
US Software Patents are back with HR 6264 section 7 - zoobab
https://cpip.gmu.edu/2018/06/29/rep-massie-introduces-new-legislation-to-restore-americas-patent-system/
======
mrsteveman1
> This conception of patents as private property rights protecting the
> innovator’s creation is arguably required by the Patent Clause of the
> Constitution

The Patent Act of 1790 set the patent term _limit_ to 14 years and allowed
them to be much shorter if the situation called for it, and Article I Section
8. Clause 8 of the Constitution itself calls patents an "exclusive right" for
a limited period of time.

So then, we're saying that both the Constitution and the first Congress
declared your "private property" to no longer be _yours_ after a limited
period of time?

That's quite an... interesting definition of property too, one where the
Constitution itself separately defines it from all other property, then gives
an explicit reason for allowing you to have any right to it at all, and the
reason has nothing to do with it being "your" property and everything to do
with the broader benefit to society by promoting "... the Progress of Science
and useful Arts".

------
dv_dt
Note that the source of this article, George Mason University, as well as the
Antonin Scalia Law center have received significant donations, and arguably
even more significant influence by the Koch brothers.

[https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/29/us/koch-brothers-
antonin-...](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/29/us/koch-brothers-antonin-
scalia-george-mason-law-school.html)

~~~
mkempe
Your comment does not address the contents of the proposed legislative
changes, at all -- as such it is a sad example of resorting to the fallacy of
ad hominem.

~~~
dv_dt
Well first, I did not give a position regarding the article just information -
so there is no argument to be an ad hom. fallacy.

Second, given the Koch's long history and extensive network of supported
organizations, many people can come to their own conclusions about the
motivations of past and current actions in the context of the currently posted
article. Taking more information of past actions into context is also not an
ad hominem attack.

~~~
mkempe
The correct approach to ideas and legislation is to argue the substance, not
to resort to ad hominems.

"Because Koch" is as invalid as "Because Soros".

~~~
Hnrobert42
Yeah but it’s not invalid. The Koch brothers and Soros have well established
positions. Any attacks leveled here are not on the person but on their
positions.

~~~
mkempe
No fallacies are valid methods of logic or argumentation. Ad hominem is a
fallacy.

~~~
Hnrobert42
Ok. What is the name of the fallacy where one misinterprets an argument as a
fallacy and then declares victory?

~~~
mkempe
Sophistry? Are you looking to name a personal hobby?

It's really sad that you and several others here are only interested in
yelling "Koch".

These proposed changes to patent law have some good and what I consider some
bad aspects, all worthy of actual argumentation. Engaging in ad hominems is
ridiculous; doing it deliberately is at best puerile; the only achievement is
to prevent purposeful debate (and paint yourselves as unworthy of reasonable
conversation).

Think! The EFF does not get results by engaging in ad hominems.

------
zoobab
Here is the PDF of the Bill (took me a while to find it, thanks Patently-O):

[https://patentlyo.com/patent/2018/07/legislation-
leadership-...](https://patentlyo.com/patent/2018/07/legislation-leadership-
innovation.html)

[https://cdn.patentlyo.com/media/2018/07/FinalPatentBill.pdf](https://cdn.patentlyo.com/media/2018/07/FinalPatentBill.pdf)

Let me quote the revelant paragraph:

"(b) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Con5 gress that— 6 (1) the Supreme
Court’s recent jurisprudence 7 concerning subject matter patentability has
harmed 8 the progress of science and the useful arts; 9 (2) the United States
patent system must pro10 tect and encourage research and development in 11
such scientific disciplines as would promote the 12 progress of science and
the useful arts by securing 13 for limited times to inventors the exclusive
rights to 14 their discoveries and provide scientists in the life 15 sciences,
computer sciences, and other disciplines, 16 with certainty that their
discoveries and inventions 17 are entitled to patent protection; and 18 (3)
this amendment effectively abrogates Alice 19 Corp. v. CLS Bank International,
134 S. Ct. 2347 20 (2014) and its predecessors to ensure that life 21 sciences
discoveries, computer software, and similar 22 inventions and discoveries are
patentable, and that 23 those patents are enforceable. "

------
psds2
"Although not explicitly stated, it will also allow for the patentability of
medical diagnostics and innovative pharmaceuticals"

How do you patent diagnostics? I can understand diagnostic equipment but this
makes it sound like you can patent the process used to find the problem. I
don't want to hear my doctor say "I think you have the X, but you can only be
sure if you go to the Koch Clinic, they have the patent on diagnosing this."

~~~
mrsteveman1
> "Although not explicitly stated, it will also allow for the patentability of
> medical diagnostics and innovative pharmaceuticals"

The notion that patents are promoting pharmaceutical innovation or improved
medical outcomes is absurd at this point, there are medications that are being
excluded from the market because they can't be patented despite being well
known and in use for decades, while other medications are being brought to
market solely because someone managed to obtain a patent.

For example Prilosec, which was discovered in 1979 and has been marketed since
1989, is a racemic mixture of (S)-(-)omeprazole and (R)-(+)omeprazole. For an
exceptionally simple analogy of what that means: hold your hand in front of
your face vertically with all of your fingers together pointing straight up.
Now point just your thumb sideways instead. Same hand, same thumb, different
configuration, only one of which would fit through the sleeve of a dress
shirt. (S)-(-)omeprazole is the one that actually fits, and your body turns
(R)-(+)omeprazole into (S)-(-)omeprazole, which causes it to eventually fit as
well.

Prilosec is now generic and long past the patent term which expired in 2001,
is well understood and is on the WHO list of essential medicines.

Nexium on the other hand, is (S)-(-)omeprazole by itself, and was able to
immediately enter the market when the Prilosec patent expired because the same
company patented Nexium 2 years before that happened.

Nexium is essentially just Prilosec with an active ingredient _removed_ (the
(R)-(+)omeprazole form) rather than added or altered. They claimed it was an
improvement over Prilosec, and were able to market it as another more
expensive drug, but even that improvement was somewhere between questionable
and fabricated according to their own studies.

Only 2 out of the 3 studies used by AstraZenica showed an improvement over
Prilosec, and they compared 20mg-40mg of Nexium to 20mg of Prilosec, which
means they just doubled or quadrupled the dosage of (S)-(-)omeprazole, because
20mg of Nexium is 20mg of (S)-(-)omeprazole, while 20mg of Prilosec is only
10mg of (S)-(-)omeprazole. You could do the same thing by taking 2 Prilosec
capsules instead.

And that patented decision to remove an active ingredient while
misrepresenting the research to justify it was somehow not only "innovative"
but should be treated as "private property"?

Nonsense.

