On Wednesday, the House Judiciary Committee is scheduled to consider legislation aimed at reining in abusive patent litigation. But one of the bill’s most important provisions, designed to make it easier to nix low-quality software patents, will be left on the cutting room floor. That provision was the victim of an aggressive lobbying campaign by patent-rich software companies such as IBM and Microsoft.
These companies also happen to have the largest lobbying corruption budgets. This is never going to change.
Now that corporations are people, government is truly “Of the corporation, by the corporation, and for the corporation.” In Corp We Trust.
No no no, you’re missing the point. Since corporations are people the government is now truly “of the people, by the people and for the people”.
Truly, all people are equal. Some people are more equal than others.
Or, slightly mutilated: “The Corp is Mother, The Corp is Father”!
“Well, in this case, I am orphan”
There’s still the Senate and a conference committee to reconcile the differences. Strong support in the Senate would probably politically put the House in an awkward position.
We can hope, at least.
The Senate is even more bought out than the House (by design). So not a chance.
This makes me a sad panda.
It wasn’t only IBM and Microsoft, but all these companies:
http://images.politico.com/global/2013/09/22/final_-_letter_opposin…
I don’t see Google in the list, so let’s create a good guys listing :
AMD
nVidia
Google
Motorola
…
Kochise
Strangely, Apple is missing there too, which is unexpected.
I didn’t see Nintendo in there.
Not a American company. Foreign lobbying in USA is quite a controversial issue, most pressure groups do not accept these companies on it.
Nintendo of America? Right up the road from Microsoft headquarters practically?
Having a subsidiary in USA does not make a company American.
Anyway, nintendo did something shady lately related with patents? I find odd that you suddenly brought it to the table.
Why do you list AMD and not Intel?
What a surprise: you missed Apple in your good guys list.
Apple? A good guy on patents?
They have perpetrated more software patent abuse than just about any other major company. They’re the worst of the worst.
Just because you want something to be true doesn’t make it so.
They haven’t sued the most, they haven’t patented the most, they don’t sue over SEPs, but they are sued the most over patents and they are an “inspiration” to a number of competitors. And funny enough, they aren’t on this list.
They have sued more over software patents than Microsoft, Google, Samsung, HTC, Sony, etc. etc. etc.
Sorry, but those are the facts.
Ah, Google the SEP suer (via Motorola of course), but that’s just one of the many things you can blame them for. Well, not YOU of course.
All companies, including Apple, do stuff we don’t like. You just like to single out Apple and/or promote them to be the biggest baddy of all while you let other companies completely off the hook.
Apple became patent-aggresive after the Google betrayal with Android. Like it or dislike it, but Apple sues within the law and rules. Unlike, let’s pick Google and Samsung, who abuse SEPs. Blame the system, not the players.
It’s like claiming a sport player is evil, because within the rules he’s better than anyone else and promoting players who break the rules in order to stop the best player to heros.
The system is now challenged, but on a list of companies not liking this there is no Apple to be seen, yet still you claim them to be the worst. They are the #1 target for patent trolls. They should love a change of rules.
They can never do any good in your eyes. Even if they do you’ll suggest a hidden evil motive.
It’s simple, if companies rip off Apple Apple strikes back. But this procedure can be so lengthy and the punishment so small that a company like Samsung will keep doing it because it makes them more money in the end.
As most patent trolls do. Current laws and rules have too many holes. MS was targeted by patent trolls as well, they don’t oppose the reform when it’s affecting NPEs, but they oppose reform which affects their fake patents. Why Apple isn’t on the list is interesting though, since I don’t see their position being too different from Microsoft’s on this one.
Edited 2013-11-21 16:09 UTC
A number of people wonder about it, but Thom doesn’t.
Bigger companies are effected in bigger ways. Apple is big so they must have looked at this very carefully, yet decided to take no action meaning they probably agree. if they didn’t there would be no shame in joining a long list that include some other big names. Them being on the list would increase its weights.
But despite being labeled the baddest by Thom they aren’t on it.
Do not worry, that apple fanboi suit doesn’t make you look fat…
We can go a fancy dress together. Me as a fanboy and you as a troll.
Nah. I’ll have to pass, I don’t live under a bridge and you’re not my type.
But if you’re looking for a troll to take you to the dance… your beloved apple is the corp that pioneered the “Look and Feel” lawsuit, for stuff they themselves had copied from elsewhere. That should be a great date!
I know you people like to personify businesses and corporations and that can be perhaps useful to simplify a discussion, but taking a company the size of Apple on a date to a fancy dress is stretching practicality far beyond breaking point.
I’d be willing to visit the new Apple campus when it’s finished, but without the fancy dress.
… said the guy going all “white knight” on the interwebs to defend the corporation in which he’s emotionally vested.
A bunch of hypocrites, who claim:
So, the mess they created with software patents is “spectacular”? Disgusting.
Edited 2013-11-20 20:49 UTC
yes it is a spectacular mess. that was what you meant right?
Caterpillar? WTF?
Also, who the heck are 95% of these companies?
Edited 2013-11-20 21:20 UTC
Looks like some number of medical device manufacturers there.
There is a new breed of biotech companies which are taking things to really really creepy venues. Forget Software Patents, there are groups moving proactively to allow for the patenting genes and other naturally occurring stuffs.
They had some recent setbacks to their positions lately, but they are amassing some serious $$$ for legal battles in that regard. Patenting nature is a greedy asshole’s wet dream.
Never heard that “These boots were made for patenting” song before?
That’s where it gets tricky. Some of these companies/industries depend on patents just for survival, mainly those in research. In other circles (say the medical or construction equivalent of OSAlert), patents may well be revered.
Quite the mess we have here.
Didn’t you know that Caterpillar has an arch rival in JCB? Patents are essential for keeping upstarts (despite their superior products) in check.
You can replace those two companies with pretty well any two major players in any industry.
The IEEE is in that list? Damn…
Why should it matter to the government if IBM would be forced to oppose the bill? Is IBM a senator now?
“…we’d be forced to oppose the bill, and cut funding on your or your party’s campaign coming elections, redirecting said funds to your rival instead.”
Yes, I would see how intuitively a person not familiar with US politics would think this, but since in America money equals speech (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo), political life has become so centered on campaign contributions that pretty much anything having to do with the spirit of democracy has been erased. Your surprise here is quite understandable, as anywhere else in the world people still recognize this as blatant bribery (and many in America still do as well, which is why significant amounts of money are spent on keeping this little tidbit off of the evening cable news cast).
Edited 2013-11-20 23:30 UTC
I’m not surprised that it happened. I’m surprised it was said so openly, and it is openly understood that campaign bribery is what they meant by it. I’m further surprised that there’s no real backlash against politicians cowering in the face of such blatant threat and bribery.
Why should it matter to the government if IBM would be forced to oppose the bill? Is IBM a senator now? [/q]
Given the state of Politics in the West, why not have IBM and other corporations elected representatives. Cut out the middle man and save in bribes, cough, I mean campaign contributions.
Nothing like a good honest government providing governance for the benefit of society as a whole….
I go now to a corner and weep for humanity.
Because it would mean that IBM would stop bribing senators. Oh wait, sorry, did I say bribe? I mean “support their campaigns” because we all know that lobbying is absolutely not, in any way at all, legalized corruption.
However lobbying is probably the only way that someone outside of politics (since it is now a career) is likely to change how the system works.
Unfortunately it is tied to money, which is why the system is broke.
Edited 2013-11-21 09:54 UTC
And thus lobbying is a net negative. And it’s still corruption.
Continue taking the jobs offshore and the people will finally stand up and demand change. US courts have no jurisdiction outside that 7 mile limit or is it 11
Patent troubles affect the open source community as well
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Patent-Trolls-Kill-OS-4-OpenLinux-th…
Sorry, Google is the reigning top dog when it comes to lobby spending. (Note that they’re also on the top of campaign contributions too.)
2011:
http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indusclient.php?id=B12&year=2011
2012:
http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indusclient.php?id=B12&year=2012
2013:
http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indusclient.php?id=B12&year=2013
Patents I guess you could say were originally designed to protect invention (some might say intellectual property) so that new “things” could be brought to market effectively without fear of being “stolen” by somebody that was bigger and more powerful than the originator.
Unfortunately, now, if you create a patent, it’s likely that any attempt to bring that “invention” to market would likely step on other patents, which means the only hope is to sell out to a bigger patent holder. This seems to be how it usually goes.
So.. here’s my proposal. Make the lifetime of the patent be variable based on the “size” (however that is determined) of the patent holder (the true holder not someone licensing). Thus the “little” guy now has a better chance of bring something to market since it’s likely that patents that would be used to coerce/force sale of they guy’s patent might be expired.
Something has got to be done. Right now, the likes of IBM are gearing up for an ultimate technology war.. where the survivor is the one with the most patents… and can I say, this was not the intention of the patent system?