
Who’s behind the last-minute push to thwart patent reform? - RougeFemme
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/05/21/whos-behind-the-last-minute-push-to-thwart-patent-reform/
======
gyardley
Grousing about oligarchs, special interests, and the political system as a
whole is unproductive and misguided. After all, patent reform has already
passed with huge bipartisan support in the House of Representatives.

Instead, you should focus on the politician most responsible for blocking
patent reform - Harry Reid, and the power he wields as Senate Majority Leader.
He might not be up for re-election until 2016, but your donations and votes
can help remove him from his position as majority leader in November.

~~~
rayiner
Complaining about oligarchs and special interests misses the mark, in my
opinion. Last month, the following companies launched a group to oppose the
proposed reforms: Apple, Microsoft, IBM, DuPont, Pfizer, Ford, and GE:
[http://partnershipforamericaninnovation.org](http://partnershipforamericaninnovation.org).

That's a really broad spectrum of iconic American technology companies. These
were joined by a number of research universities as well as groups
representing small businesses that employ scientists and engineers.

It's easy to take an internet company-centric view of the world and dismiss
the whole opposition as "oligarchs and special interests." But think of it
from the perspective of a Congressman or Congresswoman. He or she doesn't know
that "Twitter is in, while Microsoft is out," so to speak. What they know is
that Microsoft is an American company that employs 100,000 people, more than
Google, Twitter, Yahoo!, and Facebook combined. From their perspective, the
opposition isn't "oligarchs and special interests." They're a broad swath of
what they perceive as the relevant stakeholders: American companies and
universities engaged in R&D that employ lots of scientists and engineers and
create lots of "next-generation STEM jobs."

The whole political machinery of the U.S., on both sides of the aisle, is
committed to the technology sector being an engine for job creation going
forward. That doesn't just mean the internet sector, but also pharma,
biotechnology, automotive, energy, etc. These are the sectors Washington is
counting on to replace the jobs Silicon Valley is automating away. When a list
of key companies in each of these sectors oppose reforms, and say that they
will hamper job creation, then it will be very difficult to convince members
of Congress that the reforms are a good thing overall.

The first set of reforms passed because there was broad buy-in from the
technology sector as a whole. Any future reforms will require more buy-in from
the broader industry than exists right now.

~~~
danielweber
_Microsoft is an American company that employs 100,000 people, more than
Google, Twitter, Yahoo!, and Facebook combined._

This is a key point. Whatever arguments you can make about the economic
efficiency of IP laws[1], favoring the industry that employs a lot more people
isn't "un-democratic." It's democracy, good and hard. [2] Those 100,000 people
can easily outvote all the other companies. It's exactly the opposite of
favoring the oligarchs, which would be the sharehodlers of GOOG, TWIT, YHOO,
FACE.

[1] Those latter companies indeed make more with less workers, which to a
first order approximation is what you want to encourage in the long term. It's
not the final answer and there are good arguments to make the other way, like
GOOG needing other people's IP in order to have something to index and put ads
on top of.

[2] As my allusion to Mencken suggests, I really don't like populist
arguments. But when defending the populists' jobs becomes "defending the
oligarchs" I know I'm in some kind of bizarro world.

~~~
ulfw
Well it depends on wether 1 company employing 100,000 people is better or
10,000 companies employing 10 each. Of course it's easier to represent the
will of 1 vs the not-always-overlapping-voices of 10,000.

~~~
rayiner
This is a good point, but remember the small business coalition is split.
Congress sees some small businesses saying that troll lawsuits hinder their
business, while others, particularly in capital-intensive areas like telecoms
or medical devices, saying that patents give them protections from larger
competitors and provide leverage in getting funding and or being acquired.

~~~
ulfw
Very much agree. Which goes to my point that 10,000 companies with 10
employees each won't ever be able to speak with one voice/have one agenda or
one opinion. Much easier to do with a 100,000 people mega corp ;)

------
scotch_drinker
Every day, it becomes more apparent that our democracy has been thwarted and
overrun with oligarchs and special interests. Each party is beholden to its
own oligarchs and the best solution I see is term limits of some sort.
Politics shouldn't be a career. Because it currently is a career, our
politicians must cater to those who are their bosses. The people are no longer
the boss and that is the core problem.

Even if this is an overreach that would "treat every patent holder as a patent
troll" (a claim I find highly suspect), doing nothing has the effect of
harming the very people that can move our economy forward, the innovators and
entrepreneurs. When making a decision between a bill that helps this group
versus trial lawyers, it's unfortunate that our leadership chooses the latter
to protect.

~~~
protomyth
Term limits won't do anything except cycle the politicians faster. There are
two systems that need to be cut in DC to change the tenor.

The first is the cycle of government employees overseeing contracts and then
going to work as lobbyists or employees for the people they were overseeing.
Passing an amendment that says no government appointee or senior staff member
can go work for any company they had contact with while holding the position
for 5 or 10 years will end the first cycle.

The lobbyist / I need $ for reelection is harder. Some say only government
funded campaigns, but I'm pretty sure I don't want the government's current
parties making those rules and frankly it doesn't seem to help elsewhere. I am
more for an amendment that says groups (corp or union) cannot contribute money
to politicians / political parties. Both corporations and unions are
gatherings of people and no more deserving of protection than the other. The
biggest problem with all that is the news media is run by corporations and the
ink is still going to be there. I'm afraid the second cycle is going to be
with us for a long while.

~~~
maxerickson
That seems like it might have some negative effects on the pool of people
willing to take those jobs.

One thing that would probably help but will never happen would be to figure
out how to make committee chairs service positions that had less influence
over the output of the committee than the other members.

~~~
protomyth
> That seems like it might have some negative effects on the pool of people
> willing to take those jobs.

Good. I think the people using these government jobs in this manner are the
people we don't need overseeing those contracts.

~~~
maxerickson
I don't think you can make enough rules to stop the wrong sort of people. I
guess I would prefer amending the overall process to make it less interesting
to even try to exploit (rather than enumerating and banning a bunch of
different ways of collecting the reward).

Also, a 10 year ban is worth negative hundreds of thousands of dollars to the
sort of person that is competent and understands the field they are working
in. That's a pretty big disincentive, never mind that 'government job' already
sort of has a negative association for lots of motivated people.

~~~
protomyth
I think two simple bans will have a huge effect on the corruption. I just
don't see it as good for society that a competent person goes to work for the
government in a management position then leaves for the private sector to work
at a company they were managing contracts. I would rather the motivated people
stay in the private sector in the first place and not see government as a
stepping stone.

------
angrybits
The top story on their homepage is about how some Fox News anchor got arrested
at an airport bar. I am not convinced that Mr. Reid will be fearing for his
job as a result of this little stunt.

------
disdev
Interesting to compare the Partnership for American Innovation with this list:
[http://www.bloomberg.com/infographics/2014-03-12/offshore-
pr...](http://www.bloomberg.com/infographics/2014-03-12/offshore-profits-
avoid-irs-reach.html)

And, Apple and Microsoft have previously funded patent trolls (IV). And IBM
has more than 50,000 patents and brings in over $1 billion annually in
licensing revenue.

------
larrydag
I wonder if the original framers of Constitutions around the world thought
that one day the lawyers would ultimately rule public policy.

~~~
rayiner
I don't know about around the world, but about two-thirds of the framers of
the U.S. Constitution were lawyers. The rest were businessmen of some sort
(counting owning large-scale farms as a business). Doesn't seem like an
appreciable change in who sets the tone for public policy, although I think if
anything the power has shifted more towards businessmen.

~~~
larrydag
I wonder how that lawyer ratio has changed over the years with members of U.S.
Congress. I'm guessing not a whole lot. Is it me or is the trial lawyer lobby
the most powerful in Washington, D.C.?

------
brokentone
It's establishment politicians on both sides who receive massive lobbying
efforts from big hollywood and the recording industry.

There is some young blood taking these issues seriously though:
[http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-party-
of...](http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-party-of-
innovation/)

------
lowbloodsugar
"The bipartisan compromise on patents was headed for a markup on Thursday. But
Leahy suddenly took it off the table after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid
(D-Nev.) intervened at the last minute, according to multiple people close to
the negotiations."

Would these be multiple Republican people? Kill the bill and blame it on Reid!
Twofer!

Not saying its true, just awed by the credulity of some of the comments here.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
That could work... if Reid was stupid. Stupid enough to be manipulated by the
Republicans, and then stupid enough to just silently take the blame.

I don't think that Reid got where he is by being politically stupid.
Therefore, I don't buy your scenario.

[Edit: I just re-read the parent, and realized the claim was that Republicans
did the killing, not that they manipulated Reid into doing the killing. I
still don't buy it.]

~~~
lowbloodsugar
"[It was Reid's fault] say numerous sources".

I'm not saying he did it. I'm not saying he didn't do it. I'm saying the
washington post reported unnamed sources said Reid did it.

I think that's a pretty low bar of evidence, is all I'm saying.

------
digitalcreate
As a small business owner, I applied for a patent that could protect my
startup's key innovation. I am actually glad that the patent "reform" as
shelved. IMO, it is a far bigger threat to small business patent holders that
a tech industry giant would ignore / steal their IP, than to fall victim to a
patent troll. If the proposed legislation goes through, simply trying to
protect your own property could end up destroying you if you are forced to pay
for the legal costs of the deep-pocketed industry player.

~~~
jp555
A patent is _nothing_ until it is tested in court; which is very expensive,
patent reform or not.

~~~
logicallee
But that's completely false isn't it, just like saying that copyright is
nothing until it's tested in court?

There is absolutely a difference between a copyrighted image and a free to use
image, even if I know the copyright holder is in no position to sue me.
Likewise, there is a clear difference between someone's protected invention
(if they have passed a very high bar over prior art, obviousness, etc) and the
way the problem is always and usually solved. (If at all.)

I can respect a real patent just as easily as I can respect a copyright, and
so it is hardly fair to say that a patent is _nothing_ until it is tested in
court.

~~~
afarrell
But we don't have a system in place that a lay person can use to distinguish
between legitimate patents and illigitimate ones, do we?

~~~
logicallee
Lay people can't infringe a patent even if you hand them the patent and ask
them to create an infringement. Definition of lay. (i.e. if you can create
something in the domain you are not lay.)

On the other hand, actual practitioners can use their judgment. The standard
is supposed to be non-obvious to someone skilled in the art. For most patents,
this is going to be fairly simple, just as most cases where we respect
copyright are fairly simple.

~~~
afarrell
Er, I meant laypeople relative to the field of Patent Law, not laypeople
relative to the field of software engineering.

