Obama Targets Patent Trolls with Proposed Legislative Changes

[thekev]

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.

Proposing legislation isn't really the same as creating a law. Congress has the power to ignore it. I guess I'm puzzled why you care about something that is really nothing more than a proposal.

 

[3282868]

Proposing legislation isn't really the same as creating a law. Congress has the power to ignore it. I guess I'm puzzled why you care about something that is really nothing more than a proposal.

Don't ya know? Barack Hussein 'Bama wants our guns, an we ain't gonna let him take away our rights! We gots to fight 'em red coats and the gov'ment with their FEMA death camps and liberal agenda.

What amazes me about the vocal few rallying for gun rights is the fact that our military has weaponry that makes firearms look like plastic toys. If they wanted to attack us, no amount of firearms or panic rooms will save us. Let them own all the guns they want, natural selection will work this one out.

 

[Fishticks]

Good, but will Apple be allowed to go on trolling Samsung ?

 

[GermanyChris]

Way to take care of the people Obama. Meanwhile Monsanto is poisoning us all and you have nothing to say to that.

Campaign contibutions

And German government is better? Whatever, with all our flaws we are still one of the best nations on this earth (if not THE best nation on this earth)

In many ways, yes it is. The great part is we let it evolve into what it is today yet we cannot evolve our own. That Marshall guy was pretty smart.

Then why write any software at all? Some poor slob develops an application that does amazing things. Apple, or Microsoft, or Google, or whoever comes along and copies it and makes it part of their suite of apps that come with the operating system. No need to pay the guy who wrote the code one red cent. Let him eat bread and water. Under the current scenario these tech giants have to pay big bucks to buy out or license software. Under your scenario they just kick the little guy to the curb, take his work for themselves, and move on to bigger profits. And it's not like some little outfit is going to take OS X from Apple and use it to any advantage.

Think things through. Remember the little guy who invented the intermittent windshield wiper blade? The big auto manufacturers got him to sell it to them for something like $50,000.00, then put them on every model. It took him decades but he finally got them to pay him what it was worth.

Not so with your logic. Software IS patentable and it should be.

Copyright software, not patient it.

 

[Thunderhawks]

I hold three citizenships, visited dozen countries, lived in three, and chose to be here. And I've worked in 18 states. So don't play that card with me bud.

God knows the US has its problems, but you can't deny it is one of the best countries in the world. I hate the 'Everything is stupid in America' statements because they are simply not true.

Next -->

It's all personal preference. I am also not American and have seen the world quite a bit.

As for "one" of the best to me it depends on what stage in life you are at and what ones personal situation is.
Older people without money would be better off in other countries, and so would sick people.

Nice to be here, but with a realistic view about "best" please!

 

[jona2125]

So let me get this straight. This is a legislative relief to allow patents to be better distributed for wider functional use across products. And Apple is the company being hurt by the cause of this? I am kind of twistedly confused because I thought Apple litigated just about anyone on a lot of the most functional patents around. Seems backwards if you ask me. I'm all for it just expect to see Apple crying later when they can't recklessly sue.

 

[Tiger8]

It's all personal preference. I am also not American and have seen the world quite a bit.

As for "one" of the best to me it depends on what stage in life you are at and what ones personal situation is.
Older people without money would be better off in other countries, and so would sick people.

Nice to be here, but with a realistic view about "best" please!

True, no one size fits all here, and you can't hold countries next to each other and compare, each one has it's unique features and flaws. That said though, as far as 'one of the best', there are some matrix about overall quality of life, employment rate, mortality rate, social infrastructure, economy, and other factors that again don't necessarily mean that everyone here is happy (or that this is the only place to be happy in) but overall we are doing fine.

 

[jasvncnt]

The journalist phone tapping is bad I agree but you're exaggerating as it was only AP. Fast and Furious was also a disaster but that is old news. Second amendment should be restricted though. Gun nuts are doing more damage than bin laden. I think you need to check your sources, seems you have some bad intel.

Man, now you sound like Hillary....

 

[cmChimera]

Good, but will Apple be allowed to go on trolling Samsung ?

Learn the definition of patent troll.

 

[GoldenJoe]

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:





Some points you failed to mention:



While quoting this just below it:



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":



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





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



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

Check, and mate.

That's a fancy way of saying "I have no legitimate argument against those facts, so I'm going to attempt to discredit your source in order to invalidate them." Checkmate, indeed.

----------

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.

Oh...well then, what about knives, hammers, and clubs? Do you need to go to extraordinary lengths to get those, or do we have special laws for their sale?

----------

If the shoe fits...
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.

Well, since we're comparing things that have nothing to do with each other, how many Americans were killed during the same time frame by cars? Alcohol? Tobacco?

Don't quit your day job to become a prosecutor, Mr Case Closed.

 

[MacSince1990]

About time.

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

Least inspired, most predictable post in the thread.

Well done. *Slow clap*

 

[Gemütlichkeit]

What, specifically, is broken about the patent system?

I recommend you listen to last weeks episode of This American Life. It's on this very topic. You'll hear how broken the system is and how people are taking advantage of it. Right now it's hindering advancements.

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/496/when-patents-attack-part-two

 

[Coleman2010]

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

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.

Scandals? What scandals?

New Wall Street Journal poll numbers out today. (Wall Street Journal. The bastion of liberalism)

48% approved of the job he is doing as President and 47% disapproved, matching his rating in a Journal/NBC poll in April.

Americans at this point don't hold the president personally responsible for any of the three major controversies that have dominated Washington since early May, the Journal/NBC poll found. In each case, the share saying Mr. Obama isn't responsible or only slightly responsible was larger than those who say he is mainly or totally responsible.

http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-approval-in-new-wsjnbc-poll-2013-6

So everyone else in American is ignorant except for you two.

 

[Fishticks]

Learn the definition of patent troll.

Learnt.
Will Apple be allowed to go on trolling Samsung then ?

 

[snberk103]

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.....

I'm with bedifferent on this one... I don't know where to begin. This is just so wrong.
Yes, most homicides are caused by guns, and most of those are by handguns. However... about half of the gun related homicides are committed by a family member, during an argument, using a gun in that had been bought for self-defence. Another quarter of gun related homicides are committed by a friend or an acquaintance - during an argument.

"-Firearm deaths that occurred in King County [Washington] homes involved friends or acquaintances 12 times as often as strangers.

-A 1993 study showed that firearms kept in the home were associated with an increased risk of homicide occurring in the home, especially by a family member or intimate acquaintance. Compared to households without a firearm kept in the home, the odds of homicide among households that kept a firearm was 2.7 times higher." Link

Note that Washington state is below the national average for gun deaths.

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.

No. What has been demonstrated is the correlative association of a changing demographic to crimes in general. In other words - when a population changes (gets richer or poorer, older or younger, etc etc) all sorts of things change. Including crime rates. Sometimes there are changes to laws that randomly coincide with changing demographics. Sometimes the laws are changed because of the changing demographic. But there is nothing that proves that higher gun ownership prevents crime, and in fact the majority of correlational evidence points the other way.

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?

Could it be because a bomb is something that a person has to deliberately go and create, while the majority of guns are sold with the intention that they will be used - under certain circumstances - to shoot someone?

....
Oh...well then, what about knives, hammers, and clubs? Do you need to go to extraordinary lengths to get those, or do we have special laws for their sale?

Knives, hammers, clubs are designed to used as tools. When used to kill someone the tool is being for unintended purpose. The vast majority of guns are designed to be used to kill someone.

...
Don't quit your day job to become a prosecutor, Mr Case Closed.

 

[cmChimera]

Learnt.
Will Apple be allowed to go on trolling Samsung then ?

Right. Exercising patent rights is automatically trolling. Good job.

 

[jasvncnt]

I'm with bedifferent on this one... I don't know where to begin. This is just so wrong.
Yes, most homicides are caused by guns, and most of those are by handguns. However... about half of the gun related homicides are committed by a family member, during an argument, using a gun in that had been bought for self-defence. Another quarter of gun related homicides are committed by a friend or an acquaintance - during an argument.

Im confused...are you against someone legally owning a gun?

 

[portishead]

Im confused...are you against someone legally owning a gun?

We'd certainly be better off without them as a society. A few people would have to find a new hobby, but a small price to pay I think you'd agree.

----------

Man, now you sound like Hillary....

And you sound like rush? Where are you going with this?

----------

That's a fancy way of saying "I have no legitimate argument against those facts, so I'm going to attempt to discredit your source in order to invalidate them." Checkmate, indeed.

----------



Oh...well then, what about knives, hammers, and clubs? Do you need to go to extraordinary lengths to get those, or do we have special laws for their sale?

----------



Well, since we're comparing things that have nothing to do with each other, how many Americans were killed during the same time frame by cars? Alcohol? Tobacco?

Don't quit your day job to become a prosecutor, Mr Case Closed.

Gun nuts always give the same nonsensical responses. Also that was in reply to guns killing more people than Osama in a year. So his comment was relevant. Enjoy your guns though, you won't have them for long. Public support for your second amendment rights are negligible. It's only a matter of time.

 

[jasvncnt]

We'd certainly be better off without them as a society. A few people would have to find a new hobby, but a small price to pay I think you'd agree.

I would agree on society would be better off without. But you know that will never happen. There will always be a way for some people to illegally get a gun and do whatever they plan on doing with it. So there are some of us that if wanted could and should be able to legally own one. Its my Second Amendment

 

[snberk103]

Im confused...are you against someone legally owning a gun?

Why are you confused? I never stated a preference either way. Also... don't assume I am an American.

I think it would wonderful start if guns in the US were as tightly controlled as, say.... cars.

 

[GoldenJoe]

Enjoy your guns though, you won't have them for long. Public support for your second amendment rights are negligible. It's only a matter of time.

Support so negligible that the democrats got hammered when they tried to further infringe on our gun rights earlier this year.

But hey, why worry about little details like reality? The narrative is all that matters.

 

[jasvncnt]

Why are you confused? I never stated a preference either way. Also... don't assume I am an American.

I think it would wonderful start if guns in the US were as tightly controlled as, say.... cars.

What? Where did I assume anything? I dont care if your an American or not lol.

 

[portishead]

Support so negligible that the democrats got hammered when they tried to further infringe on our gun rights earlier this year.

But hey, why worry about little details like reality? The narrative is all that matters.

No it was lobbyists. Are you really that naive to think politicians care about what the people want?

----------

I would agree on society would be better off without. But you know that will never happen.

I give you half credit for at least admitting that even if you think it won't happen.

 

[snberk103]

What? Where did I assume anything? I dont care if your an American or not lol.

Never said you did... but people often do. So I just wanted to get it out of the way.

 

[GoldenJoe]

No it was lobbyists. Are you really that naive to think politicians care about what the people want?

Obviously, it was the lobbyists that run the country behind the scenes. Except for Obamacare. And the keystone pipeline. And the NDAA. And the tax hike in January. I'm sure it's not that you're in the minority on the issue - it's just that the evil lobbyists woke up from their nap in time to stop that one.

Kinda funny how whenever conservative principles prevail, it's lobbyists operating in the shadows, but when liberals win behind closed doors (Obamacare) or in the middle of the night (NDAA) it's progress!

Have you considered the possibility that some politicians might actually take the consequences of future elections for themselves and their party into consideration when debating an issue? Who am I kidding? You live outside of reality.