Comment by WildUtah | Hacker News Reader

Comment by WildUtah | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

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.

[0] http://beta.congress.gov/congressional-report/113th-congress...

[1] http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/index.asp

Here's a map of the vote on final passage:

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.

FYI the external resources don't load over https. Switch to http if your browser doesn't render the styles.

I checked Amash's facebook page and have yet to see an explanation. I am sure it will be up soon just like all of his other votes.

I wish every representative did that.

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.

It's a lot easier to get political movement on things that aren't headline political issues where politicians are handcuffed to a certain stance by past statements/promises/party policy.

That's why we get patent reform changes much more easily than changes around taxation, gun control, abortion rights, education, healthcare and so on.

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...

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.

Can we please discontinue the practice of setting policy based on anecdotes?

Answer this question: What percentage of recent patent plaintiffs are the named inventors on the patents and what percentage are either non-practicing entities with a lawyer majority of employees or large corporations?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com