Congress Now Pushing 'Bring Back The Patent Trolls' Bill
from the oh-come-on dept
Back in April we warned about a truly terrible plan by some in Congress to obliterate the last few years of the Supreme Court fixing our broken patent system, and flinging the doors wide open to patenting genes, medical diagnostics, and software (all of which the Supreme Court has mostly rejected as abusive and monopolizing nature). One had hoped that after having explained to them how disastrous such a bill would be, that its backers might think carefully in crafting the final bill. Instead, Senators Tom Tillis and Chris Coons, along with Reps. Hank Johnson and Steve Sivers instead decided to double down with a bill that would massively stifle innovation.
They claim it's to "restore predictability and stability" in our patent system, but that's laughable. It is to massively increase the universe of patent-eligibility to include a wide range of things that almost anyone who understands innovation would consider it insane to allow patents to restrict. It would literally obliterate the three key Supreme Court cases that rejected patents on genes, medical diagnostics, and most software, and open the door to patenting "laws of nature," "abstract ideas" and "natural phenomenon." Really. It specifically says that:
No implicit or other judicially created exceptions to subject matter eligibility, including “abstract ideas,” “laws of nature,” or “natural phenomena,” shall be used to determine patent eligibility under section 101, and all cases establishing or interpreting those exceptions to eligibility are hereby abrogated.
It would also bring us back to a world in which the default is everything is patentable:
The provisions of section 101 shall be construed in favor of eligibility.
No one doing actual innovation would support this. The only people who could possibly support this are patent lawyers and patent trolls. It will reopen the floodgates of bad patents and patent trolling, flooding the courts with bogus lawsuits on broad and vague patents against actual innovators. It is a dangerous bill that Congress must reject. We lived through nearly two decades of patent trolls destroying innovation while Congress twiddled its thumbs and did almost nothing to stop it. The Supreme Court finally stepped in (again and again and again) to stop the nonsense -- and now these elected officials want to bring us back to such a world?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: chris coons, gene patents, hank johnson, inventions, medical diagnostics, originality, patent trolls, patents, section 101, software patents, steve sivers, supreme court, tom tillis
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Re: Re: Jurisdiction fight!
Mr. Burkhardt is exactly right about this--the issue is interpretation of the statute and not about the constitution. Until Congress speaks up, SCOTUS has a good deal of flexibility in interpreting statutory provisions that, arguably, are ambiguous. Once Congress eliminates the ambiguity, SCOTUS has very little flexibility. For comparison, consider when Congress increased the term of copyright (per lobbying by Disney to protect Mickey Mouse) and a case was brought by very sophisticated plaintiffs arguing that was unconstitutional--those plaintiffs lost.made the First Word by Gary
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Jurisdiction fight!
Congress says to Supreme Court, "you can't do that." The appropriate response is for the Supreme Court to say to Congress, "oh yes we can" and strike down the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Jurisdiction fight!
Do you think that is a process that could be completed in under ten years?
Better to not pass the damn thing and writeup some legislation that reduces patent protection rather than increasing it.
Fighting a law all the way to the Supreme Court is a lengthy and expensive prospect. In the meantime bad patents would continue to churn at an accelerated rate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Jurisdiction fight!
Sure, why couldn't it be? We've had bad laws struck down quickly before.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Jurisdiction fight!
Which largely they wont do. CUrrent rulings on patents are based not in the constitutionality of patents, but based in the statute of patents. This law amends that statute. It is unlikely the Supreme court will suddenly find a constitutional definition of patents that overrules the new statute.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Jurisdiction fight!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Jurisdiction fight!
And not only do that tell them they can never do it again by law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who wants to help me get a patent shoved through on running for an elected office & accepting money to pass laws favorable to those paying me??
Considering what other patent trolls have earned we could bankrupt congress.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This sounds like a really good idea. File an intent to patent with the PTO so that your name is in there first, and then submit the actual paperwork should the law ever be passed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"natural phenomena" .... hmmmmmm
I think I'll patent the fart.
Of course I'll be willing to license this "natural phenomena" patent to anyone for a small annual fee, but if I ever catch someone infringing on my newfound intellectual property, I'll promptly sue the pants off of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
At least it's currently only the rapelicans in the house pushing this travesty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sorry, the pedos in the democratic party are also pushing this in the house and senate. There is a senator and house rep from both parties sponsoring this, try reading the article. Nice job on making this partisan though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Follow the money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What the fuck?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dibs on the patent for the "abstract idea" of 0.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Too late
Microsoft Patents Ones, Zeroes
https://www.theonion.com/microsoft-patents-ones-zeroes-1819564663
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I still can't get over how insane this is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I choose to patent gravity and sue the Earth for usage violations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Intelligent falling, not gravity, is what keeps you firmly planted on this planet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Nonsense, everyone knows that it's thanks to the FSM that people don't float off into the air, as his noodlely appendages press everyone down as a demonstration of his love and blessing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I propose that breathing be patented and a suit brought against the idiots who thought this was a good idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Would this even get through a divided congress? I suppose there might be enough lobbying dollars to buy a majority in both chambers, but either chamber could put a poison-pill rider on it.
One scenario would be if they tie some of the legislation that's stuck behind threats of presidential veto, like the infrastructure bill or additional hurricane aid to Puerto Rico and other affected locales.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Masnick writes about this, now let's see what's written about the turds that pay his rent:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/may/28/a-white-collar-sweatshop-google-assistant-c ontractors-allege-wage-theft
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hi, antidirt.
How's that lawsuit on suing podcasters coming along?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Now, now, be kind.
He's still grieving from how Shiva Ayyadurai failed to tear Masnick a new asshole for him to piss in. Give him time; he'll be moving onto the bargaining step of grief next.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Oh SNAP!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chine
Let's hope China is really blocked. Innovation could survive behind the trade war blockades.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Chine
Oh are you not going to like one of the upcoming articles...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well of course these people want to expand the IP laws. They're obviously Marvel characters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i thought the whole point of the supreme court is its the final court
of opinion in legal matters ,
if it says patents on natural laws are bad or illegal
congress cant just ignore it.
Or make laws that make patents based on natural laws legal . for instance companys could get patents on basic medical tests or software that looks at medical data for certain patterns .the result could be the cost of medical care and insurance could rise in the us because patent trolls
will be sueing hospitals .
Theres many basic software process,s that have never been patented
because they were used by all pc users years before software
patents were allowed .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It appears you are attempting to apply logic to an anti-logic group of people. These folk go out of their way to make the most illogical decisions possible, all for the LOLZ.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hi
i will be There for you
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another confirmation that stupidity is bi-partisan.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We had enough of that with FOSTA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
101 jurisprudence deftly sidesteps the constitutional right to a jury trial. Restoring primacy to that right as is being proposed seems to me like a good thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So, you'd rather have the jury convened twice, once for determining the validity of the claims-in-suit (both with regard to 101/patentable-subject-matter and 102&103/novelty&nonobviousness) and the second time for asking if the defendant infringed the patent or not? Can the jury be convened multiple times within the course of a single trial proceeding?
Or would you rather have everything lumped into one set of jury instructions, raising the spectre of seemingly illogical jury verdicts akin to some of the messes we've seen in other contexts in the past? (Imagine the same jury sitting both invalidating the patent and ruling that the defendant infringed upon the patent...)
Never mind that you're trying to pull an elephant out of something that's not an elephant-sized hole here...if you wanted patent validity to be a jury decision, why not just have the bill come out and say so?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
???
101 has been deemed by courts as a question of law that is outside the province of juries, all the while ignoring that critical questions of fact must first be resolved. Hence, my mention of them deftly sidestepping juries altogether and why the proposed legislation may actually be helpful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeah, that's Tillis for you
Yep. That's Sen. Thom Tillis for you. He's routinely voting terribly on basically every technology policy issue, and tends to vote badly for other issues in general as well. Essentially just follows the worst parts of the party line. Really would like to elect someone else...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
House Republicans used to be good guys
In 2014, the Republican House sent a good patent-reform bill to the Democratic Senate. Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy expressed some interest, but further action was vetoed by Majority Leader Harry Reid. There were brief hopes for reform when Harry Reid lost the Senate in 2014, but Republican Senators quickly showed themselves just as worthless as Democratic Senators.
The three public-interest leaders in the Republican House, Darrell Issa, Bob Goodlatte, and Lamar Smith, announced retirement in 2018 (along with 40 other Republicans), unable or unwilling to adapt to the intellect-free environment of Trump Republicanism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ooh...
I'm going to patent the following:
Presidential lie-fest (open mouth, lie follows)
Presidential Rage Tweeting
Presidential Funds Embezzlement
Presidential Corruption
Presidential Obstruction of Justice
Presidential Interference with investigations
etc..
and finally
Presidential Breathing
Then I can send cease and desist to someone for all of the above, or sue for hundreds of thousands of dollars for every breath they take.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ooh...
Can I add one?
Presidential Candidate sniffling
[ link to this | view in chronology ]