
Anti-Patent Troll Bill Passes The House - oniTony
http://techcrunch.com/2013/12/05/google-backed-anti-patent-troll-bill-passes-the-house/
======
WildUtah
My comment on the vote (originally a comment to a post on PatentlyO):

Looks like the Watt (D-NC), Jackson-Lee (D-TX), and Conyers (D-MI) amendments
failed. The text of amendments isn't on Thomas yet but the Congressional Black
Caucus has been very skeptical of even the hint of loser-pays provisions for a
long time and several members emphasized that objection in committee. I'm
guessing those amendments were aimed at fee-shifting provisions. Looks like a
slim majority of the CBC voted against final passage while non-CBC Democrats
voted three-to-one in favor.

My favorite CBC members Barbara Lee (D-CA, yes) and Donna Edwards (D-MD, no)
were split.

I couldn't see any pattern in Republicans that voted no, though I was
disappointed in favorite Republican Justin Amash (R-MI). There doesn't seem to
be any distinct lean among Progressive, RSC, Hispanic Caucus, Tea Party,
regional groups, or other subdivisions for or against the measure.

Well, except the SF bay area which is solidly in favor. Maybe the new PTO
office there will be the site of protest rallies someday.

I don't know what's in the Rohrabacher (R-CA) amendment that was adopted,
either. It seems to have passed with mostly Democratic votes.

~~~
katemcintyre
So does this make it so if the intermittent wiper blade inventor Kearns[1] had
lost due to having cheaper lawyers versus the millions that the auto companies
can spend on top knotch lawyers, he would be liable for the millions and have
his life completely destroyed?

[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/articles/A54564-2005Feb...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/articles/A54564-2005Feb25.html)

~~~
sehugg
Not if Kearns was substantially justified in bringing a suit under the Equal
Access to Justice Act, which would be hard to deny based on his having
demonstrated the invention to Ford. Kearns could have still taken the $18
million awarded to him without additional risk. (His son could maybe not
nowadays get away with putting his .45 automatic on the desk during
negotiations, though)

What the bill would do is prevent Kearns from selling his invention to a shell
company with Chrysler as parent and suing Ford drivers for using the
intermittent-wiper invention, since Ford would now be able to act on behalf of
the defendants in these cases, and Chrysler would be liable for paying fees if
they had acted in bad faith.

------
darkarmani
"Kentucky Republican and holder of 29 patents, Thomas Massie...claims the bill
will 'weaken the patent system overall.'"

What kind of of inane statement is that? The system needs to be made weaker as
illustrated by the patent trolls. Does he think patents need to be made
stronger?

~~~
shawn-furyan
What's funny is that he seems to think that weakening the patent system is an
unintended consequence of the bill of which its proponents are unaware.

~~~
rayiner
That doesn't follow. The way these changes are being billed in Congress is
that they're necessary to keep trolls from taking advantage of the patent
system. Taking measures to prevent gaming of the system is not the same as
weakening the system.

Undoubtedly some proponents of the bill see it as a first step towards
weakening patents generally, but that's not how it's being billed.

~~~
shawn-furyan
The current state of the patent system is such that having been granted a
patent legally supersedes in power the act of enabling technological
advancement. That is to say that the power of the patent system has surpassed
its social justification, and therefore should be scaled back to bring those
two things in line. Doing so would weaken the patent system, but bring it in
line with its intended purpose.

If you prefer to think of it in terms of loopholes, I would point out that
loopholes in a system of restrictions act to increase the powers enabled by
that system. To close those loopholes is to decrease the power that the system
is capable of imparting.

All of that is to say that taking steps to make it harder for non-practicing
entities to abuse the system in a way that has a net detriment on technology
and innovation is the very act of closing the areas of copyright law that
empower non-practicing entities to the detriment of practicing entities.
Ideally such a change would decrease the power of the patent system just
enough to shut out those who have a negative net impact on the advancement of
technology and innovation.

~~~
throwawaykf
_> The current state of the patent system is such that having been granted a
patent legally supersedes in power the act of enabling technological
advancement. That is to say that the power of the patent system has surpassed
its social justification..._

I'm not sure what your first sentence actually means, but there is not enough
evidence to support the following sentence. I know it's a popular opinion
around here, but really, it's because this place is an echo chamber when it
comes to certain topics.

There are studies that show how NPEs have beneficial effects (see work by
Michael Risch, Jay Kesan, Anne Layne-Farrar etc.), and others showing their
harmful effects are not as bad as media makes it look. The GAO report on NPEs,
for instance, found that they are no big problem, really.

Unfortunately, the data available is limited in a big way: there is no data at
all on demand letters that trolls like Lodsys send. There's an act that would
help track these things too ([http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2013/11/patent-
reform-2013-d...](http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2013/11/patent-
reform-2013-demand-letter-transparency-act-of-2013.html)), and that's the one
I'm really looking forward to. That data would give a much clearer picture of
the NPE situation.

------
d23
The EFF supports this bill and has a nice summary:
[https://www.eff.org/cases/six-good-things-about-
innovation-a...](https://www.eff.org/cases/six-good-things-about-innovation-
act)

~~~
chongli
The Customer Suit Exception, while nice, seems disturbingly reminiscent of
feudalism. Now, as a customer of a corporation we elevate them to the status
of lord and master; entrusting them to defend us against threats (lawsuits) to
which we are unable to defend ourselves.

~~~
xiata
Think about the absurdity of being sued for patent infringement if you were a
pizza shop and your oven allegedly infringed on a troll patent. You didn't
manufacturer the oven, why are you being sued?

The vendor's reputation is irreparably damaged by patent trolls who prey on
customers due to the patent's apparent weakness. Sometimes corporations need
justice too.

~~~
chongli
Right, I'm not saying that is good either. I'm just calling into question the
entire system. How can we go even further?

------
samspenc
Which part of this is "Google-Backed"?

I mean, I understand Google backs this, but aren't Twitter, Rackspace, Newegg,
also similarly backing this? Why was only Google mentioned?

~~~
cracell
Because Google is the biggest name of the companies supporting it and the one
that will probably get Techcrunch the most clicks.

------
DannyBee
Stripped a bit, sadly, but, IMHO, progress overall.

~~~
WildUtah
A month ago we lost the Covered Business Method review that would have been so
valuable. Then today we lost venue improvements for patent applicant appeals
which is a small issue.

We'll see the bill stripped even more in the Senate. That's the essential
battle now. Then the conference committee that reconciles the bills will be
very important.

~~~
salient
Any chance for the business method to be banned again in Senate through an
amendment?

~~~
DannyBee
No, because then it would have to get passed again in that form by the house

Both houses of congress must pass the same bill for it to go to the president.

------
h4pless
Would it be outrageous to ask them to slap an MIT (or equivalent) license on
some of the 51,000+ patents that they hold that are somewhat "expected
behaviors" these days and aren't critical to their infrastructure? In my mind
it would be an incredible PR move and would probably inhibit some of my
hesitations of trusting Google.

~~~
WildUtah
Google hasn't ever sued anyone for infringing any patent at all unless they've
sued Google first. At least, I can't find a single news report in the fifteen
year history of the company about it.

If Google put out a free license for all their patents, they'd be unable to
strike back when unethical companies sue them over garbage patents. If you're
big enough to get on their radar, you can ask for a cross-license agreement.

~~~
danudey
Not technically, but if I recall, during the Motorola acquisition, when the
terms of the deal included requiring Google's okay to do any patent lawsuits
while the acquisition was pending, Motorola started several patent lawsuits
non-defensively.

~~~
WildUtah
Moto went after Apple and Microsoft that were threatening and trolling and
suing Android vendors. Those cases were clearly defensive.

But they were surely trolling cases fought with garbage patents on Moto's
side. Google grossly overestimated the quality of Motorola's portfolio and was
blinded by the sheer number of mostly worthless patents Moto had.

------
adventured
Why did so many Democrats oppose the bill relative to the number of
Republicans that did so?

~~~
rayiner
"Loser pays" is usually a republican ploy to gut regulation. E.g. you're never
going to sue Exxon for polluting your town if you could be on the hook for
Exxon's legal bills if you lose.

------
jd_free
"Loser Pays" is the convention in most of the rest of the world, but not
America, due to opposition from American liberals who say that poor people
will be afraid to sue anyone if they fear having to pay the other side's legal
fees if they lose.

The problem with the American system, and it's a huge one, is that it allows
TONS of legal extortion. Everyone pays their own legal fees even if they win,
so all you have to do is threaten a lawsuit, then tell your victim that you'll
"settle" for some amount less than it would cost them to go to court. No
matter how baseless your lawsuit is, they still pay you because they can't
afford to go to court and pay their own legal fees. Thus the poor suffer far
more under this system.

