SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The EFF reports that Senate Judiciary Committee chair Patrick Leahy has announced that he is taking the Innovation Act off the Judiciary Committee's agenda. According to Senator Leahy's official statement:
Unfortunately, there has been no agreement on how to combat the scourge of patent trolls on our economy without burdening the companies and universities who rely on the patent system every day to protect their inventions. We have heard repeated concerns that the House-passed bill went beyond the scope of addressing patent trolls, and would have severe unintended consequences on legitimate patent holders who employ thousands of Americans.
I have said all along that we needed broad bipartisan support to get a bill through the Senate. Regrettably, competing companies on both sides of this issue refused to come to agreement on how to achieve that goal.
However, the Innovation Act passed 325-91 in the House with strong bipartisan support, as well as massive support from industry as well, and the President has signalled his support for the initiative. The EFF comments:
Leahy effectively deferred a problem—a serious problem he readily admits exists—in order to please the pharmaceutical, biotech, and university lobbies that are hardly the victims of patent trolls anyway... What Senator Leahy really means, is that he does not support a deal and is willing to be the final roadblock.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 23 2014, @06:56AM
> No, it really wasn't...
It was but for some reason, as evidenced again by your most recent post, you and the other AC can't seem to interpret a key phrase in my post that adequately answers the question. I really don't get it. Either my post has sentence or two in it that keeps disappearing before you see it (real-time NSA censorship maybe...?) or you want me to repeat it for debate reasons. I'm happy to discuss this with you but it's going to take a long time if I have to repeat myself... which is weird to do in a written context. I mean, I suppose I could have a test at the end of every post. Something like: "Name a condition that would invalidate a trade-dress patent" or "why would a specific element of a trade dress patent not be rendered invalid by prior art". The flaw in that approach, though, is that if you could actually pass that test we have nothing more to debate about. We'd have to move on to the working conditions at Foxconn or antenna-gate.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 23 2014, @11:12AM
lol, meandering incoherence FTL!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 23 2014, @04:05PM
Alter course! Speed: Full cop-out!!