Thursday, February 19, 2009

Coalition for Patent Fairness Launches New Site, Blog

Ramping up for the 2009+ patent reform efforts, the Coalition for Patent Fairness (CPF) has revamped its website and refocused its message on patent reform, claiming a more economic-based rationale for supporting reform:

"Deficiencies in our patent system are holding our economy back by dampening innovation and job creation. Congress needs to pass a bipartisan and comprehensive patent reform bill to modernize and reduce uncertainty in the current system by addressing the backlog of patent applications in the patent office, ensuring only proper patents are being granted, and creating an environment where small, medium and large companies can innovate and create jobs. Our revised website will communicate that message and serve as a source of information for policy makers, business leaders, consumers and journalists interested in patent reform."

Also the CPF has launched a blog titled "Better Mouse Trap," dedicated to "following the debate over patent reform in the 111th Congress." The blog claims to "find the latest news and information and the latest reports of activities of the Coalition for Patent Fairness – a group of small, medium and large businesses and trade associations dedicated to supporting innovation and job creation through the modernization and reform of the US patent system."

Visit CPF's new website (link)

Read "Better Mouse Trap Blog" (link)

13 Comentários:

Michael F. Martin said...

Hmm... no comments, no indication of who's authoring the blog, links only to certain other blogs...

Not a great start. For tech companies, they're demonstrating a lack of interest in social norms in the blogosphere.

Patentability said...

I think it's important that we have fairness when it comes to patents. Patents must be relevant. To research and find clarification, I recommend http://www.patentability.com. It's a great site that is user-friendly and effective!

Anonymous said...

Someone should create a parallel blog called "I Already Patented the Better Mouse Trap -- Step Off!", to respond daily to the CPF news stories, given that CPF has disabled comments on their so-called "blog".

Step Back said...

Their blog appears to be written by a PR company:
http://www.bgrpr.com/profile.asp

Anonymous said...

please see http://www.piausa.org/ for a different/opposing view on patent reform

datat said...

Coalition for patent fairness? WHO DO YOU GUYS THINK YOU ARE KIDDING? You`re the same crew that tried to push the Sessions amendment through in 2008.
Read the following!

Subject: Sessions Amendment Withdrawal.
Senator Jeff Sessions, honesty and justice and integrity.
An amendment to the Patent Reform Bill, sponsored by Senator Jeff Sessions, has been withdrawn by the Senator himself. The amendment, received approval from the entire Senate Judiciary Committee. It had the backing of (The Coalition for Patent Fairness) - (fairness by definition - freedom from dishonesty and injustice). The coalition, a group of one hundred and fifty high-tech companies, was, backed by (The Financial Round Table.) The Financial Round Table, represents the countries one hundred largest banks. These banks, now have a serious financial problem. (*They are presently involved in a patent infringement lawsuit*). A finding of willful infringement, will subject the banks to treble damages. (Three times the amount, that a jury would award, as per existing patent legislation.) The potential cost to the banks! Billions of dollars! If passed, the amendment would also shift a one billion dollar expense, from the banks, to the American tax payer., By Senator Sessions own admission, "I don’t know how (the provision) can be modified to pass a constitutional muster. This Senator was attempting to add, an unconstitutional amendment, to the Patent Reform Bill.I question his motivation. I assure you, It had nothing to do with honesty, justice or a burning desire to perform his civic duty. The Senator stated," I think this has more to do with lobbyists, than it has to do with merit". ( Lets call a spade a spade). This action had to do with lobbyists, buying politicians! It had to do with, personal gain! It had to do with a lack of integrity!(It had nothing to do with merit!)
(*The case, Data Treasury VS. Wells Fargo, and numerous other banks, was filed on Feb 24,2006 and is still in progress.*)
It will resume in October of this year.
In the interest of honesty and justice ,let this issue be resolve in court! ( There is no room in this equation, for banks attempting to buy an unconstitutional amendment,)

NOW YOU`RE AT IT AGAIN!
COALITION FOR PATENT FAIRNESS.
THAT`S A JOKE
YOU WANT FAIRNESS?
LET THIS ISSUE BE RESOLVED IN
COURT.
Inspector Cluseau.

datat said...

Coalition for patent fairness? WHO DO YOU GUYS THINK YOU ARE KIDDING? You`re the same crew that tried to push the Sessions amendment through in 2008.
Read the following!

Subject: Sessions Amendment Withdrawal.
Senator Jeff Sessions, honesty and justice and integrity.
An amendment to the Patent Reform Bill, sponsored by Senator Jeff Sessions, has been withdrawn by the Senator himself. The amendment, received approval from the entire Senate Judiciary Committee. It had the backing of (The Coalition for Patent Fairness) - (fairness by definition - freedom from dishonesty and injustice). The coalition, a group of one hundred and fifty high-tech companies, was, backed by (The Financial Round Table.) The Financial Round Table, represents the countries one hundred largest banks. These banks, now have a serious financial problem. (*They are presently involved in a patent infringement lawsuit*). A finding of willful infringement, will subject the banks to treble damages. (Three times the amount, that a jury would award, as per existing patent legislation.) The potential cost to the banks! Billions of dollars! If passed, the amendment would also shift a one billion dollar expense, from the banks, to the American tax payer., By Senator Sessions own admission, "I don’t know how (the provision) can be modified to pass a constitutional muster. This Senator was attempting to add, an unconstitutional amendment, to the Patent Reform Bill.I question his motivation. I assure you, It had nothing to do with honesty, justice or a burning desire to perform his civic duty. The Senator stated," I think this has more to do with lobbyists, than it has to do with merit". ( Lets call a spade a spade). This action had to do with lobbyists, buying politicians! It had to do with, personal gain! It had to do with a lack of integrity!(It had nothing to do with merit!)
(*The case, Data Treasury VS. Wells Fargo, and numerous other banks, was filed on Feb 24,2006 and is still in progress.*)
It will resume in October of this year.
In the interest of honesty and justice ,let this issue be resolve in court! ( There is no room in this equation, for banks attempting to buy an unconstitutional amendment,)
NOW YOU~RE AT IT AGAIN!
COALITION FOR PATENT FAIRNESS.
THAT`S A JOKE
YOU WANT FAIRNESS?
LET THIS ISSUE BE RESOLVED IN
COURT.
Inspector Cluseau.

principo said...

It came as quite a surprise that Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-AZ) had recently introduced the latest Patent Reform Act (S3600). In it includes a "Check 21" exception (sec. 13, page 80): "With respect to the use by a financial institution of a check collection system that constitutes an infringement under subsection (a) or (b) of section 271, the provisions of sections 281, 283, 284, and 285 shall not apply against the financial institution with respect to such a check collection system."
Although a small Technology Company named Data Treasury and its patents were NOT specifically mentioned, the intent of the exception is aimed directly at Data Treasury and its on going litigation against the banking industry for infringing upon its "Check Collection" remote image capture technology.

If passed, the exception would shift the financial responsibility for infringement to the American Taxpayer. Billions of dollars in taxes would be passed on to us in the name of (honesty and justice). The U.S. Commerce Department has recently objected to this type of legislative provision. Such a law would pave the way for Congress to start interfering in legal cases on behalf of the highest bidder. The Commerce Department -- the parent agency of the Patent and Trademark Office -- also pointed out that "limiting patent holders' rights and remedies in this instance could reduce innovation in the technology area." In other words, revoking someone's property rights affects not only the disenfranchised property holder but also the next round of inventors. In this instance, moreover, Congress would be sending the bill for the bailout to us -- the taxpayers. All this makes for quite a lobbying coup. The banking industry makes off with a few extra billion dollars, robs a small business of its intellectual property and again sticks taxpayers with the tab. Legislation should not be used to grant retroactive legal immunity to large corporations that willfully ignored the property rights of a small, innovative company. And no elected official who has pledged to maintain the integrity of our legal system should be a party to such a travesty. The windfall is not 2-6 billion of savings to the banks, but at 40 billion checks per year for the major institutions at $1 to $2 per check the savings is $40 to $80 billion dollars. The vast majority of banks who offer RDC have stated they have seen growth in deposits due to RDC. Deposits represent the lifeblood of any financial institution and have pervasive impacts throughout the organization. Recent research conducted by RemoteDepositCapture.com has revealed that for every dollar a financial institution has in deposits, they make over $2 in loans and investments. Of course Data Treasury is suing for 5 cents per check and settling for even less. The industry used to claim that it cost close to $2. per check so what justifies the banks STEALING this for FREE , except why pay if you are not forced to. The proposed legislation places the US government in the position of accountability. Since the US government both issued and affirmed the validity of the DT patents, it seems to place the government in the curious position of stipulating patent validity without having any control over the question of whether infringement is or is not occurring and with the bank's interest's non-aligned with the government's interests. The enactment of such an exception would result in litigation against the federal government for DT to seek compensation for the taking of its private property. The federal government would have to pay $1 billion+ to Data Treasury over 10 years as compensation for taking its property under the exception, according to estimates (albeit, a conservative estimate) by the Congressional Budget Office. Senator Kyle by championing this exception should be made (with a clear answer devoid of spin) to explain why exactly, banks should be immune to patent law that applies to everybody else and why the public should fund any patent royalties when infringing returns billions in operational savings to the banks !! Source: 2008 FDIC Data, RemoteDepositCapture.com
The funny part about this campaign is that everybody will take a sudden, but belated, interest in this fiasco if and when the bill comes due and has to be paid by the American taxpayer. But you don't mind, do you? After all, I'm sure you want to show as much love to Bank of America, Citibank, etc. as Citibank and its group shows to you. All this on the heels of the recent Wall Street bailout. I guess business as usual is still the main diet of some elected officials!! DISGRACEFUL!!!

Anonymous said...

COME ON SENATE MINORITY WHIP KYL.

HOW ABOUT A RESPONSE TO THE FOLLOWING?

Recently, Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-AZ) introduced the latest Patent Reform Act (S3600), which includes a "Check 21" exception (sec. 13, page 80):

"With respect to the use by a financial institution of ----(A CHECK COLLECTION SYSTEM THAT CONSTITUTES AN INFRINGEMENT )a check collection system that constitutes an infringement)

under subsection (a) or (b) of section 271, the provisions of sections 281, 283, 284, and 285----(SHALL NOT APPLY AGAINST THE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS WITH RESPECT TO SUCH
A CHECK COLLECTION SYSTEM'')--- Of course, there is no secret that this provision relates to patent litigation between Data Treasury and practically the entire banking industry.


REP. JEFF SESSIONS ATTEMPTED TO ATTACH A SIMILAR AMENDMENT TO THE PREVIOUSLY ABANDONED PATENT REFORM BILL!
By Senator Sessions own admission, --"I don’t know how (the provision) can be modified to pass a constitutional muster".
Jeff Sessions was attempting to add, an unconstitutional amendment, to the Patent Reform Bill. I question his motivation.( I also question yours.) Perhaps some banking lobbyist, (with an overdose of truth serum ) ,might answer the motivation ($$$$$) question! If this amendment does pass
it will cost taxpayers billions of dollars for allowing illegal infringement of the Data Treasury's patents. This court battle has been raging ,for four years, and is scheduled to continue in October. Having spent over ONE BILLION DOLLARS in attorneys fees, the banking industry has not scored one legal victory. Well, If we cant win it in court lets use our politicians and try to buy our way out of this patent infringement situation. Give it up, Minority Whip Kyk. In the name of honesty, integrity, and justice,
(ARE THESE WORDS PART OF YOUR VOCABULARY?) let this issue be resolved by our judicial system!

Inspector Cluseau.

Anonymous said...

Inspector, $1 BILLION is table scraps compared to the porkfest that's being dished out today for their pleasure at taxpayer expense. Looks like they've gotten a very big return on their lobbying.

Ain't no one gonna even bat an eyebrow about Check21 before the revolution comes.

Anonymous said...

The Coalition for Patent Fairness made a recent addition to the patent blogosphere with their new venture—Building a Better Mousetrap. The Coalition members, which include international tech companies such as Microsoft, Google and Dell, argue that “We’d be able to do more, create more jobs, innovate and create more products if [we] weren’t saddled with unjustified patent infringement charges and costly litigation.”

Unfortunately, this line of argument is just like a piece of cheese lying out in the open—luring people towards the promise of more jobs without realizing there is a trap!

Job creation is critical during this economic crisis, and strengthening – not weakening – intellectual property is the way to do it. Says who? Many diverse American institutions including the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the Arizona Small Business Association, the Association of American Universities, and the National MS Society have all joined together to propose reforms to the patent system that will strengthen American intellectual property, encourage and protect American invention and help create new jobs at home. These labor, university and patient groups are all working as one to ensure that the U.S. maintain its competitive advantage of ingenuity and creativity that will spur the economy in difficult times.

“Building a Better Mousetrap” focuses on the big cheeses that run international tech corporations and the banks that back them, rather than creating a sustainable economy for everyday Americans. Loosening patent restrictions in the short term will not sustain American jobs in the long term and saying as much is misleading.

Besides, everyone knows to catch a mouse you use peanut butter, not cheese.

Jim Greenwood,
BIO President and CEO

datat said...

I said it before and I`ll continue to say it until this crew (The Coalition for Patent Fairness) stops there attempt to perpetrate a hoax on the American public!!! The Coalition for Patent Fairness is a group of one hundred and fifty high tech companies. They are backed by the (Financial Round Table.) The Financial Round Table represents the countries one hundred largest banks. Data Treasury is suing these banks for patent infringement. A substantial number of banks have come to terms and have signed licensing agreements with Data Treasury. The banking industry has spent in excess of ONE BILLION DOLLARS to fight this case and to justify there illegal infringement .To date ,they have not won a single court battle. They attempted to buy there way out of this dilemma, with an unconstitutional amendment sponsored by Rep Jeff Sessions. By the senators own admission " I don`t know how (the provision ) can pass a constitutional muster."

These banks, now have a serious financial problem. (*They are presently involved in a patent infringement lawsuit*). A finding of willful infringement, will subject the banks to treble damages. (Three times the amount, that a jury would award, as per existing patent legislation.) The potential cost to the banks! Billions of dollars! If passed, the amendment would have shift a one billion dollar expense, from the banks, to the American tax payer., By Senator Sessions own admission, "I don’t know how (the provision) can be modified to pass a constitutional muster. This Senator was attempting to add, an unconstitutional amendment, to the Patent Reform Bill. I question his motivation. I assure you, It had nothing to do with honesty, justice or a burning desire to perform his civic duty. The Senator stated," I think this has more to do with lobbyists, than it has to do with merit". ( Lets call a spade a spade). This action had to do with lobbyists, buying politicians! It had to do with, personal gain! It had to do with a lack of integrity! (It had nothing to do with merit!)

NOW THERE AT IT AGAIN ! ---Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-AZ) has recently introduced the latest Patent Reform Act (S3600). In it includes a "Check 21" exception. The latest Patent Reform Act (S3600). In it includes a "Check 21" exception (sec. 13, page 80): "With respect to the use by a financial institution of a check collection system that constitutes an infringement under subsection (a) or (b) of section 271, the provisions of sections 281, 283, 284, and 285 "SHALL NOT APPLY AGAINST THE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS WITH RESPECT TO SUCH A CHECK COLLECTION SYSTEM"
Although a small Technology Company named Data Treasury and its patents were NOT specifically mentioned, the intent of the exception is aimed directly at Data Treasury and its on going litigation against the banking industry for infringing upon its "Check Collection" remote image capture technology.
(
*The case, Data Treasury VS. Wells Fargo, and numerous other banks, was filed on Feb 24,2006 and is still in progress.*)
It will continue in October of this year.
In the interest of honesty and justice ,let this issue be resolve in court!

-- (Coalition for Patent Fairness )--- Not even in anyone's wildest dreams, does this name fit!

Fairness by definition ---( FREEDOM FROM DISHONESTY AND INJUSTICE.)--- ONCE AGAIN, WHO DO YOU GUYS THINK YOU ARE FOOLING?

Inspector Cluseau.

Tabitha said...

I recently came accross your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I dont know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.


Alanna

http://www.craigslistsimplified.info

DISCLAIMER

This Blog/Web Site ("Blog") is for educational purposes only and is not legal advice. Use of the Blog does not create any attorney-client relationship between you and Peter Zura or his firm. Persons requiring legal advice should contact a licensed attorney in your state. Any comment posted on the Blog can be read by any Blog visitor; do not post confidential or sensitive information. Any links from another site to the Blog are beyond the control of Peter Zura and does not convey his, or his past or present employer(s) approval, support, endorsement or any relationship to any site or organization.

The 271 Patent Blog © 2008. Template by Dicas Blogger.

TOPO