This shall not pass -- big companies will see to it
Large companies will lobby against any improvements to the patent system.
For them, the trolls are a minor cost of doing business, and they perform a valuable service: destroying or stalling new competitors. Every dollar a troll sucks out of Newegg's pocket is a dollar not spent on competing with Microsoft--you think Microsoft considers that a bad thing? (Even worse, trolls avoid large companies because they might actually fight back.)
Further, patent trolling is directly useful for those major companies. Apple trolled Samsung out of US markets; Samsung thinks that's bad. But what about Apple? They won't want to be giving up that tool anytime soon.
Here's predicting that, just like before, it'll just sort of die in committee.
The European Parliament proposal, in a nutshell, is the negation of every broad goal of the TTIP ISDS agreement; which was designed to exclude democratic principles, exclude public scrutiny, encourage ISDS bias and inconsistency in favor of US corporations, to ensure those biased decisions were absolutely final, and override inconvenient public policy objectives.
It's like the EU has proposed cutting a out TTIP's brain and replacing it with a lump of coal. It's no wonder the think tank is in a panic. EU Parliament saw through them.
General Wesley Clark: "They do have an ideology. In World War II if someone supported Nazi Germany at the expense of the United States, we didn't say that was freedom of speech, we put him in a camp, they were prisoners of war."
Actually, no, there were quite a few you didn't. Cases in point: William Randolph Hearst, Andrew Mellon, Standard Oil of New Jersy, Ford Motor and Henry Ford, International Telephone and Telegraph, Allen Dulles, Prescott Bush, and IBM.
Today, we have HSBC, caught laundering money for drug lords and terrorists; you didn't put any of them in camps, either.
Given those examples, I have to say, General Clark, that your ideas are pretty radical. Maybe we should lock you up in one of those camps.
Isn't it odd that "Consumatori Nazionali Unione", which describes itself as, "The first association about consumers in Italy" ("La prima associazione about consumatori in Italia") would bring a case like this?
Whose rights are they protecting again?
I suspect this is more about Trip Advisor competition than it is about bad reviews.
It occurrs to me to question why TQP didn't inquire as to the status of the case. After all, so long as Neweggs' motion was outstanding, TQP wasn't getting their money. If they were so sure of their position, surely they would want the court to rule so they could collect their award.
Their apparent lack of interest in doing so rather suggests that TQP figured they had a loser and wanted the case to remain in limbo forever, so they could continue to collect royalties from other companies in the meantime.
The cynic in me wonders: could it possibly be that the delay was arranged?
"Nevada becomes first state to shut down Uber" "Uber shuts down in Kansas" "Can the Taxi Union Get the Courts to Shut down Uber..." (DC) "Boston Taxi Drivers to Hold Rally to Shut Down Uber" "Braintree license board may shut down Uber" "Toronto attempting to shut down Uber service within city limits" "Judges asked to shut down Uber, Lyft in Pittsburgh" "Parking authority threatens to shut down Uber service..." (Philadelphia) "French government to shut down Uber after violent protests..." "Petition · Colorado PUC: Don't Shut Down Uber!! Withdraw..." "Plaia: Portsmouth should shut down UBER X service" "ALJ Recommends Rules to Shut Down Uber Denver… AGAIN!" "City of Portland sues Uber in bid to shut taxi service down" . . . [more excuses to come] to Shut Down Uber
I hereby designate a new award, "Weasel Word Wizard of the month," and nominate James Comey for this month's champion, for his phrase, "...by what legal means we might ask."
It's obvious he couldn't say what he really means, which is, "...by what draconian fines and terms of imprisonment we might impose to force our totalitarian vision upon these companies." But that's sort of unpalatable in this country, so instead we get this shyster BS.
Congratulations, Mr. Comey, you could describe the nuking of a city as a "pop-bottle rocket glitch."
But FOIA as a scoop-generation device is important to journalism. No corporate editor wants to be running the same story as everyone else; they want scoops, so they can drive customers to their news.
If the scoop is no longer possible, the editor will be saying, "Well then, why bother to file an FOIA request? Particularly when we must spend $x00,000 or $x million to force the government to comply with the FOIA request?"
I can't agree this is good: This is actually nothing but an evil little invention of government intended to discourage journalists from filing "nuisance" FOIA requests.
Sadly, no one is voting them out. It is a depressing reality that people vote as corporate money dictates. A corporate CEO could be standing on a voter in spiked shoes, spikes driven all the way through their gut, and the voter would still vote for the person promoted by the most ads.
Watch Trump: He just called immigrants racists and murderers, but he will win the Hispanic vote because his money can buy an ad screaming, "You won't have a job."