US Senate To Revive Software Patents With PERA Bill Vote On Thursday (eff.org) 110
zoobab writes: The US Senate to set to revive Software Patents with the PERA Bill, with a vote on Thursday, November 14, 2024.
A crucial Senate Committee is on the cusp of voting on two bills that would resurrect some of the most egregious software patents and embolden patent trolls. The Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERA), S. 2140, would dismantle vital safeguards that prohibit software patents on overly broad concepts. If passed, courts would be compelled to approve software patents on mundane activities like mobile food ordering or basic online financial transactions. This would unleash a torrent of vague and overbroad software patents, which would be wielded by patent trolls to extort small businesses and individuals.
The EFF is inviting members of the public to contact their Senators.
A crucial Senate Committee is on the cusp of voting on two bills that would resurrect some of the most egregious software patents and embolden patent trolls. The Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERA), S. 2140, would dismantle vital safeguards that prohibit software patents on overly broad concepts. If passed, courts would be compelled to approve software patents on mundane activities like mobile food ordering or basic online financial transactions. This would unleash a torrent of vague and overbroad software patents, which would be wielded by patent trolls to extort small businesses and individuals.
The EFF is inviting members of the public to contact their Senators.
Yeah, right. (Score:5, Insightful)
The EFF is inviting members of the public to contact their Senators.
Be sure to offer them more money than the lobbyists did.
Re: (Score:2)
by an artisan of the invention. There's very little software
nowadays that could be contained, inclusive of the user interface,
the memory model, the subroutine libraries, and the output functions, in any
reasonable amount of patent office deposited paper.
Folk doing agile app development rarely envision a blueprint for their work,
it's just too much time to spend on a document
(that's why we see so many bugs).
Any attempt to
Re: Yeah, right. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Be sure to offer them more money than the lobbyists did.
Senators are shocked to find that what they really needed was votes. Not money.
Patents should have a litmus test. (Score:2)
Gather 5 people in the field who have never heard of the patent or its solution and propose the problem to them. If 3/5 come up with a similar way to do the thing, then the patent should not be granted.
Re:Patents should have a litmus test. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
That's a great idea. We'll call it the 3/5ths compromise.
... yikes
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Patents can't be obvious, and they can't be prior art. It is not clear to me how the current bill threatens those criteria, but sorry, I haven't read it.
Your 3/5 proposal is unworkable. It could take years to develop a patent. You can't ask 5 practitioners to spend that much of their lives creating something that won't even be used. Instead, a patent application is assigned to an examiner whose job is to compare the claims in the patent to those that exist already, either in other patents or in open literat
Re:Patents should have a litmus test. (Score:5, Informative)
I understand about the complex patents you're referring to, but I'm talking about trivial patents, like those in TFS. "Mobile food ordering" should just not be patentable, because it's straightforward. You show a selection, people put things in cart, pay, and expect delivery. You can do all sorts of addons, like pay more for faster service, accept coupons, opt for "green" delivery via bike, repeat my order every Tuesday, give another copy of my food to a homeless shelter, etc. None of those should be patentable.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't patent ideas. You patent systems.
You can't just patent a food-ordering app. You need to describe the entire system around the app that allows it to function. It may not seem complex, but it's definitely not "trivial."
Re: (Score:2)
_You_ don't patent ideas. Companies try to all the time and the patent office sometimes lets them
Re: (Score:2)
You need to describe the entire system around the app that allows it to function.
Which is trivial, because there are only a few straightforward ways to accomplish a Food ordering app.
The exercise is Not invention of a food ordering app. It's Invention of patent language.
And by the time you are done drafting the language your claims will be broad enough to cover any app that lets consumers order services at retail.
Patents are already written in this deliberately overbroad language designed to expand the c
Re: Patents should have a litmus test. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Patents should have a litmus test. (Score:2)
It's enough with 3 independent out of 100 coming up with a comparable solution to reject the patent.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is what ya'll voted for.
We're still in the Biden administration, dickhead. Not that I'm looking forward to the next one.
Re: (Score:1)
We're still in the Biden administration
Y'all voted for that one too! All the pain is self inflicted.
Re: No bitching (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, so did you mean Trump was actually right when he said Biden stole the election? That Biden wasn't voted into office 4 years ago?
How on earth you came to that conclusion is beyond me. I should think it's obvious from my post that I don't support Trump or any of his self-serving narcissistic fantasies.
Re: No bitching (Score:2)
The new administration doesn't enter office for a few more months, but okay.
Re: No bitching (Score:2)
Reminds me of that time when some Muslim dude couldn't go to Disneyland right after the Trump election and both he and the mass media blamed it on his Muslim ban, even though he wouldn't even be in office for another few weeks and couldn't possibly have done anything to instigate that.
Or like how in the 2004 primaries all of the Democratic candidates were throwing around "Bush caused a loss of three million jobs" ad nauseum even though that particular recession had begun the December prior to his inaugurati
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
>> started in 2023 will be there until 2025
US senators have 6 year terms of office, not 2 years.
https://www.senate.gov/about/o... [senate.gov]
Re: (Score:3)
In Kentucky, the senators are known, but that doesn't help. If Rand Paul or Mitch McConnell had a non-zero chance at listening to any non-large-scale-donor constituent, or doing anything but what fits their agenda, it might be worth it. In reality, there could not be a more useless activity than expressing an opinion to them.
Re:Senate (Score:5, Insightful)
Posts like this are why we need Civics classes in school.
Civics (Score:3)
I'm a fan of watching police bodycam videos and court videos on Youtube. What is striking is how few young people understand how the legal system works. I mean, at all. They don't understand how courts work, they don't understand how hearings work, they don't know what police can and can't do. This is all basic stuff we covered in my freshman civics class in high school.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a reason I said classes and not Social Studies modules.
Re: (Score:3)
"members of the public to contact their Senators."
It might help if we knew who our senators were. We've just had an election, and the results haven't been certified yet.
Senators elected in November, 2024, will not be sworn in and seated until January 3, 2025. For now, contact the one who was not up for election or the one who ran for reelection, whether that person won or lost the bid.
citizens united, the gift that keeps giving (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:citizens united, the gift that keeps giving (Score:5, Informative)
The SCOTUS decision that equites political donation as the right to petition.
Citizens United was about the broadcast of a film before an election, where the film was an advocacy piece against one of the candidates. That's, unequivocally speech, and political speech at that, obviously protected by the first amendment.
While Justice Stevens' dissent does raise some excellent points, the solution to those is a constitutional amendment, not SCOTUS ignoring the plain language of the constitution. "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" is unambiguous. To decide otherwise would create a situation where e.g. the New York Times (a corporate entity) was not protected by the freedom of the press.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's also not forget that even if you ignore all the important details (the left always does) and the courts holding actually was just "derp derp 1A derp you can spend unlimited money on derp campaign derp derp"
We can see clearly from this most recent election that all the money in the world, can't actually buy the office. Harris proved that however important money might be in politics past a certain point it won't move the needles. Democracy actually isn't for sale.
Re: (Score:2)
"We can see clearly from this most recent election that all the money in the world, can't actually buy the office."
We can see clearly that you can, your argument relies on a lie.
"Democracy actually isn't for sale."
Says the people who buy it.
Re: (Score:2)
We can see clearly from this most recent election that all the money in the world, can't actually buy the office..
Really? Remind me again which side had the richest person on the planet on their side?
Please cite the campaign contributions from each side and the total amount each side spent, so we can compare them. They are all documented publicly, as per the law.
I think you will find that the Democrats had huge donors, Musk didn't really do anything in that area, and that Harris outspent Trump by a huge factor.
How do you feel about when Harris was begging people for a $25 donation, and then spent millions and millions of dollars on paying for those celebrities (like Oprah, who got over a million, and th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Harris' campaign burned through over 1 billion in less than 3 months and ended up 20 million in debt.
Re: (Score:2)
"Citizens United was about the broadcast of a film before an election, where the film was an advocacy piece against one of the candidates. That's, unequivocally speech, and political speech at that, obviously protected by the first amendment."
Pure misinformation. The case was about unlimited campaign contributions. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]:
"The court held 5–4 that the freedom of speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for
Re: (Score:2)
You say this because you know constitutional amendment has not been a viable remedy for any issue in many decades. More bad faith comments.
Waaah I can't get enough people to agree with me to change the process thru the mechanisms that were democratically aproved, waaah, but muh democracy...
The only people acting in bad faith are the people advocating for abandoning our ruling document without following the proper process, because they can don't like the results.
Maybe we should just take a page from you'alls playbook and call you "Il Duce"
Re: (Score:2)
The only people acting in bad faith are the people advocating for abandoning our ruling document without following the proper process, because they can don't like the results.
Like those who want special protections for Xtians?
Re: (Score:2)
Pure misinformation. The case was about unlimited campaign contributions. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]:
From your link: "During the 2008 political primary season, it sought to run three television advertisements to promote its political documentary Hillary: The Movie, a film that was critical of Hillary Clinton, and to air the movie on DirecTV.[9] The FEC found this plan to be in violation of the BCRA, including Section 203 which defined an "electioneering communication" as a broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that mentioned a candidate within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary, a
Re: (Score:2)
SCOTUS ignoring the plain language of the constitution
The 1st Amendment has never been giving a blanket permission for _all_ types of speech everywhere. We have plenty of laws that limit the speech, and the election campaign laws have been around since forever.
Re: (Score:3)
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that limiting “independent political spending” from corporations and other groups violates the First Amendment right to free speech.
Citizens United decision explained, in two words (Score:2)
"Money talks."
That's it. That's the basis of the whole decision. Money == Speech.
I happen to think that's a royal load of bullshit, but sophistry and bad argument are what the SCOTUS has been doing for years. And here we are.
I patent useing the letter e in software (Score:1)
I patent useing the letter e in software fee $00.250 per use.
And for wheel I want $250 per E
Why now? (Score:3)
Is there some reason to force this bill to the floor for a vote before the Senate and White House changes hands? What are the Dems doing?
Re: (Score:2)
What are the Dems doing?
Perhaps you should ask republican senator Thomas Tillis who sponsored the bill. https://www.congress.gov/bill/... [congress.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you should ask republican senator Thomas Tillis who sponsored the bill. https://www.congress.gov/bill/... [congress.gov]
Or, from your own link, ask Democrat senator Chris Coons who is the bill's co-sponsor [congress.gov].
Fucking everyone over for fun and profit is one of the few things that pretty reliably receives bipartisan support.
Re: (Score:2)
This bill wouldn't make it to the floor without Schumer allowing it. Plus check the co sponsor.
Re: (Score:2)
How dare they do the work of the people. They should be like Republicans and only operate in ways that suit their grip on power.
Its just the committee (Score:2)
These bills might get out of the Subcommittee (why does that word have so many double letters?) on Intellectual Property, but that doesn't mean they will pass in the full Senate.
https://www.judiciary.senate.g... [senate.gov]
so lets crap ourselves again...? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
That is probably exactly why Trump wants it, for his crypto platform.
Trump has been communicating with everyone all along, including republicans in congress and other fascist world leaders, his hand has never come off the wheel on the reich hand side of the garbage truck.
Software should be copyrighted, not patented (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with saying that software should get copyright protection it that the more you think about software vs. hardware the harder it becomes to tell the difference.
I can start with a single of set primary inputs and implement: native code; behavioral model; gate-level model; transistor level model; FPGA configuration; integrated circuits. Any of those implementations can be inserted into a physical system into such a way that the user cannot tell which implementation was used. Try to justify why some
Re: (Score:2)
the more you think about software vs. hardware the harder it becomes to tell the difference
Software is just instructions executed by a hardware state machine. Those instructions may be interpreted a thousand different times by other instructions before executing any physical change on the state machine itself, but at the end of the day, it remains just that. Instructions.
That's the problem with software patents. The whole purpose of a patent is to ensure the public won't loose access to developed technology though a lack of documentation on it's construction. I.e. The instructions on how to ma
Re: (Score:2)
the concept of a novel thatâ(TM)s a mystery with a female detective. Then no one else could write that exact kind of book.
The courts would have to establish a legal precedent as to the definition of "female".
everything in the summary is wrong (Score:4, Funny)
"...two bills that would resurrect some of the most egregious software patents..."
The legislative branch cannot "resurrect" any patents, they have no power to do so.
"...courts would be compelled to approve software patents on mundane activities ..."
Courts do NOT approve patents.
"This would unleash a torrent of vague and overbroad software patents, which would be wielded by patent trolls to extort small businesses and individuals."
Well, it wouldn't because courts don't approve patents.
The US patent office is part of the executive branch. In this pathetic summary, the only claims made are that the legislative branch "resurrects" patents and the judicial branch "approves" them, neither of which can possibly be true. Classic /.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the bill won't "resurrect" any patents. But going forward, it might enable a flood of new junk patents. Many of which the courts will have to litigate. Or legitimate businesses won't risk a court case and avoid areas where such blocking patents have been granted, driving business overseas.
Re: (Score:2)
You've managed to write a post which is technically correct but also completely wrong at the same time.
The legislative branch cannot "resurrect" any patents, they have no power to do so.
[Ignoring that the legislative branch can do anything that's not forbidden by the constitution]
A bunch of utterly garbage patents were applied for and granted. These have been rendered unenforceable by various court rulings, but most of the patents haven't actually been struck down and removed from the books.
They are zombie
Re: (Score:2)
The courts ruled that various of these bogus software patents are invalid under current law. (courts rule on whether something is illegal under the law as it stands all the time) This new bill would change the law so that the bogus patents are valid (congress passing laws that overturn court rulings is not unusual). And then if the bill is passed, there will likely be court cases (where the people who's patents were declared invalid under the old laws go back to court with a new lawsuit under the new laws)
Thanks for the gift (Score:2)
If so this could simply be a gift to other countries to help build up their software industry.
Re: (Score:2)
For pure software I wonder if this will simply lead to an up tick in off shore software companies. If you company has no physical presence in the USA and is selling online then I don't see how USA patent law could be applied.
Patent laws are territorial, and affect the commerce of the country in which the patent resides. So, an offshore company might ignore a US patent, but then it could not sell its products in the US.
There are international agreements and treaties that simplify obtaining a patent simultaneously in multiple countries. However, that's not what you're talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
As for "international agreements and treaties that simplify obtaining a patent simultaneously in multiple countries" that is only going to cover patents that meet conditions of those
Re: (Score:2)
I realise there may be points I have overlooked but I don't see how the USA government can stop me selling to people in the USA unless they find a way to pressure my government or cut off payment methods. Both are blunt tools that are difficult to apply so would be largely ineffective against a large number of small players.
Well, it turns out you have a point. Short story is it's complicated, [foley.com] but importing into the USA a product that violates a US patent may be illegal, and likely is. Other situations aren't clear either, such as manufacturing a product or parts of it in the USA and exporting it, or other transactional complexities like having the goods pass through a foreign subsidiary first. The article covers many of them.
Re: (Score:2)
Did this pass the House? (Score:2)
If not, this is just Dems blowing smoke before they lose control, and this is a stupid thread.
Re: (Score:2)
this is just Dems blowing smoke
Sponsored by both an R and a D. I suspect that you will have to follow the money down a deep rabbit hole to find the actual beneficiaries.
Okay, let's look at the actual bill(s) (Score:2)
I support the mission of the EFF. However, I'm confused as to what they object to in these bills. The link in TFS is not very helpful. It mentions two bills:
The Patent Eligibility Restoration act, or PERA; [congress.gov] and
The Promoting and Respecting Economically Vital American Innovation Leadership Act, or PREVAIL. [congress.gov]
I don't read the first one (PERA) as though it lets someone patent mobile food ordering -- at least not without something special added. See the following in Section 101, Part (b):
“(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraph (2), a person may not obtain a patent for any of the following, if claimed as such:
[...]
“(B) (i) Subject to clause (ii), a process that is substantially economic, financial, business, social, cultural, or artistic, even though not less than 1 step in the process refers to a machine or manufacture.
“(ii) The process described in clause (i) shall not be excluded from eligibility for a patent if the process cannot practically be performed without the use of a machine or manufacture.
You can order food without a
Re: Okay, let's look at the actual bill(s) (Score:2)
PERA has a similar wording as the list of exceptions to patentability in the European Patent Convention art52.2, although the category of 'computer programs' is missing from the exceptions. And it's written by people who want to abolish the Alice SCOTUS jurisprudence.
Re: (Score:2)
You can order food without a mobile app
But it's "using the Internet".
Never mind that "the Internet" as a general class of communications technology is already effectively in the public domain. Any subclass of these claims is trivially obvious and not deserving of patent protection.
Bad for Open Source (Score:2)
Suing for patent violations requires visibility - in other words, if someone is violating my patent for widget mechanism, tear down the offending example and show the similarities.
Software is a different story, at least for closed-source. You can't (easily) go on a fishing expedition and get access to someone's source code just because you suspect something.
For Open Source Software, different story. The source is available, and it means that there is no expensive discovery process, or motioning back and for
Re: (Score:2)
In short, this could kill off OSS pretty easily.
Or kill off closed source software. If you can't see the source, examine it for similarities and place it into the public record* as a part of the court case, then it's not provably similar. Case dismissed.
*I'm against private parties using our courts for their private gain (civil cases) but sealing evidence and concealing it from the public (for whom the courts serve). If you want to settle a dispute on your own terms, have a fist-fight in the parking lot.
Re: (Score:2)
Open-source software protects itself with copyrights, not patents.
If an open-source project violated someone else's claim protected by a patent or copyright, then the remedy is to remove the offending code and use something else.
If a patent-troll filed patents for processes on which an open-source project already depends, then the open-source project could object on the grounds of "prior art."
If a patent-troll succeeded at obtaining a patent that blocks an existing project (open-source or otherwise) then ye
Re: Bad for Open Source (Score:2)
"could object on the grounds of "prior art.""
If you find "prior art".
But you suppose that software is worth patenting in the first place, which it should not be.
Software developers don't deserve protection of their speech under the 1st amendement?
Why should they be bothered to read and respect patents?
Re: (Score:2)
But you suppose that software is worth patenting in the first place, which it should not be.
I agree: it should not. I was just engaging in a "what if" reflection.
Re: (Score:2)
A patent-trolls like to go after the weakest "violator" to force those with deeper pockets to settle.
So, they'll go after the project first, since they can't afford to fight in most cases. Then they'll leverage that "victory" to attack anyone making money with that software.
Hope I'm wrong.
WTF are these assholes doing? (Score:2)
And it is not even Trump in power yet. At least have the decency to wait for him before you make more crappy laws.
Re: (Score:2)
>"And it is not even Trump in power yet. At least have the decency to wait for him before you make more crappy laws."
The executive branch doesn't make laws. It can either sign the bills made by the legislative branch into law, or veto them.
And if you think you have to wait for Trump to see bad laws passed by both parties/either party, then you haven't been paying much attention for a very, very long time.
Follow the money .. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Enjoy all the patent wars in the near future not even linux is going to be protected
Linux is protected by copyright, not patents.
Re: (Score:2)
All it takes is a fancy RV and an Alaskan vacation to get around that.
Re: (Score:2)
Explain. I'm genuinely curious. No, really.
Re: (Score:2)
Justice Thomas was forgiven on a $250k loan for a luxury RV. https://www.finance.senate.gov... [senate.gov]
Justice Alito accepted a luxury vacation from a billionaire who later had a case heard by the court. In any other instance a judge would have recused themselves from the case. Or at the minimum that would give you grounds for appeal. https://www.propublica.org/art... [propublica.org]
The same court also ruled that "gratuities" are not illegal. You just have to pay your bribe after the favor is complete. https://www.crowell.com/en/in [crowell.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I see now. Yeah, those two guys are rotten.
I think it's appropriate to fear the cabal that the Supremes may (will?) form with the White House in the months to come. Democracy hangs in the balance, folks.
Wrong tense? (Score:2)
I fear that democracy may have already been hanged. Our POTUS-elect has openly talked of being a dictator...
Re: (Score:2)
>"Our POTUS-elect has openly talked of being a dictator..."
It was a joke and said about quickly returning to his previous policies. But don't let that stop you from spreading FUD. Even left-wing Snopes will clarify with full context:
https://www.snopes.com/news/20... [snopes.com]
Sounds a lot like the "very fine people on both sides" taken completely out of context, too, doesn't it? Or are you still ignoring the "and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned tot
Re: (Score:2)
This is not as reassuring as you seem to think.
Re: (Score:2)
>"This is not as reassuring as you seem to think."
Well, I am not your therapist ;)
PS- not good form to alter quotations, although I give it a pass because it is at least funny.
Re: (Score:2)
Nor do I expect you to be. :)
What I mean to convey is that your post seems to make the point that, since Trump was "only joking", we should discount his "dictator" comments.
My point is that I don't trust him — and given his known penchant for patent lying, I see grounds for that mistrust. Given also the team he is assembling, I see more reason to worry.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, just ran across this article earlier today:
Trump Makes Chilling Joke About Staying in Power Forever
Donald Trump isn’t so sure about the two-term limit.
https://newrepublic.com/post/188363/donald-trump-joke-power-forever [newrepublic.com]
Yeah, I don't think he's "just joking". We're in for a shit ride.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm waiting to see what happens when he is sentenced next week in the New York hush-money trial. If he's sentenced to any time, will he serve it during his term? Will he be forced to? And if not, will a jail cell be waiting for him when he gets out of office?
Of course, this is to say nothing about the Georgia RICO case against him.
Both of these trials are state-based, so there is no presidential pardon possible. But perhaps even the federal trials can "go to sleep" if Jack Smith shuts them down appropriatel
Re: (Score:2)
Snopes has collected criticism from both the left and the right.
If you think they fact-check the right more often than the left, then consider population bias: maybe the right just tells more porkies than the left.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Linux is protected by IBM, not copyrights.
Re: (Score:2)
Linux is protected by IBM, not copyrights.
IBM certainly likes Linux, but IBM doesn't own it. [ibm.com]
IBM has contributed to Linux, and I believe it holds the copyright on its contributions. I don't think they could protect any code on which they don't hold copyright. See here, under "Open source software and intellectual property." [ibm.com]
Re: Enjoy (Score:2)
IBM is one of the companies shadow writing this bill, together with Qualcomm. Tillis organized a press conférence years ago where it was clear who participated in the drafting.
Re: (Score:2)
>"Linux is protected by copyright, not patents."
Actually, Linux (and associated FOSS) is also protected [indirectly] by patent pools.
https://www.zdnet.com/article/... [zdnet.com]
https://www.openinventionnetwo... [openinventionnetwork.com]