than devops ones.
rayiner 12y ago
Complaining about oligarchs and special interests misses the mark, in my opinion. Last month, the following companies launched a group to oppose the proposed reforms: Apple, Microsoft, IBM, DuPont, Pfizer, Ford, and GE: http://partnershipforamericaninnovation.org http://partnershipforamericaninnovation.org. That's a really broad spectrum of iconic American technology companies. These were joined by a number of research universities as well as groups representing small businesses that employ scientists and engineers. It's easy to take an internet company-centric view of the world and dismiss the whole opposition as "oligarchs and special interests." But think of it from the perspective of a Congressman or Congresswoman. He or she doesn't know that "Twitter is in, while Microsoft is out," so to speak. What they know is that Microsoft is an American company that employs 100,000 people, more than Google, Twitter, Yahoo!, and Facebook combined. From their perspective, the opposition isn't "oligarchs and special interests." They're a broad swath of what they perceive as the relevant stakeholders: American companies and universities engaged in R&D that employ lots of scientists and engineers and create lots of "next-generation STEM jobs." The whole political machinery of the U.S., on both sides of the aisle, is committed to the technology sector being an engine for job creation going forward. That doesn't just mean the internet sector, but also pharma, biotechnology, automotive, energy, etc. These are the sectors Washington is counting on to replace the jobs Silicon Valley is automating away. When a list of key companies in each of these sectors oppose reforms, and say that they will hamper job creation, then it will be very difficult to convince members of Congress that the reforms are a good thing overall. The first set of reforms passed because there was broad buy-in from the technology sector as a whole. Any future reforms will require more buy-in from the broader industry than exists right now.
- AnthonyMouse 12y ago
  > Apple, Microsoft, IBM, DuPont, Pfizer, Ford, and GE DuPont, Pfizer, Ford and GE are in industries that are not plagued by patent trolls. That they're against it tells you nothing about how it would affect them because they don't experience the problem the legislation solves, so it necessarily creates nothing but downside risk for them. No matter how small that risk is, requiring them to put their full support behind it in order to fix somebody else's problem is requiring reform to fail. But it is also disingenuous to suggest that they are the major force against reform, because the bill is quite well targeted specifically at patent trolls. The downside risk for Pfizer et al is extremely small. They may not support it but it's hardly going to put them out of business if it passes. What it would do is put a huge number of patent trolls out of business (along with the lawyers that represent them), and in so doing save a huge number of jobs at the startups they would have extorted or bankrupted. Which is why everyone is saying that the trial lawyers are the ones that most wanted to kill reform -- because the trial lawyers are the ones that most wanted to kill reform.

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?
  - AnimalMuppet 12y ago
    If doing so costs Reid the next election, then his successor may well not obey those special interests.
    - rosser 12y ago
      ...and said successor would find himself un-funded, and thus unable to run in the next election cycle. Being a congresscritter is expensive, and the state doesn't pay for it. That means incumbent or prospective legislators have to appeal to the very special interests to whom they're subsequently beholden to get the job in the first place. If you demonstrate that you're unwilling to do what they want, you won't get the money you need.

rosser 12y ago

Because this is totally Reid's fault. Yeah, he's one of the tooliest tools that ever tooled, but blaming him for the structural problems in the American political system is myopic, at best.

gyardley 12y ago
Yes, this is exactly the problem I'm talking about. The barrier to patent reform is not structural. It has a name and face, and when you handwave it away to 'structural problems' you just encourage everyone to do nothing.
- Joeri 12y ago
  The problem is structural though. Replace the first past the post voting rules with a system that allows for coalition government, and you will magically see the diminishment of special interest influence across the board.
  - freehunter 12y ago
    But that can't be done without the right people in office, and the first step towards getting the right people in office is to identify who the wrong people in office are.
    - rosser 12y ago
      It's a much smaller, and probably far easier to identify set to enumerate the "right" ones currently in office. I'm pretty sure that set could be counted on the fingers of one hand, across both houses.
  - afarrell 12y ago
    You are trying to shave a yak, but political yaks are much harder to shave than devops ones.

rayiner 12y ago

Complaining about oligarchs and special interests misses the mark, in my opinion. Last month, the following companies launched a group to oppose the proposed reforms: Apple, Microsoft, IBM, DuPont, Pfizer, Ford, and GE: http://partnershipforamericaninnovation.org http://partnershipforamericaninnovation.org. That's a really broad spectrum of iconic American technology companies. These were joined by a number of research universities as well as groups representing small businesses that employ scientists and engineers. It's easy to take an internet company-centric view of the world and dismiss the whole opposition as "oligarchs and special interests." But think of it from the perspective of a Congressman or Congresswoman. He or she doesn't know that "Twitter is in, while Microsoft is out," so to speak. What they know is that Microsoft is an American company that employs 100,000 people, more than Google, Twitter, Yahoo!, and Facebook combined. From their perspective, the opposition isn't "oligarchs and special interests." They're a broad swath of what they perceive as the relevant stakeholders: American companies and universities engaged in R&D that employ lots of scientists and engineers and create lots of "next-generation STEM jobs." The whole political machinery of the U.S., on both sides of the aisle, is committed to the technology sector being an engine for job creation going forward. That doesn't just mean the internet sector, but also pharma, biotechnology, automotive, energy, etc. These are the sectors Washington is counting on to replace the jobs Silicon Valley is automating away. When a list of key companies in each of these sectors oppose reforms, and say that they will hamper job creation, then it will be very difficult to convince members of Congress that the reforms are a good thing overall. The first set of reforms passed because there was broad buy-in from the technology sector as a whole. Any future reforms will require more buy-in from the broader industry than exists right now.

AnthonyMouse 12y ago
> Apple, Microsoft, IBM, DuPont, Pfizer, Ford, and GE DuPont, Pfizer, Ford and GE are in industries that are not plagued by patent trolls. That they're against it tells you nothing about how it would affect them because they don't experience the problem the legislation solves, so it necessarily creates nothing but downside risk for them. No matter how small that risk is, requiring them to put their full support behind it in order to fix somebody else's problem is requiring reform to fail. But it is also disingenuous to suggest that they are the major force against reform, because the bill is quite well targeted specifically at patent trolls. The downside risk for Pfizer et al is extremely small. They may not support it but it's hardly going to put them out of business if it passes. What it would do is put a huge number of patent trolls out of business (along with the lawyers that represent them), and in so doing save a huge number of jobs at the startups they would have extorted or bankrupted. Which is why everyone is saying that the trial lawyers are the ones that most wanted to kill reform -- because the trial lawyers are the ones that most wanted to kill reform.