I don't know if the writer of this article is ignorant or cynical (leaning towards the latter), but spinning section 18 as fair takes a healthy dose of one or both. Section 18, at its root, is another attempt to invalidate a handful of patents owned by DataTreasury because their existence is expensive for a few financial institutions.
"Patent reform," in this case, means "pay us^H^H^H^H^H^Hdonate a lot of money and we'll pass a special law to try and invalidate an inconvenient patent."
Note: I'm not arguing one way or another about the validity of these patents. Even if they're invalid, passing a law specifically targeting them and claiming that it's somehow a fair attempt at patent reform is insanity.
In a perverse way I think that all the recent patent law-suits and general trolling is a good thing. The more egregious the behavior and the law-suits (lodsys, IV etc) the more attention it will get from the media till finally we will do something about it. I hope that the trolls unchecked greed will be their undoing.
The thing with greed is it never collapses on itself, it gathers and gathers like some sort of black hole until a single entity has all the money. See greed is something that drives someone to gain one of the few things that can allow them to continue their paths unchecked. My point being that I doubt hoping they just undo themselves is going to do anything, the defendants winning against odds and setting new patent precedents, and the people of these united states however, can do something. We need a way to justify what's really a patent infringement. I haven't the least bit idea on where to start, but I think that's the area to start in.
I think it's odd that the NPR story didn't touch upon the fact that IV is backed by some of the biggest players, like Microsoft, Apple, eBay, Google, to name a few.
"Fair-minded Americans agree that intellectual property rights must be enforced if the nation’s unique brand of entrepreneurial capitalism is to thrive in an increasingly competitive 21st century."
Stating that your opinion is that of "fair-minded americans", now that's what I call objective journalism.
Nice article, but I don't believe in a congress that runs on lobbyists' money will solve the patent troll problem. Even with the section 18 it's too little, too late.
"Patent reform," in this case, means "pay us^H^H^H^H^H^Hdonate a lot of money and we'll pass a special law to try and invalidate an inconvenient patent."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DataTreasury#Ballard_patents
Note: I'm not arguing one way or another about the validity of these patents. Even if they're invalid, passing a law specifically targeting them and claiming that it's somehow a fair attempt at patent reform is insanity.