Technology Liberation Front: The Technology Liberation Front » Archive » More on the DataTreasury Patents
Steve R.
· 1 year ago
Back on Febraury 15, 2008 I left this comment on the Post's article. "The proposal is another non-solution that simply protects a special interest group and neglects the public as a whole. The "real" solution is to change the patent law so that this type of extortion would not be possible. So much for politicians making the "hard decisions".
Patents should never be granted for "concepts", "idea", or "business models". Furthermore, even if a patent is granted, and someone else independently (black box) develops a similar product, the first patent holder should NOT be able to claim "fees"."
Nick
· 1 year ago
Enabling and promoting innovation. That seems to be the number one answer on the campaign trail to solving problems with global warming issues and our troubled economy. As the candidates are out there pounding the pavement touting American innovation and how it holds the answers to our problems of rising food and fuel costs, the Congress is busy behind closed doors legislating away the very incentives that make inventing something viable and profitable to the inventor. If actions speak louder than words, as I believe they do, then what kind of message are we sending to our future innovators. Spend your time, your money and your investors money to fund and invent something valuable and then have your property rights legislated away so someone else who is more well funded and politically connected so that they can profit from it. I find it very interesting how everybody else is so generous with other peoples money. “Charity begins at home”. What happened to Democracy...and in an election year!
Tom Giovanetti
· 1 year ago
If you view getting you to own up to the facts of the story as bullying, I embrace the role. You've been awfully liberal with criticism and sarcasm of others, but if anyone does the same to you, it's apparently "bullying." I'm even more impressed with you now than I was before, Tim.
Tom Giovanetti
· 1 year ago
Tim,
Just for amusement as I sit here in an Admirals Club awaiting a flight, I challenge you to point out anything in my op/ed that was factually wrong or incorrect.
Note that I do not say anything about any particular patent being valid, or a good idea. I simply state the facts at hand and explain why what is going on would set a bad precedent. Could you please explain what in my op/ed is objectionable?
We know that you don't like patents, especially this kind of patent. You don't have to tell us that. But I don't defend business model patents in the op/ed, either--I simply point out that a patent that has withstood multiple challenges has stood up, and that bad guys are trying to do an end run around the judicial process, and that this is a bad idea. Instead of using my op/ed as an excuse to both slam me and riff against patents, how about telling me what in my op/ed is actually either wrong, incorrect, or misleading?
Or, failing that, admit you were wrong to criticize my piece?
Noel
· 1 year ago
Knowing Tim, he'll respond by dismissing this critique as "silly" or "obtuse," asking the rhetorical question of "what are patents good for to begin with," or totally going off on some analogy that amounts to an intellectual slight of hand.
Tim Lee
· 1 year ago
Tom, I never claimed anything in your op-ed was "factually wrong or incorrect." In fact, I explicitly acknowledged that I wasn't familiar with the amendment you were writing about, which is why I ended my second paragraph with the question, "Any body know what he might be referring to?"
However, I think my substantive criticism of your argument—that DataTreasury's patent is absurdly broad and that DataTreasury's behavior is extortionate—remains valid. We may actually agree on the policy conclusion—that the Session amendment is a bad idea—but I definitely don't agree with the way you painted DataTreasury as a hapless investor just trying to stop companies from stealing its "technology."
Tom Giovanetti
· 1 year ago
Tim,
It was sloppy of you to do a blog entry questioning accurate claims in an op/ed without bothering to do a simple news search to read articles that answered your question. It was, frankly, a cheap shot.
Further, if you had anything approaching even a neutral view of patents, you would see that DataTreasury is the victim here. To paint them as "extortionate" given how they are being screwed in this case is just morally confused--but I continually find the rabid anti-IP crowd to be morally confused, whether it is defending pharmaceutical counterfeitors, or defending large companies for trampling over the inventors and holders of property rights.
I only hope your moral confusion doesn't extend into other areas of life. But I remember you writing something arguing that people ought to leave their wifi access points open and encourage people to free-ride on their contracts with network providers, in which you asserted that there was no security risk in doing so, so I think your moral confusion certainly leaks out into other areas of policy analysis.
Tim Lee
· 1 year ago
Tom, my (admittedly non-expert) reading of DT's patents is that they would effectively give them a 20-year monopoly on the concept of digital check clearing. Is your reading different? If so, how broadly do you think the courts will apply them? If not, do you really think the first person to have thought of the idea of digital check clearing should be able to lock competitors out of the market for 20 years?
Noel
· 1 year ago
Tim, its how the USPTO and courts construe the patent, not you.
You can't just summarize a patent claim at the 100,000 level, take away from that an over-simplified understanding of the patent, and derive pessimistic visions for the future of innovation:)
I've pointed out that this is the basic formula of your patent of the week series.
Michael Masnick
· 1 year ago
Heh. Noel, that's a cheap fallback. I love it that whenever technology folks point out that a patent is obvious, patent system defenders claim that it doesn't matter what real technologists, think, it's all about the USPTO and the courts.
Actually, it's not. The patent system was supposed to be designed so that ideas that are new and non-obvious to the skilled practitioner get patents. The problem with the USPTO and the courts is that they are generally NOT skilled practitioners and not in a position to judge properly if an idea is non-obvious.
Don Marti
· 1 year ago
What is the business relationship between DataTreasury and Mr. Giovanetti's organization, Institute for Policy Innovation?
Any advocate for a government benefit will call his or her client's interests a "property right". That's Corporate Welfare 101. But calling it one doesn't make it one. (The Bill of Rights protects property, and Article 1 Section 8 allows, but does not require, the US to issue patents.)
Maybe ship owners will hire a think tank to put out a slick white paper about how the end of the Letters of Marque program (an Article 1, Section 8 power of Congress, like the patent system) is also a regulatory taking.
Or a "property right" in $5/acre mining patents on federal land, or a farmer's property right in sugar quotas, or hey, the longshoremen's union could find a property right in its members' jobs.
Fire up the PDF converter and book the conference center in Aspen...the possibilities are endless.
Noel
· 1 year ago
The USPTO and courts affect how a patent is enforced, apportionment of damages, etc. Tim does not, but writes of how the patent will be enforced and the ensuing effect on innovation as if he did.
***The problem with the USPTO and the courts is that they are generally NOT skilled practitioners and not in a position to judge properly if an idea is non-obvious.***
I agree with this and think that a major down-turn in the effectiveness of the patent system in recent years has resulted from adequacy at the patent office. However, the solution is not to have Tim host an amateur patent agent-psychic predictions hour on TLF.
Timon
· 1 year ago
Tom,
The only unfairness, or moral confusion, is congress snapping to attention to do for banks what it should be doing for everyone.
Timon
· 1 year ago
Also Tom,
I notice on your blog that you describe yourself as an "over-serious geek", and that you have sports, theology and current events sections. Do you focus on sports and theology patents?
Tom Giovanetti
· 1 year ago
Tim, you are transparently trying to change the subject. You bashed my op/ed. You said it was "remarkable for its lack of specificity" and you said I "never bothered to explain," even though you know that an op/ed is 700 words, and you can't explain every detail to every critic's satisfaction in 700 words. You at least implied that I was being "misleading." And then you accused DataTreasury of being extortionists.
All of these charges and suggestions of yours are wrong, as even a cursory bit of research on your part would have demonstrated.
When confronted, instead of owning up, which you never do, you are trying to change the subject to the validity of their patent, and the validity of business patents in general.
You are rhetorically sophomoric, Tim. Reading your blog postings is like looking at the desktop publishing that amateurs started putting out when Microsoft Publisher first came out. Anyone who could move a mouse thought they could do graphic design, just as anyone with a B.S. in computer science (you) now thinks they're qualified to rewrite U.S. legal structures, simply because of the development of blogs. Your logic is vapid and your papers would never be published by any serious institution.
The DataTreasury patents ARE valid. Much like the DMCA, courts have repeatedly found them to be solid. They have withstood numerous court challenges. It doesn't matter what you think, and it doesn't matter what I think--they are valid. Thus, what is happening is a travesty, DataTreasury is the victim, the politically powerful are trampling over the small, and you are exposed as a nincompoop who doesn't have the decency to recognize his mistakes and misjudgments and own up to them.
Your characterization of the DataTreasury patents is as misleading as most of your work, and anyone who actually follows the link to the patent itself will see that it is highly detailed, was thoroughly researched by USPTO, and has withstood multiple court challenges.
Lessig kept losing in court and finally gave up his quixotic efforts. You should do the same. Why don't you just go to Berkman and become a groupie volunteer?
Ryan Radia
· 1 year ago
That DataTreasury's patents are valid under current law doesn't mean they should be valid under an ideal set of IP laws. If Tim is correct that DataTreasury's patent on digital check clearing essentially prevents any bank from implementing its own distinct system that accomplishes the same end, then DataTreasury's patents are a perfect example of flawed IP laws letting companies enjoy massive unearned windfalls simply because of a lucky but not especially nnovative intellectual creation.
Property rights may sound like intellectual property rights, but they aren't the same. Property rights are inherent, but intellectual property rights are artificial government monopolies granted by society as a compromise to promote innovation, not to protect the little guy.
As Tim mentioned, the USPTO has on many occasions upheld unreasonably broad or obvious patents. That's why Congress must act. Whether the Sessions amendment is a good idea is a tough call. It reigns in the excesses of deficient patent protection, but at the same time hurts taxpayers without moving the patent debate in the right direction.
And Don, IPI is a 501(c)(3) non-profit non-partisan organization, so demanding transparency about a possible relationship between IPI and DataTreasury is irrelevant and unfair. Even if DataTreasury happened to be an IPI contributor, that has no bearing on the validity of Tom's piece. IPI has a consistent track record on ideological advocacy--do you really think if the banks cut a check to the IPI, then IPI would have argued against patents and for the Sessions amendment? Perhaps DataTreasury supports strong patents and agrees with status-quo IP laws. Shouldn't IPI be able to accept funds from DataTreasury and still argue for patent protection? The logic and validity of Tom's op-ed has nothing to do with IPI's supporters. It has everything to do with the actual content of the piece, and the relative merits of the argumentation.
Timon
· 1 year ago
Tim,
Mr Giovanetti is right. I would remind you that the CAFC has found EVERYTHING to be patentable, therefore your argument that patents should not be handed out willy-nilly is what we call in the profession 'circulus in probando', or 'begging the question', since they were already found valid, as he demonstrated in his op-ed.
Go to law school and get yourself a real degree, before coming around here telling us what is and isn't technologically innovative enough to deserve a 20 year monopoly!
The post below is from the link above. Great link...
Post #14 Inspector Cluseau Mar. 26, 2008 - 2:56 PM EST
In response to posters 1,3,5&8. Is it possible that you have arived at a premature decission? At times,conclusions are reached before one is afforded the opportunity to review aditional information. The following,by no means, encompasses everything that has transpired between the banks and Datatreasury.It condensed version of the events that have taken place over the past eight years.In addition you may find items 6&7 below,to be of special interest. If enacted,these issues will cost the American tax payer(THATS US)a substantial sum of money. (TRY TO FIND FAULT WITH THE FOLLOWING POST!) A war has been raging between Datatreasury and the financial institutions for eight years.Thus far,the banks have lost every legal patent issue to come befor the court. With no other straw to grasp they are resorting yo smear tactics. Their latest smoke and mirror approach will not alter the following facts. (READ On) #1) On May 1,2001 Richard Kovacevich (CEO of Wells Fargo)was interviewed by Chief Executive Magazine (US). In an article by Prince CS. He was asked if he prefers inventing ideas or stealing them. With a quick response,he stated"I`d much rather steal an idea. Quite frankly,it`s much easier mentally. I have no pride about that". #2)On Feb 24, 2006 Datatreasury fied a law suit against Wells Fargo and fifty three other banks for alledgly infringing their patents. #3)The suit was stayed on Sept.17 2007,pending the outcome of the re-examination of the involved patents. #4) The patents were re-examined by the USPT0 and found to be fully valid and enforceable. #5). The stay on the case was officially lifted on March 11, 2008. #6). Senator Jeff Sessions with the backing of the Financial Roundtable (the association that represents the countries 100 largest banks)has added an amendment to the patent reform bill (S-1145). This amendment if enacted will remove the financial responsibility for patent infringement from the banks if the court finds in favor of DataTreasury. The US Government estimates this responsibility to be in excess of (ONE BILLION) dollars. Private estimates range from (10 to 20 BILLION) DOLLARS. The American taxpayer will be charged for the banks patent infringement should this legislation be enacted. #7). I defy Jeff Sessions to give a logical explanation as to why he is attempting to pass thisw financial burden on to the American taxpayers. (NO, MISTER SISTION, CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS FROM LOBBYISTS, GREED AND CORRUPT POLITICS ARE NOT LOGICAL EXPLANATIONS!!). #8). Now that the banks are losing ground on the patent infringement front, they are now resorting to smear tactics.(AKA
Don Marti
· 1 year ago
Tom, I haven't checked the TLF debating rules recently, but I think that when you get to posting that kind of you're-a-hippie-and-you-smell stuff, you automatically lose. If you check the profile, Tim works for the Cato Institute, which is a couple steps up on the public policy group food chain from your operation.
Edgard Kieger
· 1 year ago
We hear so much about, what Datatreasury could get..... 10 - 15 billion??. I could read, that the banks can safe about 1,5 us dollar per check. When I calculate I come to a saving of 300 billion dollar without faster capital flow. This sounds for me so much. Where did all the saved money go? Did the American Banks pass it on to their customers?
Are there not 40 billion checks pasing through the banks a year ? Is that not additional 60 billion of Dollars each year of saving ? In this happy situation I do not understand, why some big banks accept the patent as it is and some ????????????
Fred Baum
· 1 year ago
A patent is intelectual property, maybe people are forgetting what the word property means. Property is something one owns and in America it can not be taken away , except for public safety or public good. A patent trol is some one who has acquired the patent and suing somebody for it but has no product or service with it. The patent is still intelectual property and the owner is entitled to collect on his property. So many people have determined that Datatreasury is a patent trol , that they are starting to believe what they are told as truth. The fact of the matter is the following Datatreasury set up offices with many employees to accomodate the businesss with Chase and Chase stole the idea and set up a compant called Viewpoint , then the whole industry stole the idea. Do your due dilligence before you call somebody something or you are just another sheep in the herd and the fool. Those are the facts , don't trust me check for your selves. However even if Datatreasury was a patent troll they would still be entitled to collect money on their patents as patents are intelectual property. Do your due dilligence and then call somebody what they are . Thanks Fred B
check21
· 1 year ago
Mr. Giovanetti has some competition on the op-ed pages: Asa Hutchinson, a former Member of Congress, weighs in on the DataTreasury debate:
By Asa Hutchinson - The tragic repercussions of Sept. 11 continue to cascade down to every corner of the country as we continue to strengthen our borders, transportation networks, critical infrastructure and intelligence. As we continue to strengthen our homeland security, though, we cannot fail to shore up our nation's financial infrastructures.
Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda leaders have repeatedly implored terrorists to hit targets that will adversely impact the American economy. The decision to attack the World Trade Center was meant to send a message regarding our economic security in the same way the decision to hit the Pentagon was meant to send a message about our military security. Consider this: While America was still in shock from the attacks on Sept. 11, the Federal Reserve was forced to spring into action to prevent the disaster from crippling our financial institutions.
Prior to September 2001, our financial system used commercial transportation to move cleared checks across the country from where they were redeemed to where the money was deposited. Immediately following the Sept. 11 attacks, airplanes across the country were grounded, leaving passengers — as well as the shipments of checks representing billions — far from their destinations. While this was certainly a troubling experience for stranded passengers, it also created a liquidity crisis for banks — and for our economy.
It is estimated that for every day the checks sat on the runway after Sept. 11, some $2 billion in funds given out by banks could not be reimbursed by the depositing bank. As a result, the Federal Reserve — as it had done in 1987 — was forced to inject liquidity into the financial system to avoid a total economic collapse.
In response, Congress passed the Check 21 Act in 2004 with the intent for banks to transfer digital images of checks instead of continuing to use the more vulnerable transportation system. Along with modernizing our country's financial systems, the law increased national security by insulating fund transfers from the catastrophic terrorist attacks witnessed on Sept. 11.
End of story? Not exactly. Now those banks that complied with congressional intent are facing lawsuits from a company claiming that they have infringed on its patents for the electronic transfer of checks. The company, Data Treasury, is suing the banks over alleged patent infringement, creating a roadblock to the implementation by banks of Check 21 and its strong public-policy goals.
Let's be clear: A company should be compensated for a competitor's infringement on its patents. The question, however, is whether Data Treasury has valid patents for having laid claim to commonly used processing methods that banks, financial institutions and others had been using for years.
The claim of the patent holder in this case, compared to the national-security needs of the nation, is further undermined when it becomes clear that the company in question neither invents new products nor sells them. To quote the New York Times, this is a company "whose only business, other than one client, appears to be suing other companies." ("Small Company is Specializing in Suing Banks," New York Times, Dec. 24, 2004) One issue that rises above the validity of the patents is the role of the federal government in prompting the private sector to take certain actions. When the government dictates to the private sector, inevitably the latter faces certain costs. This is why government interference in the private sector should be done with extreme caution.
In this case, due caution was given, but the enormous responsibility for the safety and security of American citizens outweighed the specific and narrowly tailored costs to the private sector.
To address this unintended obstacle to realizing its intent, the Senate Judiciary Committee introduced bipartisan legislation that passed unanimously last summer. The legislation would protect the financial system, respect legitimate intellectual property rights and prevent frivolous lawsuits by clarifying the regulation for the financial system, for national security purposes, to efficiently process checks and transfer funds.
As patent-reform legislation heads to the full Senate for a vote, it's critical this legislation be included. Speedy passage will ensure that we close critical gaps in our nation's financial security that should have been addressed years ago.
Asa Hutchinson, a former undersecretary at the Department of Homeland Security, is CEO of the Hutchinson Group and a partner in the Venable law firm.
Kevin
· 1 year ago
Most of public policy is picking one proposal between several options using a value-based criterion. In this case we have two competing values: fairness and security. Tom’s op-ed uses fairness as the moral guide for his arguments. The basic idea being that DataTreasury created and patented the business method of imaging checks and electronically transferring them. Under a value of fairness, the contention that banks should pay for the right to use this patented technology naturally follows. Indeed, to do otherwise would be infringement and immoral. However, there is an alternative value proposed by Asa, the value of security. Asa’s op-ed explains that the reason for creating Check 21 was to protect the financial system which was exposed as highly vulnerable after 9/11. Many people who agree with Tom say that security is a bogus value and is basically “fear mongering.” Yet, try to imagine a world without security. If we think about these completing values for a moment we see that security is an essential prerequisite for fairness. It seems that in the face of real threats, our elected representatives chose security over fairness. Given the options, I don’t blame them.
Nick
· 1 year ago
This is all getting a bit redundant. All of this back and forth , he said, she said. Datatreasury (Claudio Ballard) claims to be the original inventor who invented, patented and attempted to market this technology years before the Check 21 Act was enacted (or even 9/11 for that fact). Apparently his views are supported by the USPTO and several US Courts after several futile attempts to invalidate said patents. The Banks on the other hand are claiming they were forced to use this technology after 9/11 in the name of homeland security and by doing so fell prey to a patent infringement lawsuit. Datareasury is claiming their technology is saving the banks in excess of $30 Billion a year. Datatreasury feels that this is an opportunity for the banks and not a sacrifice or a burden as they would have everyone believe. Datatresury believes they should be afforded just compensation for their intellectual property as dictated by the USPTO and the US Constitution. The banks(other than JP Morgan Chase and a couple of others who early on have recognized the value and licensed said patents)believe that they are above the laws that govern everyone else and therefore are lobbying Congress to legislate a new law that would shift the liability for any patent infringement to the taxpayers while they reap the profits. The sooner this goes to trial, the sooner it will be put to rest. Unfortunately for the banks, the final decision will be in the hands of a jury of scorned taxpayers.
All Comments
Patents should never be granted for "concepts", "idea", or "business models". Furthermore, even if a patent is granted, and someone else independently (black box) develops a similar product, the first patent holder should NOT be able to claim "fees"."
Just for amusement as I sit here in an Admirals Club awaiting a flight, I challenge you to point out anything in my op/ed that was factually wrong or incorrect.
Note that I do not say anything about any particular patent being valid, or a good idea. I simply state the facts at hand and explain why what is going on would set a bad precedent. Could you please explain what in my op/ed is objectionable?
We know that you don't like patents, especially this kind of patent. You don't have to tell us that. But I don't defend business model patents in the op/ed, either--I simply point out that a patent that has withstood multiple challenges has stood up, and that bad guys are trying to do an end run around the judicial process, and that this is a bad idea. Instead of using my op/ed as an excuse to both slam me and riff against patents, how about telling me what in my op/ed is actually either wrong, incorrect, or misleading?
Or, failing that, admit you were wrong to criticize my piece?
However, I think my substantive criticism of your argument—that DataTreasury's patent is absurdly broad and that DataTreasury's behavior is extortionate—remains valid. We may actually agree on the policy conclusion—that the Session amendment is a bad idea—but I definitely don't agree with the way you painted DataTreasury as a hapless investor just trying to stop companies from stealing its "technology."
It was sloppy of you to do a blog entry questioning accurate claims in an op/ed without bothering to do a simple news search to read articles that answered your question. It was, frankly, a cheap shot.
Further, if you had anything approaching even a neutral view of patents, you would see that DataTreasury is the victim here. To paint them as "extortionate" given how they are being screwed in this case is just morally confused--but I continually find the rabid anti-IP crowd to be morally confused, whether it is defending pharmaceutical counterfeitors, or defending large companies for trampling over the inventors and holders of property rights.
I only hope your moral confusion doesn't extend into other areas of life. But I remember you writing something arguing that people ought to leave their wifi access points open and encourage people to free-ride on their contracts with network providers, in which you asserted that there was no security risk in doing so, so I think your moral confusion certainly leaks out into other areas of policy analysis.
You can't just summarize a patent claim at the 100,000 level, take away from that an over-simplified understanding of the patent, and derive pessimistic visions for the future of innovation:)
I've pointed out that this is the basic formula of your patent of the week series.
Actually, it's not. The patent system was supposed to be designed so that ideas that are new and non-obvious to the skilled practitioner get patents. The problem with the USPTO and the courts is that they are generally NOT skilled practitioners and not in a position to judge properly if an idea is non-obvious.
Any advocate for a government benefit will call his or her client's interests a "property right". That's Corporate Welfare 101. But calling it one doesn't make it one. (The Bill of Rights protects property, and Article 1 Section 8 allows, but does not require, the US to issue patents.)
Maybe ship owners will hire a think tank to put out a slick white paper about how the end of the Letters of Marque program (an Article 1, Section 8 power of Congress, like the patent system) is also a regulatory taking.
Or a "property right" in $5/acre mining patents on federal land, or a farmer's property right in sugar quotas, or hey, the longshoremen's union could find a property right in its members' jobs.
Fire up the PDF converter and book the conference center in Aspen...the possibilities are endless.
***The problem with the USPTO and the courts is that they are generally NOT skilled practitioners and not in a position to judge properly if an idea is non-obvious.***
I agree with this and think that a major down-turn in the effectiveness of the patent system in recent years has resulted from adequacy at the patent office. However, the solution is not to have Tim host an amateur patent agent-psychic predictions hour on TLF.
The only unfairness, or moral confusion, is congress snapping to attention to do for banks what it should be doing for everyone.
I notice on your blog that you describe yourself as an "over-serious geek", and that you have sports, theology and current events sections. Do you focus on sports and theology patents?
All of these charges and suggestions of yours are wrong, as even a cursory bit of research on your part would have demonstrated.
When confronted, instead of owning up, which you never do, you are trying to change the subject to the validity of their patent, and the validity of business patents in general.
You are rhetorically sophomoric, Tim. Reading your blog postings is like looking at the desktop publishing that amateurs started putting out when Microsoft Publisher first came out. Anyone who could move a mouse thought they could do graphic design, just as anyone with a B.S. in computer science (you) now thinks they're qualified to rewrite U.S. legal structures, simply because of the development of blogs. Your logic is vapid and your papers would never be published by any serious institution.
The DataTreasury patents ARE valid. Much like the DMCA, courts have repeatedly found them to be solid. They have withstood numerous court challenges. It doesn't matter what you think, and it doesn't matter what I think--they are valid. Thus, what is happening is a travesty, DataTreasury is the victim, the politically powerful are trampling over the small, and you are exposed as a nincompoop who doesn't have the decency to recognize his mistakes and misjudgments and own up to them.
Your characterization of the DataTreasury patents is as misleading as most of your work, and anyone who actually follows the link to the patent itself will see that it is highly detailed, was thoroughly researched by USPTO, and has withstood multiple court challenges.
Lessig kept losing in court and finally gave up his quixotic efforts. You should do the same. Why don't you just go to Berkman and become a groupie volunteer?
Property rights may sound like intellectual property rights, but they aren't the same. Property rights are inherent, but intellectual property rights are artificial government monopolies granted by society as a compromise to promote innovation, not to protect the little guy.
As Tim mentioned, the USPTO has on many occasions upheld unreasonably broad or obvious patents. That's why Congress must act. Whether the Sessions amendment is a good idea is a tough call. It reigns in the excesses of deficient patent protection, but at the same time hurts taxpayers without moving the patent debate in the right direction.
And Don, IPI is a 501(c)(3) non-profit non-partisan organization, so demanding transparency about a possible relationship between IPI and DataTreasury is irrelevant and unfair. Even if DataTreasury happened to be an IPI contributor, that has no bearing on the validity of Tom's piece. IPI has a consistent track record on ideological advocacy--do you really think if the banks cut a check to the IPI, then IPI would have argued against patents and for the Sessions amendment? Perhaps DataTreasury supports strong patents and agrees with status-quo IP laws. Shouldn't IPI be able to accept funds from DataTreasury and still argue for patent protection? The logic and validity of Tom's op-ed has nothing to do with IPI's supporters. It has everything to do with the actual content of the piece, and the relative merits of the argumentation.
Mr Giovanetti is right. I would remind you that the CAFC has found EVERYTHING to be patentable, therefore your argument that patents should not be handed out willy-nilly is what we call in the profession 'circulus in probando', or 'begging the question', since they were already found valid, as he demonstrated in his op-ed.
Go to law school and get yourself a real degree, before coming around here telling us what is and isn't technologically innovative enough to deserve a 20 year monopoly!
The post below is from the link above. Great link...
Post #14
Inspector Cluseau
Mar. 26, 2008 - 2:56 PM EST
In response to posters 1,3,5&8. Is it possible that you have arived at a premature decission? At times,conclusions are reached before one is afforded the opportunity to review aditional information. The following,by no means, encompasses everything that has transpired between the banks and Datatreasury.It condensed version of the events that have taken place over the past eight years.In addition you may find items 6&7 below,to be of special interest. If enacted,these issues will cost the American tax payer(THATS US)a substantial sum of money. (TRY TO FIND FAULT WITH THE FOLLOWING POST!) A war has been raging between Datatreasury and the financial institutions for eight years.Thus far,the banks have lost every legal patent issue to come befor the court. With no other straw to grasp they are resorting yo smear tactics. Their latest smoke and mirror approach will not alter the following facts. (READ On) #1) On May 1,2001 Richard Kovacevich (CEO of Wells Fargo)was interviewed by Chief Executive Magazine (US). In an article by Prince CS. He was asked if he prefers inventing ideas or stealing them. With a quick response,he stated"I`d much rather steal an idea. Quite frankly,it`s much easier mentally. I have no pride about that". #2)On Feb 24, 2006 Datatreasury fied a law suit against Wells Fargo and fifty three other banks for alledgly infringing their patents. #3)The suit was stayed on Sept.17 2007,pending the outcome of the re-examination of the involved patents. #4) The patents were re-examined by the USPT0 and found to be fully valid and enforceable. #5). The stay on the case was officially lifted on March 11, 2008. #6). Senator Jeff Sessions with the backing of the Financial Roundtable (the association that represents the countries 100 largest banks)has added an amendment to the patent reform bill (S-1145). This amendment if enacted will remove the financial responsibility for patent infringement from the banks if the court finds in favor of DataTreasury. The US Government estimates this responsibility to be in excess of (ONE BILLION) dollars. Private estimates range from (10 to 20 BILLION) DOLLARS. The American taxpayer will be charged for the banks patent infringement should this legislation be enacted. #7). I defy Jeff Sessions to give a logical explanation as to why he is attempting to pass thisw financial burden on to the American taxpayers. (NO, MISTER SISTION, CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS FROM LOBBYISTS, GREED AND CORRUPT POLITICS ARE NOT LOGICAL EXPLANATIONS!!). #8). Now that the banks are losing ground on the patent infringement front, they are now resorting to smear tactics.(AKA
Are there not 40 billion checks pasing through the banks a year ? Is that not additional 60 billion of Dollars each year of saving ? In this happy situation I do not understand, why some big banks accept the patent as it is and some ????????????
Thanks
Fred B
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/ar...
Targeting terror dollars
April 14, 2008
By Asa Hutchinson - The tragic repercussions of Sept. 11 continue to cascade down to every corner of the country as we continue to strengthen our borders, transportation networks, critical infrastructure and intelligence. As we continue to strengthen our homeland security, though, we cannot fail to shore up our nation's financial infrastructures.
Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda leaders have repeatedly implored terrorists to hit targets that will adversely impact the American economy. The decision to attack the World Trade Center was meant to send a message regarding our economic security in the same way the decision to hit the Pentagon was meant to send a message about our military security. Consider this: While America was still in shock from the attacks on Sept. 11, the Federal Reserve was forced to spring into action to prevent the disaster from crippling our financial institutions.
Prior to September 2001, our financial system used commercial transportation to move cleared checks across the country from where they were redeemed to where the money was deposited. Immediately following the Sept. 11 attacks, airplanes across the country were grounded, leaving passengers — as well as the shipments of checks representing billions — far from their destinations. While this was certainly a troubling experience for stranded passengers, it also created a liquidity crisis for banks — and for our economy.
It is estimated that for every day the checks sat on the runway after Sept. 11, some $2 billion in funds given out by banks could not be reimbursed by the depositing bank. As a result, the Federal Reserve — as it had done in 1987 — was forced to inject liquidity into the financial system to avoid a total economic collapse.
In response, Congress passed the Check 21 Act in 2004 with the intent for banks to transfer digital images of checks instead of continuing to use the more vulnerable transportation system. Along with modernizing our country's financial systems, the law increased national security by insulating fund transfers from the catastrophic terrorist attacks witnessed on Sept. 11.
End of story? Not exactly. Now those banks that complied with congressional intent are facing lawsuits from a company claiming that they have infringed on its patents for the electronic transfer of checks. The company, Data Treasury, is suing the banks over alleged patent infringement, creating a roadblock to the implementation by banks of Check 21 and its strong public-policy goals.
Let's be clear: A company should be compensated for a competitor's infringement on its patents. The question, however, is whether Data Treasury has valid patents for having laid claim to commonly used processing methods that banks, financial institutions and others had been using for years.
The claim of the patent holder in this case, compared to the national-security needs of the nation, is further undermined when it becomes clear that the company in question neither invents new products nor sells them. To quote the New York Times, this is a company "whose only business, other than one client, appears to be suing other companies." ("Small Company is Specializing in Suing Banks," New York Times, Dec. 24, 2004) One issue that rises above the validity of the patents is the role of the federal government in prompting the private sector to take certain actions. When the government dictates to the private sector, inevitably the latter faces certain costs. This is why government interference in the private sector should be done with extreme caution.
In this case, due caution was given, but the enormous responsibility for the safety and security of American citizens outweighed the specific and narrowly tailored costs to the private sector.
To address this unintended obstacle to realizing its intent, the Senate Judiciary Committee introduced bipartisan legislation that passed unanimously last summer. The legislation would protect the financial system, respect legitimate intellectual property rights and prevent frivolous lawsuits by clarifying the regulation for the financial system, for national security purposes, to efficiently process checks and transfer funds.
As patent-reform legislation heads to the full Senate for a vote, it's critical this legislation be included. Speedy passage will ensure that we close critical gaps in our nation's financial security that should have been addressed years ago.
Asa Hutchinson, a former undersecretary at the Department of Homeland Security, is CEO of the Hutchinson Group and a partner in the Venable law firm.
The sooner this goes to trial, the sooner it will be put to rest. Unfortunately for the banks, the final decision will be in the hands of a jury of scorned taxpayers.
I'd be interested in your reactions. DT seems pretty schmarmy to me.