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.
See the roll call for your congressman. [1] Roll 629 "On Passage" is the vote on final House passage.
Summary of the amendments extracted from the report (only the Rohrabacher amendment passed; Goodlatte's was automatically added since he's the committee chair):
(see also Thomas's Rules Committee report [1])
Goodlatte's has technical changes.
Watt's amendment weakens the loser-pays provision
Polis's Requires claimants to provide additional
disclosure information in any pre-suit notification to
establish a willful infringement claim. (no vote)
Massie's Strikes section 5, the ``Customer-suit
exception'' provision.
Jackson Lee's first Expands covered customer definition to
all small businesses so long as their annual revenue does not
exceed $25 million.
Jackson Lee's second Requires the Director to conduct a
study regarding the economic impact of the changes in current
law resulting from Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the bill on the
ability of individuals and small businesses owned by women,
veterans, and minorities to assert, secure, and vindicate their constitutionally guaranteed exclusive right to their inventions and discoveries.
Rohrabacher's moves patent applicant appeals back to district courts such as the Eastern District of Texas instead of the CAFC as the original bill specified. (This is the amendment that passed.)
Conyers's essentially waters down the entire bill and replaces it with the much weaker and pro-troll Senate bill. Anybody who voted for this is not really our friend (roll call 628)[1]. This would drop the pleading reform, discovery reform, and loser-pays provisions that constitute essentially all the effective reforms in the bill.
The problem is that few of these people feel directly touched by patent issues and that is certainly the case for their constituents. For the average citizen patents are far removed from their daily reality. This means the issue has little political power. And this is probably true across all political alignments.
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?
"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?
It's not "inane" but reflects the views of many people in the engineering community outside this particular bubble.
Ironically, he's one of those engineers that Reddit/HN say that there aren't enough of in Congress:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Massie ("Thomas Massie was born in Huntington, West Virginia. He grew up in Vanceburg, Kentucky and met his future wife, Rhonda. He earned a Bachelor's degree in electrical engineering and a Master's degree in mechanical engineering from Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
In 1993, at MIT, he and his wife started a successful company, called SensAble Devices Inc. Massie was the winner in 1995 of the $30,000 Lemelson-MIT Student Prize for inventors. The company was re-incorporated as SensAble Technologies, Inc. in 1996 after partner Bill Aulet joined the company. They raised $32 million of venture capital, had 24 different patents, and 70 other employees.
After Massie sold the company, he and his wife moved back to their hometown in Lewis County. They raised their children on a farm, where he built his own off-the-grid timberframe house.").
I know a couple of founder-engineers who would probably share Massie's view. The patent system has lots of problems, but it does allow for something very valuable: arms-length transactions in the products of R&D efforts.
It won't just weaken the system, it'll shift the balance of power in favour of large corporations. If I get a patent on some new invention and a huge corporation decides to ignore my patent, what recourse do I have? Risk losing tens of millions of dollars and bankrupting my company and potentially myself personally? No, I guess my best chance is to sell my patent to their huge competitor and hope they destroy each other.
Or would the threat of selling the patent give me enough leverage for a settlement? I hate the idea of having to rely on another large corporation to be my champion, as it were.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
Many Democrats are afraid of any "loser pays" system due to the belief that smaller or personal entities won't properly litigate when they aught to due to fear of losing and paying.
"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.
[+] [-] WildUtah|12 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] WildUtah|12 years ago|reply
Summary of the amendments extracted from the report (only the Rohrabacher amendment passed; Goodlatte's was automatically added since he's the committee chair):
(see also Thomas's Rules Committee report [1])
Goodlatte's has technical changes.
Watt's amendment weakens the loser-pays provision
Polis's Requires claimants to provide additional disclosure information in any pre-suit notification to establish a willful infringement claim. (no vote)
Massie's Strikes section 5, the ``Customer-suit exception'' provision.
Jackson Lee's first Expands covered customer definition to all small businesses so long as their annual revenue does not exceed $25 million.
Jackson Lee's second Requires the Director to conduct a study regarding the economic impact of the changes in current law resulting from Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the bill on the ability of individuals and small businesses owned by women, veterans, and minorities to assert, secure, and vindicate their constitutionally guaranteed exclusive right to their inventions and discoveries.
Rohrabacher's moves patent applicant appeals back to district courts such as the Eastern District of Texas instead of the CAFC as the original bill specified. (This is the amendment that passed.)
Conyers's essentially waters down the entire bill and replaces it with the much weaker and pro-troll Senate bill. Anybody who voted for this is not really our friend (roll call 628)[1]. This would drop the pleading reform, discovery reform, and loser-pays provisions that constitute essentially all the effective reforms in the bill.
[0] http://beta.congress.gov/congressional-report/113th-congress...
[1] http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/index.asp
[+] [-] clarkm|12 years ago|reply
https://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/113/house/1/629
And the failed amendments:
https://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/113/house/1/624 (Watt)
https://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/113/house/1/625 (Massie)
https://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/113/house/1/626 (Jackson)
https://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/113/house/1/628 (Conyers)
It looks like many of those who supported Thomas Massie's amendment (which struck the customer-suit exception) voted against final passage.
[+] [-] thekaleb|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] robomartin|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] katemcintyre|12 years ago|reply
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54564-2005Feb...
[+] [-] darkarmani|12 years ago|reply
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?
[+] [-] rayiner|12 years ago|reply
Ironically, he's one of those engineers that Reddit/HN say that there aren't enough of in Congress:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Massie ("Thomas Massie was born in Huntington, West Virginia. He grew up in Vanceburg, Kentucky and met his future wife, Rhonda. He earned a Bachelor's degree in electrical engineering and a Master's degree in mechanical engineering from Massachusetts Institute of Technology. In 1993, at MIT, he and his wife started a successful company, called SensAble Devices Inc. Massie was the winner in 1995 of the $30,000 Lemelson-MIT Student Prize for inventors. The company was re-incorporated as SensAble Technologies, Inc. in 1996 after partner Bill Aulet joined the company. They raised $32 million of venture capital, had 24 different patents, and 70 other employees. After Massie sold the company, he and his wife moved back to their hometown in Lewis County. They raised their children on a farm, where he built his own off-the-grid timberframe house.").
I know a couple of founder-engineers who would probably share Massie's view. The patent system has lots of problems, but it does allow for something very valuable: arms-length transactions in the products of R&D efforts.
[+] [-] shawn-furyan|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chongli|12 years ago|reply
Or would the threat of selling the patent give me enough leverage for a settlement? I hate the idea of having to rely on another large corporation to be my champion, as it were.
[+] [-] Zoomla|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] d23|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chongli|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] samspenc|12 years ago|reply
I mean, I understand Google backs this, but aren't Twitter, Rackspace, Newegg, also similarly backing this? Why was only Google mentioned?
[+] [-] cracell|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DannyBee|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] WildUtah|12 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] h4pless|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] WildUtah|12 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] adventured|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rayiner|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ROFISH|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jd_free|12 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] kkangaroo|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]