RSS
Senate Wants To Exempt Banks From Patent Infringement Lawsuit
from the why-an-exception? dept
The Senate seems to be really into granting immunity these days. Most folks know about the decision to grant telcos immunity for possible violations of the law, but in a much less well publicized situation, the Senate has moved to grant banks immunity from an ongoing patent lawsuit (found via Against Monopoly). While I agree that the patent seems questionable, and the impact on banks would be burdensome, it's ridiculous that the Senate would carve out a special exemption for banks (and apparently, as it stands now, taxpayers would have to pay the patent holder instead -- though, the Senate is trying to change that). It's nice that Congress has noticed that the patent system is broken here, but rather than fixing the actual patent system, their response is just to exempt one class of companies from one particular lawsuit? As reader Rich (who also submitted this item) pointed out: "If this goes through, every big industry will just pay off/lobby their friendly neighborhood Congressman to exempt them from specific patents. Too bad Vonage didn't do this before being forced to pay millions for weak patents."
I have a business...
The Talent Wars: Today's Toughest Startup Challenge
The Future Of Commerce Will Combine Your Social Network And Mobile Device
I have an idea...
App Developer Conversations: Successful Fundraising Techniques
Founders, Funders, Farmers, Fools, And Family
I’m looking for policy...
Jon Potter: Software Patent Trolls Can Be Stopped By U.S. Patent Office And Congress
Policy Resources: Software Patents
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
Time to put all congressional legislative initiatives up for sale, to be sold to the highest bidder
Honestly, some of those folks should be wearing stripes already...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
http://www.fdrs.org/fight_corruption.html
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Special Inerests Win Again
Patents should never be granted for "concepts", "ideas", or "business models". Furthermore, even if a patent is granted, and someone else independently (via a black box development process) develops a similar product, the first patent holder should NOT be able to claim that they are entitled to "fees".
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
I'm not even angry right now, just mildly irritated...
Have a good day fellas
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Time to call myself a bank.
Just look at the proliferation of people who are handicap. That population is growing because they get preferential treatment.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
break the law?
I hate most phone companies just like the rest of us but claiming that they broke a law, by following a law seems ridiculous.
The FISA bill specifically makes it legal for them to do so. Whether or not you think it was right or not, it was the LAW that told them they could. How could you claim that they did anything illegal when they followed the law.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment