Obama Targets Patent Trolls with Proposed Legislative Changes

[Z400Racer37]

Scandals? What scandals? Check President Obama's job approval polls. Hasn't dropped an inch.

Just... Wrong.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/06/03/Obama-Approval-Rating-Hits-12-Month-Low

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57586824/poll-amid-scandals-obamas-approval-dips/

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Dec...oval-rating-slides-Scandals-taking-toll-video

They're only scandals in the fevered minds of Republicans. The rest of us see through all of the bloviating coming from the right.

So, you find nothing scandalous about a president who just today reaffirmed his and his administration's confidence in an Attorney General who clearly lied to congress MULTIPLE TIMES UNDER OATH, and thus has perjured himself while simultaneously giving the American people, journalists, and reporters around the country the finger? We should have an "off the record" meeting about this. Oh, wait, he got shot down for that one didn't he. hmm. I'd confide in that too. smdh *Rolls eyes*

You have no hesitations about the President expressing "outrage" to what the IRS has done, and then saying NOTHING about the IRS wanting to investigate THEMSELVES? Especially when we now know that high level officials in the white house were well aware of the targeting well before the American public found out about it? Not to mention the fact that the president seems to find out about every major negative news event involving his administration at the same time we do??? or by "reading about it in the paper"?!?! WTF?? And you don't consider any of this to be scandalous?? Are you really that hopelessly inept??

I'm not even going to bother getting into detail over the situation around Benghazi. I just want to say that it is absolutely sickening that a President and his administration would pick themselves and their political careers over the lives of 4 Americans, and try to cover up a terrorist attack, which was obvious to anyone involved, and blame it on a YouTube video. Sickening. Un-American. Isn't it phenomenal that for almost 9 months, congress has been after the administration to fully release materials relevant to the situation in Benghazi, and yet, they STILL have not received the majority of what they have asked for. Completely egregious and inexcusable.

Yet, when we raid Bin-Laden's compound and kill him, we have to the minute details released of where the President and his administration were, what they were doing, the decisions they were making THE DAY THAT IT HAPPENED. Oh. The. Glory.

The most transparent administration is looking pretty damn opaque right about now, but I guess that has nothing to do with the President. Just every high ranking official that works under him. I mean how could he possibly know of or be able to evaluate the character of the people who run the various departments of government which he, as the PRESIDENT, is responsible for? And why would he go and hold them ACCOUNTABLE for being so allegedly deceitful to him? I guess thats a little outrageous to expect from him though, I mean after all, he's really more of a "big picture" guy anyways right? Right.

And you think this is all a bunch of "bloviating" from whiny Republicans?? Maybe that characterization would more accurately describe a completely unformed blog post, posted by someone who clearly has no idea what the hell they're talking about, who randomly places SAT words, that no one ever uses, into their sentences to try to make themselves feel more intelligent than they actually are.

How can people be so ignorant... smdh

 

[GoldenJoe]

FBI. Did Osama kill 30,000 a year?

Oh. You want to talk gun violence. Let's do that. I only need two points.

1) Nearly all guns used in homicides are handguns, many of which are obtained illegally. Most guns, however, are used defensively by law abiding citizens. A 1994 survey conducted by the US Center for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders 498,000 times per year. Based on survey data published in the 2000 Journal of Quantitative Criminology, US civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime over 980,000 times each year. It has also been demonstrated time after time that gun control either increases crime (1970's Washington DC, post 1997 England), or reduces the rate at which murders decline to below that of the national average (Chicago at 17% vs US' 25%). In Chicago's case, handgun murders have increased 40% despite the overall decrease in the murder rate.

2) If that's a bit too well-informed for your taste, ask yourself this: Why is it that when someone bombs a building, we blame the bombers, but when someone shoots another person, we blame the gun?

 

[cmChimera]

Since the very beginning of the IT industry, software has been protected by copyright, period.

Copyright is very limited in scope and it has no ability to protect actual functionality. You need patent protection for this.

 

[macs4nw]

.....According to President Obama, patent-holding firms are a drain on progress. The firms, he says, "don't actually produce anything themselves. They're just trying to essentially leverage and hijack someone else's idea to see if they can extort some money out of them."

Article Link: Obama Targets Patent Trolls with Proposed Legislative Changes

Hallelujah!

 

[GoldenJoe]

How can people be so ignorant... smdh

They didn't come to their views through a lack of ignorance. You won't be able to convince them with logic. Just do your best to leave behind a well thought out argument for the undecided people who may happen across your post one day.

 

[3282868]

Oh. You want to talk gun violence. Let's do that. I only need two points.

1) Nearly all guns used in homicides are handguns, many of which are obtained illegally. Most guns, however, are used defensively by law abiding citizens. A 1994 survey conducted by the US Center for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders 498,000 times per year. Based on survey data published in the 2000 Journal of Quantitative Criminology, US civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime over 980,000 times each year. It has also been demonstrated time after time that gun control either increases crime (1970's Washington DC, post 1997 England), or reduces the rate at which murders decline to below that of the national average (Chicago at 17% vs US' 25%). In Chicago's case, handgun murders have increased 40% despite the overall decrease in the murder rate.

2) If that's a bit too well-informed for your taste, ask yourself this: Why is it that when someone bombs a building, we blame the bombers, but when someone shoots another person, we blame the gun?

There is so much wrong with the above I don't know where to begin.

First, statistician know survey's are not a valid statistical source, let alone one from 1994. Having studied and working in psychology, statistics based on survey's are the least reliable, if at all.

Second, you literally cherry picked points from "JustFacts", a source that is known for being anything but "just facts" and supported by Republican groups and coalitions such as the NRA.

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

In fact, all of your points mentioned are directly copied and pasted from "Just Facts'" opinion oped:

* A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.[20]

* Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18]

Some points you failed to mention:

* Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the Chicago murder rate has averaged 17% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 25% lower

While quoting this just below it:

* Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the percentage of Chicago murders committed with handguns has averaged about 40% higher than it was before the law took effect.[55]

I could go on and on. Next time, get your "facts" from an objective, unbiased source and from more than one "source". Being from the U.K., I cannot even begin to address how ill informed and wrong the supposed stat's on murders/crime involving guns are in your remarks and that article. Just, ignorance.

I LOVE this piece from "Redstate", a supporter of "JustFacts", that claims "Hoplophobia May Be Aiding Gun Crime":

Hoplophobia – Morbid Fear of Weapons, is very common and irrational. It should never be involved in making gun policy. Respect for firearms is a must, but a small portion of society lives in mortal fear of guns.

“Hoplophobia” [List of phobias], on the forum [http://www.DefensiveHandguns.com] is now recognized in the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders). Hoplophobes Think Nobody Should Have A Gun.

Note the false correlation referencing the DSM recognition of "Hoplophobia" and the recent rise in gun violence and overwhelming American view that gun control laws need to be strengthened.

Here's an oped piece to match yours, that has more significance with actual facts dismissing the talking points you attempted to pass as significant statistical analysis:

The NRA’s War on America

The NRA has morphed from a group that represented ordinary gun owners into a front group for the firearms industry, whose profits are increasingly dependent on the sale of military-bred weapons like assault rifles.

Wayne LaPierre, the NRA’s executive vice president, is in the business of selling the American public a “Hellish World” in order to frighten them into buying into the idea that their survival requires them to buy more guns, join the NRA and organize opposition to gun control measures. The NRA has been called a “cynical, mercenary political cult” by a former employee.

Being close with then Sen. Gabriel Giffords, and having friends who lost children in Sandy Hook, I'm well educated on the gun culture that has permeated the minds of some Americans and the fear mongering by a multi-billion dollar gun industry. In recent years, cities such as Los Angeles and New York have had programs, "Cash for Guns", in which people may bring in fire arms, no questions asked, for cash. Thousands of illegal firearms were taken off the streets. In Los Angeles, one man brought in TWO rocket launchers:

Rocket launchers, military weapons left at L.A. gun buyback

Leaders, Police Collecting ‘Cash For Guns’ In Brooklyn

The public has turned in 6,011 guns in the nine anti-gun drives held since 2008, according to the Brooklyn Clergy.

As of May 8, 2010, there were:

1,696 revolvers

1,161 semi-automatics

111 sawed-off shotguns

745 shotguns

94 assault weapons

1,225 rifles

979 others

That was in 2010, more have been taken off the streets in major cities since.

Check, and mate.

 

[Z400Racer37]

They didn't come to their views through a lack of ignorance. You won't be able to convince them with logic. Just do your best to leave behind a well thought out argument for the undecided people who may happen across your post one day.

Hmm. Good point, and well said. Thanks for the perspective.

 

[tevion5]

Wouldn't be a problem if the branches get off their asses and work together on it. Unfortunately, there's nearly always a conflict of interests between the parties. :/

If one party suggests water is wet the other would be certain to oppose!

 

[Earendil]

I have a friend that patented a number of ideas for the medical industry. He has neither the capital, investors, or desire to deal with production. He has made a decent living off people or companies "buying-out" his rights and receiving royalties.

Why is that a bad thing?

Why can he ONLY have a patent if he's ONLY going to make something?

I don't see anything preventing him from doing that in what is proposed. What your friend would not be allowed to do is hold the patent in secret, and wait until a few other people came up with the same idea on their own, produced a product, sold that product, and then sue whichever company was making the most money from it. That is now what patents are supposed to do. They are supposed to allow for exactly what your friend did, have an "Inventor" with a great idea pen that idea down, and propose it to big companies. If they like it, they can "buy" the idea from him if it has merit.

And it is an over-reach of Executive Powers but who's counting at this point. That silly thing called the US Constitution doesn't seem to matter anymore.

Apparently, understanding history and the constitution doesn't seem to matter any more. Every President in US history has issued at least one executive order. And while it's not explicitly called out in the constituion, it does have some grounding in it. In any case, it's nothing new, and this particular use of it hardly seems like it's dramatic on any particular level.

And if it IS overstepping his bounds, the supreme court has the power to reverse it anyway. See Executive order 10340, and what the supreme court did with that one

I get this feeling that those that think Obama is doing something new and special here are both young and ignorant. And to clarify ignorant, I would consider it acceptable (though not ideal) to not understand details of our government and history. However, at the point when you start spouting off on things you should know you know nothing about, that becomes ignorance in my book.

 

[Piggie]

If you think only Apple is the problem, then YOU are part of the problem. Law is for everybody or it's unjust.

If you noticed, I said companies LIKE Apple, not just Apple.

I'm all for protecting an invention, as I think we all are. The problem is coming from them trying to protect an idea.

 

[inkswamp]

This may be the first thing Obama has done well in office.

Yeah, remember when he fumbled that whole killing Osama bin Laden thing? What a clown he is!

I love American-style short attention span political discourse.

 

[portishead]

Oh. You want to talk gun violence. Let's do that. I only need two points.

1) Nearly all guns used in homicides are handguns, many of which are obtained illegally. Most guns, however, are used defensively by law abiding citizens. A 1994 survey conducted by the US Center for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders 498,000 times per year. Based on survey data published in the 2000 Journal of Quantitative Criminology, US civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime over 980,000 times each year. It has also been demonstrated time after time that gun control either increases crime (1970's Washington DC, post 1997 England), or reduces the rate at which murders decline to below that of the national average (Chicago at 17% vs US' 25%). In Chicago's case, handgun murders have increased 40% despite the overall decrease in the murder rate.

2) If that's a bit too well-informed for your taste, ask yourself this: Why is it that when someone bombs a building, we blame the bombers, but when someone shoots another person, we blame the gun?

Only a gun nut would use some crazy statistics to justify the murder of thousands of humans. I'm embarrassed for you.

 

[Coleman2010]

Just... Wrong.

The poll of polls has him at 49.5 approve 46.2 disapprove which is his average.

http://polltracker.talkingpointsmemo.com/contests/obama-job-approval-us

So, you find nothing scandalous about a president who just today reaffirmed his and his administration's confidence in an Attorney General who clearly lied to congress MULTIPLE TIMES UNDER OATH, and thus has perjured himself while simultaneously giving the American people, journalists, and reporters around the country the finger? We should have an "off the record" meeting about this. Oh, wait, he got shot down for that one didn't he. hmm. I'd confide in that too. smdh *Rolls eyes*

Eric Holder did not lie or perjure himself. He said he was not involved in the "potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material."

What he signed off on was a search warrant. That is not prosecution. There was no contradiction between Holder's testimony and his involvement in the case because Holder said he was not involved in the "near prosecution" of journalists and Rosen had not been prosecuted.

The rest of your comment comes straight from FauxNews and the right wing echo chamber. (As if breitbart.com is a reputable centrist website) None of it based in fact. As I stated before. Only Republicans see a scandal where there isn't one. There is no point in arguing right wing fever dreams.

 

[portishead]

Just... Wrong.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/06/03/Obama-Approval-Rating-Hits-12-Month-Low

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57586824/poll-amid-scandals-obamas-approval-dips/

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Dec...oval-rating-slides-Scandals-taking-toll-video




So, you find nothing scandalous about a president who just today reaffirmed his and his administration's confidence in an Attorney General who clearly lied to congress MULTIPLE TIMES UNDER OATH, and thus has perjured himself while simultaneously giving the American people, journalists, and reporters around the country the finger? We should have an "off the record" meeting about this. Oh, wait, he got shot down for that one didn't he. hmm. I'd confide in that too. smdh *Rolls eyes*

You have no hesitations about the President expressing "outrage" to what the IRS has done, and then saying NOTHING about the IRS wanting to investigate THEMSELVES? Especially when we now know that high level officials in the white house were well aware of the targeting well before the American public found out about it? Not to mention the fact that the president seems to find out about every major negative news event involving his administration at the same time we do??? or by "reading about it in the paper"?!?! WTF?? And you don't consider any of this to be scandalous?? Are you really that hopelessly inept??

I'm not even going to bother getting into detail over the situation around Benghazi. I just want to say that it is absolutely sickening that a President and his administration would pick themselves and their political careers over the lives of 4 Americans, and try to cover up a terrorist attack, which was obvious to anyone involved, and blame it on a YouTube video. Sickening. Un-American. Isn't it phenomenal that for almost 9 months, congress has been after the administration to fully release materials relevant to the situation in Benghazi, and yet, they STILL have not received the majority of what they have asked for. Completely egregious and inexcusable.

Yet, when we raid Bin-Laden's compound and kill him, we have to the minute details released of where the President and his administration were, what they were doing, the decisions they were making THE DAY THAT IT HAPPENED. Oh. The. Glory.

The most transparent administration is looking pretty damn opaque right about now, but I guess that has nothing to do with the President. Just every high ranking official that works under him. I mean how could he possibly know of or be able to evaluate the character of the people who run the various departments of government which he, as the PRESIDENT, is responsible for? And why would he go and hold them ACCOUNTABLE for being so allegedly deceitful to him? I guess thats a little outrageous to expect from him though, I mean after all, he's really more of a "big picture" guy anyways right? Right.

And you think this is all a bunch of "bloviating" from whiny Republicans?? Maybe that characterization would more accurately describe a completely unformed blog post, posted by someone who clearly has no idea what the hell they're talking about, who randomly places SAT words, that no one ever uses, into their sentences to try to make themselves feel more intelligent than they actually are.

How can people be so ignorant... smdh

Obama isn't perfect and of course he's made mistakes. The Benghazi situation is dumb and you can't justify any reason why it's Obamas fault since obviously he doesn't want 4 people killed, and he did say it was terrorism, and even if he didn't, it would had no effect on the election. Fox News made this story up, nobody else cares. I haven't seen Obama anywhere near anything related to the IRS scandal. Just repubs wanting to blame Obama since he's the president. They blast him for anything tht goes wrong, and give hi, no credit for anything he does right anyway. Not only that, they fight him kicking and screaming like a 2 year old. Sadly, they are damaging this nation in the name of buffoonery.

 

[KentuckyHouse]

And I could have sworn you just called me crazy...

If the shoe fits...

----------

Source?

Here's a source for you, Mr. Tea Party. How many Americans have terrorists killed since (and including) September 11th?

Now, during the same time frame, how many Americans have been killed with a gun?

Case closed.

 

[Mac'nCheese]

Another proof that US americans are the most stupid people in the world.
Even now that you have a half intelligent president, you do everything to stay dumb.
Really sad. Once the world admired the US, but since at least two decades you turned into fat, brainless zombies.

Says the guy who totally missed the point of post he quoted. Oh, irony!

 

[scoobydoo99]

This is terrible. Another example of powerful corporations protecting their profits and demanding that the legal system is only for THEIR use, not for others.

Since when does one have to justify going to court to enforce the LAW and protect their rights? If I purchase and hold a patent, who is Apple or Samsung or whomever to declare that I CAN'T defend my patent in court because they don't approve of how I'm using (or not using) the patent I own?? They want strong patent laws for their own purposes, but don't want to have to play by the rules when someone uses that very system against them.

And yes, I understand that the change is being suggested by Obama, technically not Apple, Samsung, etc. Obviously, they are behind it since they own the government. All those personal meetings with Obama can pay off, eh Tim Cook?

 

[Shrink]

Says the guy who totally missed the point of post he quoted. Oh, irony!

It must be my incredibly dry and subtle wit.

Next time I'll be a bit more direct...

 

[scoobydoo99]

The best fix would be to eliminate all patenting including all past patents.



Perhaps you're a troll but I'll answer the question as if it were serious. The problem with the patent system is patent trolls sue without producing products, patent clerks who rubber stamp things that should never have been patented, all the money wasted on litigation that should be put into research and production, the hyper extended time frames, the failure of patents to end as they were originally intended... The list goes on. The system is a shambles and should be trashed.

Ideas are a dime a dozen. It is implementation, production and marketing that should return the reward. Eliminate patents and let people prove their ideas in the market place.

The law doesn't require me to produce a product to hold a patent. What if I patent my idea but can't bring it to market right away? Apple and Samsung should not be able to take it away from me because they are giant corporations with tons of money to destroy the competition. They can't have strong patent laws for only THEIR use - laws should apply equally to all. This erosion of equality under the law and the usurping of the law to only benefit the rich and powerful is obscene. Once again, the corporate elite have (apparently) convinced many of the bourgeois to support their co-opting of the justice system to further their continued acquisition of wealth.

I agree that there are excesses in the current system. But freezing out some patent holders based upon whether they produce products or not is unfair.

 

[theanimaster]

FINALLY!!! Way to go Big O~!!! We've been waiting for this for so long!!

 

[shartypants]

Its a good sign that at least something is being done, let's just hope it actually works.

 

[Tech198]

What he smiling about...

 

[3282868]

Hmm. Good point, and well said. Thanks for the perspective.

Except, his points were incorrect, based on subjective survey's, and, well, plain wrong.

 

[krravi]

Oh. You want to talk gun violence. Let's do that. I only need two points.

1) Nearly all guns used in homicides are handguns, many of which are obtained illegally. Most guns, however, are used defensively by law abiding citizens. A 1994 survey conducted by the US Center for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders 498,000 times per year. Based on survey data published in the 2000 Journal of Quantitative Criminology, US civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime over 980,000 times each year. It has also been demonstrated time after time that gun control either increases crime (1970's Washington DC, post 1997 England), or reduces the rate at which murders decline to below that of the national average (Chicago at 17% vs US' 25%). In Chicago's case, handgun murders have increased 40% despite the overall decrease in the murder rate.

2) If that's a bit too well-informed for your taste, ask yourself this: Why is it that when someone bombs a building, we blame the bombers, but when someone shoots another person, we blame the gun?

Because bombs are not a commodity you can purchase freely. So we call them bombers because they went to extra ordinary lengths either to procure one or make one.

 

[marksman]

Hah, it's so funny how a president gets in a scandal or two and then suddenly his smiling face starts appearing on every web site in the world with him suddenly making various announcements about this that and other -- anything to create news that is different from the scandal news

I don't mean that in negative way. although I do suppose it is a bit sad...

More like a second term president doing stuff

I have no idea what scandal you are even refering to...

----------

He can propose whatever he wants, it has to pass Congress, which should only happen by the time Haley's comet comes around.

Not true. Some of these changes can be implemented via executive order.

----------

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Obama is the head of the executive branch, is he not? That is not how laws are supposed to be created.

Putting all that "checks and balances" nonsense aside, since it's obviously not important anymore, what do you suppose his motivation is for this order? To draw attention away from his numerous scandals? Lobbying from Google (remember his connections to Eric Schmidt)?

Watch very carefully.

Now it is numerous scandals? Where do you guys source your information? There are no scandals going on.

It worries me how some people are so easily influenced by rhetoric thrown out by speakers with extreme agendas.

So perhaps in your bubble there are scandals the president is involved in, if you step outside your bubble you might realize nobody knows what you are referring to at all.