Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Thursday May 22 2014, @05:33PM   Printer-friendly

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.

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 24 2014, @03:40AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 24 2014, @03:40AM (#46986)

    > Lol, the old "I didn't literally say that" defense.

    Lol, the old "I object, it's devastating to my case!" defense.

    > Of course the entire problem with patent reform are the claims that are not won.

    I am reminded of Kelly Bundy trying to impress some of her more academically-inclined classmates at a party: "Of course the Soviet Union was bound to fall, it's all the way at the end of the map!"

  • (Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Saturday May 24 2014, @05:01AM

    by Angry Jesus (182) on Saturday May 24 2014, @05:01AM (#47023)

    >> Of course the entire problem with patent reform are the claims that are not won.
    >
    > Lol, the old "I object, it's devastating to my case!" defense.

    You appear to be trying to refute my point. I don't see it though.
    Will you explain why the claims that Apple lost on are relevant to patent reform?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 24 2014, @05:55AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 24 2014, @05:55AM (#47037)

      Please pardon my confusion, I wasn't expecting the goal posts to shift to the other end of the field. You want me to explain to you why Apple losing a claim involving a trade-dress patent, that has an element that you think they shouldn't have because you think it's a humorously-broad utility patent, is relevant to the patent reform that, if you had your way, would deny them from having a utility-patent that they don't actually and couldn't possibly have? I might have taken on that challenge on except I've already given you valuable relevant info that took three posts and an extra participant to get you to even notice was there... and I really don't think you've quite absorbed it yet. Kelly, I think your fish tank is full.

      • (Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Saturday May 24 2014, @06:00AM

        by Angry Jesus (182) on Saturday May 24 2014, @06:00AM (#47039)

        > because you think it's a humorously-broad utility patent,

        Since I never once said that, in fact my very first sentence on the topic was to spell out that whether it is a utility patent or trade dress, it does not matter to the larger point. But you keep projecting it on my position as a strawman so I think we are done.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 24 2014, @07:00AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 24 2014, @07:00AM (#47054)

          You did, actually, especially in your first post, and that was not the only instance of it. It *does* matter but you don't understand the distinction, it's something you're bizarrely averse to, so you cannot see why it matters. That is not a failing on my part, it is solely yours. You're welcome to bail to save try to face if you like, but you should take my advice and avoid using rounded corners as an argument for patent reform to an educated person. You'll enjoy the same luck a friend of mine did when he help up a 3.25" disk to his Computer Science teacher and called it a hard-drive.