Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Congress takes aim at patent trolls

thehill.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–18 of 18 posts

Re: Congress takes aim at patent trolls

#11

Post by chongli »

rayiner wrote: post #7
anonymousab wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To a politician, problems are seen in light of helping their most valuable constituents (MPAA, Apple/MS/Google, etc.) and themselves.

That argument makes no sense. Patent trolls aren't a valuable constituency. Apple, MS, and Google are.

Apple's done plenty of patent trolling of their own. Remember the rounded rectangle fiasco?

That's all beside the point. If patents are reformed so that only big corporations like Apple can use them to attack their competitors, what really will have changed? Sure, the swarm of bees (NPEs) might be gone but we'll still have to deal with the angry bear. And what of small inventors without the means to capitalize on their innovations? What will protect them if their legal power to enforce licensing deals is removed?

Re: Congress takes aim at patent trolls

#14

Post by WildUtah »

cletus wrote: post #10

Here is why patent reform is a problem in US politics. The Democrats are essentially the political wing of the American Bar Association. They are bought and paid for and represent the interests of trial lawyers. Lawyers make a lot of money from the current patent system. This is the same reason Democrats oppose tort reform to reduce frivolous class action suits (of course it's all in the name of the little guy gettin…

The Democrats...The Republicans...

It always seems evenhanded to blame both sides.

When Bilsky came to the Supreme Court, there were four justices that signed onto a dissent suggesting that business methods and software were not patentable subject matter. They were Stevens, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Ginsburg. Four justices stood for patentability in general, but just not Bilsky's patent; they were Kennedy, Roberts, Thomas, and Alito. Scalia joined each opinion in part.

That's four so-called 'liberal' justices for software freedom and four 'conservatives' for more patents on software. Not exactly an even division of partisan blame.

In CLS Bank v. Alice before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the division is more between the generalists (good) and patent specialists (evil). The CAFC governs federal employment and some international trade matters so there are some generalists. The patent reform side was one patent lawyer and four generalists; the unlimited patents side ("everything under the sun made by man" - actual quote) was four patent lawyers and one with the unusual specialties of federal employment and intellectual property law. The good guys were Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama-Obama appointees and the baddies Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama, with only a slight and insignificant D/R lead for good, in contrast to the Supremes.

Maybe Congress is ineffective on both partisan benches and in both houses. It certainly seems so in recent years. Nevertheless, the courts are where patent law is made. And there is a clear partisan split between good and evil on our supreme court.

Re: Congress takes aim at patent trolls

#15

Post by larrys »

cletus wrote: post #10

Here is why patent reform is a problem in US politics. The Democrats are essentially the political wing of the American Bar Association. They are bought and paid for and represent the interests of trial lawyers. Lawyers make a lot of money from the current patent system. This is the same reason Democrats oppose tort reform to reduce frivolous class action suits (of course it's all in the name of the little guy gettin…

Agree with your comments, however:

"But at the same time drug companies spend most of their money on marketing not research."

I'm not sure it matters the breakdown of how much they spend on marketing vs. research. The do spend plenty of money on research there is no doubt about that, right? Even if they spend 3x on marketing (arbitrary) that doesn't take away from what they do spend on research.

"Patents are effectively extended by slightly changing a molecule (sometimes making the drug less effective) and getting a patent extension"

I think you mean a new patent not an extension? I'm thinking of nexium vs. prilosec as an example of this.

See:

http://faculty.msb.edu/homak/homahelpsite/webhelp/Pharma_Pri...

Re: Congress takes aim at patent trolls

#16

Post by WildUtah »

rexreed wrote: post #13

I'm usually a Democrat in most voting situations, but in this instance, I can't find myself agreeing with any of the Democrat positions on this. It boggles the mind as to whose interests they are serve.

Those quotes were from a few Democrats from very, very, very poor districts. They're looking to extract favors for their constituents from financial and telecom companies in districts where patronage employment is a way of survival. I wouldn't take that as the view of the Democratic Party.

My post above compares the record of the parties on patent appeals judges and the split is very different.

Republicans do have an advantage in paying attention to the needs of entrepreneurs in many cases, though. It's an important thing that Democrats could improve.

Re: Congress takes aim at patent trolls

#17

Post by tracker1 »

cletus wrote: post #10

Here is why patent reform is a problem in US politics. The Democrats are essentially the political wing of the American Bar Association. They are bought and paid for and represent the interests of trial lawyers. Lawyers make a lot of money from the current patent system. This is the same reason Democrats oppose tort reform to reduce frivolous class action suits (of course it's all in the name of the little guy gettin…

I think that what is needed first and foremost is a system for being able to more quickly challenge and invalidate patents above and beyond relying on a lawsuit first approach.

Re: Congress takes aim at patent trolls

#18

Post by tptacek »

chongli wrote: post #11
rayiner wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That argument makes no sense. Patent trolls aren't a valuable constituency. Apple, MS, and Google are.

Apple's done plenty of patent trolling of their own. Remember the rounded rectangle fiasco? That's all beside the point. If patents are reformed so that only big corporations like Apple can use them to attack their competitors, what really will have changed? Sure, the swarm of bees (NPEs) might be gone but we'll still have to deal with the angry bear. And what of small inventors without the means to capitalize on the…

In the common definition, "patent trolls" are nonpracticing entities.
Post reply on HN