News, Notes, and Opinions From the Institute for Policy Innovation (IPI)http://www.policybytes.org/blog/policybytes.nsf/en-usMon, 23 Jun 2008 10:45:46 PM -0500 Mon, 23 Jun 2008 10:45:46 PM -0500 Tom Giovanetti I have a new goal in life http://www.policybytes.org/blog/policybytes.nsf/dx/i-have-a-new-goal-in-life.htm?opendocument&comments#06232008104546PMSER6F6.htm Mon, 23 Jun 2008 10:44:31 PM -0500 Tom Giovanetti I have a new goal in life
I'm glad I'm not the only one who was repelled by Hansen on the Diane Rehm show this morning.

There seems to be some certainty that temperatures are warming somewhat. Whether this is a long-term or short-term cycle or phenomenon we don't know. Whether human activity is the primary cause, we don't know either.

We DO know that temperatures have been warmer in the past, because before that ice was there and before those glaciers were there, people farmed and inhabited those valleys.

We also know that other planets in our solar system are also warming, and that we have been in a period of solar activity that would be consistent with warming.

Because of these factors, I just don't that anyone can be nearly as stubbornly certain as Dr. Hansen seems to be.

It is also probably not a coincidence that Dr. Hansen works for a government agency that stands to see its budget rise or fall based on the degree of fear and alarm in the general public related to atmospheric science.]]>
I'm glad I'm not the only one who was repelled by Hansen on the Diane Rehm show this morning.

There seems to be some certainty that temperatures are warming somewhat. Whether this is a long-term or short-term cycle or phenomenon we don't know. Whether human activity is the primary cause, we don't know either.

We DO know that temperatures have been warmer in the past, because before that ice was there and before those glaciers were there, people farmed and inhabited those valleys.

We also know that other planets in our solar system are also warming, and that we have been in a period of solar activity that would be consistent with warming.

Because of these factors, I just don't that anyone can be nearly as stubbornly certain as Dr. Hansen seems to be.

It is also probably not a coincidence that Dr. Hansen works for a government agency that stands to see its budget rise or fall based on the degree of fear and alarm in the general public related to atmospheric science.]]> http://www.policybytes.org/blog/policybytes.nsf/dx/i-have-a-new-goal-in-life.htm?opendocument&comments#06232008104431PMSER6ED.htm Mon, 23 Jun 2008 10:57:02 AM -0500 John I have a new goal in life
I listened to him this morning, and wanted him to present his case that would persuade me or at least present evidence that was substantial, but he only came off as smug, arrogant, and weaselly. All he managed to do was spit out inflammatory rhetoric, and state that anyone who disagreed with him was politically motivated or lying. He wasn't presented with many hardball or opposing viewpoint questions by either Diane Rehm or her callers and emailers, and those he did get were swiftly dismissed or dodged with very little substantial discussion or explanation.

Dr. Hansen claimed that science appreciates questions and opposing viewpoints, but then stated that he was previously unwilling to appear in a forum (NPR) with scientists that opposed his views because those opposing views are only from dissenters that cherry-pick information and represent a miniscule, and politically motivated, percentage of the scientific community. He claimed that this would lead the public to believe there was a debate on the topic in the scientific community (and not the consensus he was preaching). It struck me as incredibly arrogant and hypocritical of him to not only anoint himself the representative for the entire scientific community, but also to so blatantly present his findings and ideas as rock-solid unshakeable fact.

I find that Dr. Hansen, and those like him on both sides of the debate, repels a fence sitter like myself that does not sit firmly in either camp. After listening to his interview I experienced a reaction very similar to your goal to live long enough to see him proven wrong. I do not believe that closed-minded individuals on either side of this or any debate encourage agreeable solutions, but only enlarge the divide and stir the pot for the sake of watching the waves.]]>
I listened to him this morning, and wanted him to present his case that would persuade me or at least present evidence that was substantial, but he only came off as smug, arrogant, and weaselly. All he managed to do was spit out inflammatory rhetoric, and state that anyone who disagreed with him was politically motivated or lying. He wasn't presented with many hardball or opposing viewpoint questions by either Diane Rehm or her callers and emailers, and those he did get were swiftly dismissed or dodged with very little substantial discussion or explanation.

Dr. Hansen claimed that science appreciates questions and opposing viewpoints, but then stated that he was previously unwilling to appear in a forum (NPR) with scientists that opposed his views because those opposing views are only from dissenters that cherry-pick information and represent a miniscule, and politically motivated, percentage of the scientific community. He claimed that this would lead the public to believe there was a debate on the topic in the scientific community (and not the consensus he was preaching). It struck me as incredibly arrogant and hypocritical of him to not only anoint himself the representative for the entire scientific community, but also to so blatantly present his findings and ideas as rock-solid unshakeable fact.

I find that Dr. Hansen, and those like him on both sides of the debate, repels a fence sitter like myself that does not sit firmly in either camp. After listening to his interview I experienced a reaction very similar to your goal to live long enough to see him proven wrong. I do not believe that closed-minded individuals on either side of this or any debate encourage agreeable solutions, but only enlarge the divide and stir the pot for the sake of watching the waves.]]> http://www.policybytes.org/blog/policybytes.nsf/dx/i-have-a-new-goal-in-life.htm?opendocument&comments#06232008105702AMSERLQ7.htm Tue, 17 Jun 2008 05:29:08 AM -0500 Guma Prince African Nations’ Attitudes About Mugabe Count The Most When It Comes To Changes in Zimbabwe Government, Says New Pieler Oped http://www.policybytes.org/blog/policybytes.nsf/dx/african-nations-attitudes-about-mugabe-count-the-most-when-it-comes-to-changes-in-zimbabwe-government-says-new-pieler-oped.htm?opendocument&comments#06172008052908AMSEREB9.htm Fri, 13 Jun 2008 05:34:20 PM -0500 Robin Japanese Acquisition of Ranbaxy: Synergies in Innovation, Importance of Indian Innovation http://www.policybytes.org/blog/policybytes.nsf/dx/japanese-acquisition-of-ranbaxy--synergies-in-innovation-importance-of-indian-innovation-.htm?opendocument&comments#06132008053420PMSERUGH.htm Fri, 13 Jun 2008 07:13:54 AM -0500 GUMA PRINCE The Future of the Music Industry
It's not helpful to call for bundling, since consumers seem to want unbundled songs “and” I might add, if the industry does solve the technological challenge of keeping a bundle from being unbundled, well, then they've likely got tech they could use to enforce payment for singles, too.

So where does this leave us? Bundles of ads and music, which are somewhat obnoxious and/or which consumers will all too often take steps to unbundle. The bottom line is—there can be no new business plan without some kind of enforceable boundaries, whether it is a single with boundaries or a bounded bundle of songs and service. No easy answers.

Here's my answer for the music industry, which I will give away free, what the heck!

Get as many experiments running as you can in price, quality, and adjunct services... see what catches on.

Some real reform of the copyright law would help, to facilitate licensing markets and clearinghouses. One can only hope that what black markets in pirated stuff can do, real markets with accountability to consumer can do faster and safer and better. Make it very, very easy and attractive to be honest.

Experiment with enforcement. If you want to pay for think tank studies, study what actually deters piracy. I can tell you now, there've been more than enough studies of deterrence in other contexts: Light penalties, and a certainty of being caught.

Exactly how to do this, that's your business.]]>
It's not helpful to call for bundling, since consumers seem to want unbundled songs “and” I might add, if the industry does solve the technological challenge of keeping a bundle from being unbundled, well, then they've likely got tech they could use to enforce payment for singles, too.

So where does this leave us? Bundles of ads and music, which are somewhat obnoxious and/or which consumers will all too often take steps to unbundle. The bottom line is—there can be no new business plan without some kind of enforceable boundaries, whether it is a single with boundaries or a bounded bundle of songs and service. No easy answers.

Here's my answer for the music industry, which I will give away free, what the heck!

Get as many experiments running as you can in price, quality, and adjunct services... see what catches on.

Some real reform of the copyright law would help, to facilitate licensing markets and clearinghouses. One can only hope that what black markets in pirated stuff can do, real markets with accountability to consumer can do faster and safer and better. Make it very, very easy and attractive to be honest.

Experiment with enforcement. If you want to pay for think tank studies, study what actually deters piracy. I can tell you now, there've been more than enough studies of deterrence in other contexts: Light penalties, and a certainty of being caught.

Exactly how to do this, that's your business.]]> http://www.policybytes.org/blog/policybytes.nsf/dx/the-future-of-the-music-industry.htm?opendocument&comments#06132008071354AMSERGCR.htm Thu, 22 May 2008 05:26:32 PM -0500 Tom Giovanetti New Chris Israel Op/ed Online Today at Forbes.com: "Managing Against Illegal Content"
Glad you were able to copy your comment from Forbes.com and repost it here.

Otherwise, I'm not going to try to rebut yet again all the points you made, other than to say that we DO oppose government intrusion into the marketplace, and we DO oppose things like net neutrality. But remember, protecting property rights is one of the few actual obligations of government. So for the government to take steps to protect property rights is NOT an intrusion into the free market--it's a legitimate role of government, and one of the very few legitimate roles of government.]]>
Glad you were able to copy your comment from Forbes.com and repost it here.

Otherwise, I'm not going to try to rebut yet again all the points you made, other than to say that we DO oppose government intrusion into the marketplace, and we DO oppose things like net neutrality. But remember, protecting property rights is one of the few actual obligations of government. So for the government to take steps to protect property rights is NOT an intrusion into the free market--it's a legitimate role of government, and one of the very few legitimate roles of government.]]> http://www.policybytes.org/blog/policybytes.nsf/dx/new-chris-israel-oped-online-today-at-forbes.com-managing-against-illegal-content.htm?opendocument&comments#05222008052632PMSERUBM.htm Thu, 22 May 2008 05:23:20 PM -0500 Tom Giovanetti There’s Nothing New Under the (Economic) Sun
Happy Trade Week!]]>
Happy Trade Week!]]> http://www.policybytes.org/blog/policybytes.nsf/dx/there’s-nothing-new-under-the-economic-sun.htm?opendocument&comments#05222008052320PMSERU9M.htm Wed, 21 May 2008 07:11:25 AM -0500 Pete Murphy There’s Nothing New Under the (Economic) Sun
Why? The American work force is the most productive on earth. Our product quality, though it may have fallen short at one time, is now on a par with the Japanese. Our workers have labored tirelessly to improve our competitiveness. Yet our deficit continues to grow. Our median wages and net worth have declined for decades. Our debt has soared.

Clearly, there is something amiss with "free trade." The concept of free trade is rooted in Ricardo's principle of comparative advantage. In 1817 Ricardo hypothesized that every nation benefits when it trades what it makes best for products made best by other nations. On the surface, it seems to make sense. But is it possible that this theory is flawed in some way? Is there something that Ricardo didn't consider?

At this point, I should introduce myself. I am author of a book titled "Five Short Blasts: A New Economic Theory Exposes The Fatal Flaw in Globalization and Its Consequences for America." To make a long story short, my theory is that, as population density rises beyond some optimum level, per capita consumption begins to decline. This occurs because, as people are forced to crowd together and conserve space, it becomes ever more impractical to own many products. Falling per capita consumption, in the face of rising productivity (per capita output, which always rises), inevitably yields rising unemployment and poverty.

This theory has huge ramifications for U.S. policy toward population management (especially immigration policy) and trade. The implications for population policy may be obvious, but why trade? It's because these effects of an excessive population density - rising unemployment and poverty - are actually imported when we attempt to engage in free trade in manufactured goods with a nation that is much more densely populated. Our economies combine. The work of manufacturing is spread evenly across the combined labor force. But, while the more densely populated nation gets free access to a healthy market, all we get in return is access to a market emaciated by over-crowding and low per capita consumption. The result is an automatic, irreversible trade deficit and loss of jobs, tantamount to economic suicide.

One need look no further than the U.S.'s trade data for proof of this effect. Using 2006 data, an in-depth analysis reveals that, of our top twenty per capita trade deficits in manufactured goods (the trade deficit divided by the population of the country in question), eighteen are with nations much more densely populated than our own. Even more revealing, if the nations of the world are divided equally around the median population density, the U.S. had a trade surplus in manufactured goods of $17 billion with the half of nations below the median population density. With the half above the median, we had a $480 billion deficit!

Our trade deficit with China is getting all of the attention these days. But, when expressed in per capita terms, our deficit with China in manufactured goods is rather unremarkable - nineteenth on the list. Our per capita deficit with other nations such as Japan, Germany, Mexico, Korea and others (all much more densely populated than the U.S.) is worse. In fact, our largest per capita trade deficit in manufactured goods is with Ireland, a nation twice as densely populated as the U.S. Our per capita deficit with Ireland is twenty-five times worse than China's. My point is not that our deficit with China isn't a problem, but rather that it's exactly what we should have expected when we suddenly applied a trade policy that was a proven failure around the world to a country with one sixth of the world's population.

Ricardo's principle of comparative advantage is overly simplistic and flawed because it does not take into consideration this population density effect and what happens when two nations grossly disparate in population density attempt to trade freely in manufactured goods. While free trade in natural resources and free trade in manufactured goods between nations of roughly equal population density is indeed beneficial, just as Ricardo predicts, it’s a sure-fire loser when attempting to trade freely in manufactured goods with a nation with an excessive population density.

If you‘re interested in learning more about this important new economic theory, then I invite you to visit my web site at OpenWindowPublishingCo.com where you can read the preface for free, join in the blog discussion and, of course, buy the book if you like. (It's also available at Amazon.com.)

Please forgive me for the somewhat "spammish" nature of the previous paragraph, but I don't know how else to inject this new theory into the debate about trade without drawing attention to the book that explains the theory.

Pete Murphy

Author, Five Short Blasts]]>
Why? The American work force is the most productive on earth. Our product quality, though it may have fallen short at one time, is now on a par with the Japanese. Our workers have labored tirelessly to improve our competitiveness. Yet our deficit continues to grow. Our median wages and net worth have declined for decades. Our debt has soared.

Clearly, there is something amiss with "free trade." The concept of free trade is rooted in Ricardo's principle of comparative advantage. In 1817 Ricardo hypothesized that every nation benefits when it trades what it makes best for products made best by other nations. On the surface, it seems to make sense. But is it possible that this theory is flawed in some way? Is there something that Ricardo didn't consider?

At this point, I should introduce myself. I am author of a book titled "Five Short Blasts: A New Economic Theory Exposes The Fatal Flaw in Globalization and Its Consequences for America." To make a long story short, my theory is that, as population density rises beyond some optimum level, per capita consumption begins to decline. This occurs because, as people are forced to crowd together and conserve space, it becomes ever more impractical to own many products. Falling per capita consumption, in the face of rising productivity (per capita output, which always rises), inevitably yields rising unemployment and poverty.

This theory has huge ramifications for U.S. policy toward population management (especially immigration policy) and trade. The implications for population policy may be obvious, but why trade? It's because these effects of an excessive population density - rising unemployment and poverty - are actually imported when we attempt to engage in free trade in manufactured goods with a nation that is much more densely populated. Our economies combine. The work of manufacturing is spread evenly across the combined labor force. But, while the more densely populated nation gets free access to a healthy market, all we get in return is access to a market emaciated by over-crowding and low per capita consumption. The result is an automatic, irreversible trade deficit and loss of jobs, tantamount to economic suicide.

One need look no further than the U.S.'s trade data for proof of this effect. Using 2006 data, an in-depth analysis reveals that, of our top twenty per capita trade deficits in manufactured goods (the trade deficit divided by the population of the country in question), eighteen are with nations much more densely populated than our own. Even more revealing, if the nations of the world are divided equally around the median population density, the U.S. had a trade surplus in manufactured goods of $17 billion with the half of nations below the median population density. With the half above the median, we had a $480 billion deficit!

Our trade deficit with China is getting all of the attention these days. But, when expressed in per capita terms, our deficit with China in manufactured goods is rather unremarkable - nineteenth on the list. Our per capita deficit with other nations such as Japan, Germany, Mexico, Korea and others (all much more densely populated than the U.S.) is worse. In fact, our largest per capita trade deficit in manufactured goods is with Ireland, a nation twice as densely populated as the U.S. Our per capita deficit with Ireland is twenty-five times worse than China's. My point is not that our deficit with China isn't a problem, but rather that it's exactly what we should have expected when we suddenly applied a trade policy that was a proven failure around the world to a country with one sixth of the world's population.

Ricardo's principle of comparative advantage is overly simplistic and flawed because it does not take into consideration this population density effect and what happens when two nations grossly disparate in population density attempt to trade freely in manufactured goods. While free trade in natural resources and free trade in manufactured goods between nations of roughly equal population density is indeed beneficial, just as Ricardo predicts, it’s a sure-fire loser when attempting to trade freely in manufactured goods with a nation with an excessive population density.

If you‘re interested in learning more about this important new economic theory, then I invite you to visit my web site at OpenWindowPublishingCo.com where you can read the preface for free, join in the blog discussion and, of course, buy the book if you like. (It's also available at Amazon.com.)

Please forgive me for the somewhat "spammish" nature of the previous paragraph, but I don't know how else to inject this new theory into the debate about trade without drawing attention to the book that explains the theory.

Pete Murphy

Author, Five Short Blasts]]> http://www.policybytes.org/blog/policybytes.nsf/dx/there’s-nothing-new-under-the-economic-sun.htm?opendocument&comments#05212008071125AMSERGB7.htm Thu, 15 May 2008 04:45:45 PM -0500 jmburger New Chris Israel Op/ed Online Today at Forbes.com: "Managing Against Illegal Content"
This is a strawman set up by the content industry and their fellow travelers. In Washington Speak it means: "We will join you network operators in fighting net neutrality if you join us in imposing filtering on you." Filtering requires degrading the network by having the operator inspect all your Internet traffic and "reject" files the content industry claims are illegal.

There are numerous problems with filtering, such as it doesn't work, it's expensive, it slows done the network, it filters out legitimate content, etc. But the biggest irony is that, on the one hand, Mr. Israel decries government intervention on net neutrality, which would impose a mandate on the ISPs; yet, on the other hand, he does not oppose his content industry friends' argument that we should impose government filtering mandates on those same network operators to invade their customers privacy and look deep into the information they are transmitting. Hypocrisy? I leave it to you to decide.

You have to love Mr. Israel's audacity citing his organization's unsupported claim of $12.5 billion US economic losses to piracy. The download infringing "losses" are at best a guess. This is particularly true in the music download market where the only empirical study found that peer-to-peer had "an effect [on sales] that is too small to be statistically distinguishable from zero."

The MPAA study also relied upon to cook up the $12.5 billion figure is even worse. First, although promised to a Senate Committee, the MPAA has yet to release to even Congress, let alone for peer review, the L.E.K. study which claims $6.1 billion in US MPAA Member losses to "piracy," including $1.6 billion allegedly attributable to P2P infringement. Second, even without the opportunity to review the study (the MPAA has only released PowerPoint summaries), the flaws in that study are evident. Again, this is one more "survey," i.e., where they ask a few thousand people a series of questions and then extrapolate to the entire world (literally). In addition, the MPAA admits there are "human errors" in the numbers, although again since we can't see the study we don't know what errors; but, according to the MPAA, one nearly $600 million number was off by 25 percent. Frankly, this study doesn't seem to be worth the invisible (to everyone else) paper it was written on.

Yet Mr. Israel's organization is running around yelling the sky is falling, and their content industry friends are using these fanciful numbers to support imposing government mandates. One can hope Mr. Israel and his organization will at least be consistent and oppose all government mandates affecting the Internet, whether it be net neutrality or filtering. Note the IPI's slogan: "Advocating lower taxes, fewer regulations, and a smaller, less-intrusive government." Admittedly this slogan does support opposition to net neutrality, and it motivate IPI to oppose mandatory filtering as well. Let the market decide whether or not ISP will filter, not the government.

PS: I am in no way condoning infringing conduct on the Internet, but lawsuits (which copyright holders are entitled to bring) haven't stopped the conduct, nor will government-imposed technical mandates. Given the huge number of infringers - and the failure of draconian legal measures to make a dent in their numbers - plus the gradual erosion of the CD business model by legitimate single downloads - I truly hope that the record industry can turn to other models and let the market work to pull customers back into the fold. I, for one, would love to see the music industry increase their revenue and profits by satisfying consumers. Wouldn't that fit in with IPI's slogan better than millions to lawyers and lobbyists?]]>
This is a strawman set up by the content industry and their fellow travelers. In Washington Speak it means: "We will join you network operators in fighting net neutrality if you join us in imposing filtering on you." Filtering requires degrading the network by having the operator inspect all your Internet traffic and "reject" files the content industry claims are illegal.

There are numerous problems with filtering, such as it doesn't work, it's expensive, it slows done the network, it filters out legitimate content, etc. But the biggest irony is that, on the one hand, Mr. Israel decries government intervention on net neutrality, which would impose a mandate on the ISPs; yet, on the other hand, he does not oppose his content industry friends' argument that we should impose government filtering mandates on those same network operators to invade their customers privacy and look deep into the information they are transmitting. Hypocrisy? I leave it to you to decide.

You have to love Mr. Israel's audacity citing his organization's unsupported claim of $12.5 billion US economic losses to piracy. The download infringing "losses" are at best a guess. This is particularly true in the music download market where the only empirical study found that peer-to-peer had "an effect [on sales] that is too small to be statistically distinguishable from zero."

The MPAA study also relied upon to cook up the $12.5 billion figure is even worse. First, although promised to a Senate Committee, the MPAA has yet to release to even Congress, let alone for peer review, the L.E.K. study which claims $6.1 billion in US MPAA Member losses to "piracy," including $1.6 billion allegedly attributable to P2P infringement. Second, even without the opportunity to review the study (the MPAA has only released PowerPoint summaries), the flaws in that study are evident. Again, this is one more "survey," i.e., where they ask a few thousand people a series of questions and then extrapolate to the entire world (literally). In addition, the MPAA admits there are "human errors" in the numbers, although again since we can't see the study we don't know what errors; but, according to the MPAA, one nearly $600 million number was off by 25 percent. Frankly, this study doesn't seem to be worth the invisible (to everyone else) paper it was written on.

Yet Mr. Israel's organization is running around yelling the sky is falling, and their content industry friends are using these fanciful numbers to support imposing government mandates. One can hope Mr. Israel and his organization will at least be consistent and oppose all government mandates affecting the Internet, whether it be net neutrality or filtering. Note the IPI's slogan: "Advocating lower taxes, fewer regulations, and a smaller, less-intrusive government." Admittedly this slogan does support opposition to net neutrality, and it motivate IPI to oppose mandatory filtering as well. Let the market decide whether or not ISP will filter, not the government.

PS: I am in no way condoning infringing conduct on the Internet, but lawsuits (which copyright holders are entitled to bring) haven't stopped the conduct, nor will government-imposed technical mandates. Given the huge number of infringers - and the failure of draconian legal measures to make a dent in their numbers - plus the gradual erosion of the CD business model by legitimate single downloads - I truly hope that the record industry can turn to other models and let the market work to pull customers back into the fold. I, for one, would love to see the music industry increase their revenue and profits by satisfying consumers. Wouldn't that fit in with IPI's slogan better than millions to lawyers and lobbyists?]]> http://www.policybytes.org/blog/policybytes.nsf/dx/new-chris-israel-oped-online-today-at-forbes.com-managing-against-illegal-content.htm?opendocument&comments#05152008044545PMSERTJ6.htm Tue, 22 Apr 2008 09:42:08 PM -0500 Wayne Dodd SoundBytes 133: Tired of Politicians Talking About the Poor? http://www.policybytes.org/blog/policybytes.nsf/dx/soundbytes-133-tired-of-politicians-talking-about-the-poor.htm?opendocument&comments#04222008094208PMSER57D.htm Tue, 22 Apr 2008 04:45:09 PM -0500 Kevin McRay The usual misleading stuff from Tim Lee on intellectual property
I will divide my comments into a response to you, Inspector, and a response to the blog written by Paul and reposted by you here- and which you pass off as your own work. Honestly, you talk a lot of smack for someone who cribbed 2/3 of your post. Maybe you don’t care much about stealing. That would explain your position on DT. Just a note, usually when you take someone else’s idea, much less their words, you give them credit. Perhaps that wasn’t covered in your school- along with spelling.

Banks do purchase the technology to image and transfer checks. That is not the issue here. The question is the so-called business method patent which includes the idea of imaging and transferring checks. These are very different things. Check 21 does not excuse banks from paying for the technology they need to fulfill the mandate but it should relieve them from the business method patent because it is mandated by Congress. The business method is like patenting the idea of writing once you write a book. Sure, you should control the intellectual property in your book but you don’t get to own the process of writing books.

DT is looking for any way to make money they can. The former technology company is now down to patent trolling and suing for money. The NYT had a great article on this called Small Company Is Specializing in Suing Banks (for your easy of research, Inspector the link is here: { Link })

To briefly respond to your reading challenge:

The main paragraph focuses on Sessions and his removal for support for the amendment. That could be because it won’t be an amendment by a separate piece of legislation. It all hinges, in this paragraph on this quote that your spit out there without any context. Maybe you couldn’t provide a context because you didn’t know where it came from. For an Inspector, I would expect you to be more careful.

The banks aren’t trying to “buy a new law”- lawmakers were trying to clarify ambiguity in the law that matched their original intent when they passed Check 21 in 2004. Perhaps you don’t think Congress should revise or improve legislation or perhaps you are so cynical that you believe everyone is out to get you- after all they are putting fluoride in your water…

I look forward to an "intilagent" response.]]>
I will divide my comments into a response to you, Inspector, and a response to the blog written by Paul and reposted by you here- and which you pass off as your own work. Honestly, you talk a lot of smack for someone who cribbed 2/3 of your post. Maybe you don’t care much about stealing. That would explain your position on DT. Just a note, usually when you take someone else’s idea, much less their words, you give them credit. Perhaps that wasn’t covered in your school- along with spelling.

Banks do purchase the technology to image and transfer checks. That is not the issue here. The question is the so-called business method patent which includes the idea of imaging and transferring checks. These are very different things. Check 21 does not excuse banks from paying for the technology they need to fulfill the mandate but it should relieve them from the business method patent because it is mandated by Congress. The business method is like patenting the idea of writing once you write a book. Sure, you should control the intellectual property in your book but you don’t get to own the process of writing books.

DT is looking for any way to make money they can. The former technology company is now down to patent trolling and suing for money. The NYT had a great article on this called Small Company Is Specializing in Suing Banks (for your easy of research, Inspector the link is here: { Link })

To briefly respond to your reading challenge:

The main paragraph focuses on Sessions and his removal for support for the amendment. That could be because it won’t be an amendment by a separate piece of legislation. It all hinges, in this paragraph on this quote that your spit out there without any context. Maybe you couldn’t provide a context because you didn’t know where it came from. For an Inspector, I would expect you to be more careful.

The banks aren’t trying to “buy a new law”- lawmakers were trying to clarify ambiguity in the law that matched their original intent when they passed Check 21 in 2004. Perhaps you don’t think Congress should revise or improve legislation or perhaps you are so cynical that you believe everyone is out to get you- after all they are putting fluoride in your water…

I look forward to an "intilagent" response.]]> http://www.policybytes.org/blog/policybytes.nsf/dx/the-usual-misleading-stuff-from-tim-lee-on-intellectual-property.htm?opendocument&comments#04222008044509PMSERTHS.htm Mon, 21 Apr 2008 01:00:45 PM -0500 fionaky The usual misleading stuff from Tim Lee on intellectual property
First of all -- I would really like you to respond to my original point -- national security.

Second of all -- if you want to talk about "banks stealing Data Treasury's Patented Technology," then let us talk about how much capital and investment Data Treasury put into actually inventing this technology....ooops! I'm sorry..they didn't. Yep -- thats right, they didn't even INVENT the technology to begin with. They patented the technology without any origination. More interesting than that -- they now only have two employees working for them -- and they make ALL their money from these suits (not to mention that one of the two employees that I am referring to has such high moral ethics that he robbed an armored car in his past....)

When you are throwing around numbers like "2 cents" think about something: there are fixed and hidden costs behind everything. Giving the tiny numbers that you are giving makes it seem as if that is the end of the story --- this is not only misleading, but intellectually dishonest.

With the "billions of dollars" that you are referring to, I would like to point out something that I should have elaborated on in my earlier posting: If you think a billion dollars seems a lot now, look to the future if there is another attack and data treasury suits have hindered the progress of electronic checking. The taxpayers will pay extensive amounts of money in losses through the grounding of paper checks b/c the banks didn't move to electronic processing.]]>
First of all -- I would really like you to respond to my original point -- national security.

Second of all -- if you want to talk about "banks stealing Data Treasury's Patented Technology," then let us talk about how much capital and investment Data Treasury put into actually inventing this technology....ooops! I'm sorry..they didn't. Yep -- thats right, they didn't even INVENT the technology to begin with. They patented the technology without any origination. More interesting than that -- they now only have two employees working for them -- and they make ALL their money from these suits (not to mention that one of the two employees that I am referring to has such high moral ethics that he robbed an armored car in his past....)

When you are throwing around numbers like "2 cents" think about something: there are fixed and hidden costs behind everything. Giving the tiny numbers that you are giving makes it seem as if that is the end of the story --- this is not only misleading, but intellectually dishonest.

With the "billions of dollars" that you are referring to, I would like to point out something that I should have elaborated on in my earlier posting: If you think a billion dollars seems a lot now, look to the future if there is another attack and data treasury suits have hindered the progress of electronic checking. The taxpayers will pay extensive amounts of money in losses through the grounding of paper checks b/c the banks didn't move to electronic processing.]]> http://www.policybytes.org/blog/policybytes.nsf/dx/the-usual-misleading-stuff-from-tim-lee-on-intellectual-property.htm?opendocument&comments#04212008010045PMSERP5J.htm Fri, 18 Apr 2008 11:11:55 AM -0500 Inspector Cluseau The usual misleading stuff from Tim Lee on intellectual property http://www.policybytes.org/blog/policybytes.nsf/dx/the-usual-misleading-stuff-from-tim-lee-on-intellectual-property.htm?opendocument&comments#04182008111155AMSERLZH.htm Wed, 16 Apr 2008 01:06:09 PM -0500 Inspector Cluseau The usual misleading stuff from Tim Lee on intellectual property
An amendment to the Patent Reform Bill, sponsored by Senator Jeff Sessions, has been withdrawn by the Senator himself. This 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 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!)

(*The case, Data Treasury VS. Wells Fargo, and numerous other banks, was filed on Feb 24,2006 and is still in progress.*) ------ ( Their is no room in this equation for banks attempting to buy a new law because they are dissatisfied with existing patent legislation). Truth be told! ( It`s all about greed! ) They believe they can buy your way out of anything. Now we are going to do it the old fashion way. We are going to resolve this issue in court!]]>
An amendment to the Patent Reform Bill, sponsored by Senator Jeff Sessions, has been withdrawn by the Senator himself. This 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 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!)

(*The case, Data Treasury VS. Wells Fargo, and numerous other banks, was filed on Feb 24,2006 and is still in progress.*) ------ ( Their is no room in this equation for banks attempting to buy a new law because they are dissatisfied with existing patent legislation). Truth be told! ( It`s all about greed! ) They believe they can buy your way out of anything. Now we are going to do it the old fashion way. We are going to resolve this issue in court!]]> http://www.policybytes.org/blog/policybytes.nsf/dx/the-usual-misleading-stuff-from-tim-lee-on-intellectual-property.htm?opendocument&comments#04162008010609PMSERP8W.htm Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:42:16 PM -0500 Inspector Cluseau The usual misleading stuff from Tim Lee on intellectual property
An amendment to the Patent Reform Bill, sponsored by Senator Jeff Sessions, has been withdrawn by the Senator himself. This 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 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!)

(*The case, Data Treasury VS. Wells Fargo, and numerous other banks, was filed on Feb 24,2006 and is still in progress.*) ------ ( Their is no room in this equation for banks attempting to buy a new law because they are dissatisfied with existing patent legislation). Truth be told! ( It`s all about greed! ) They believe they can buy your way out of anything. Now we are going to do it the old fashion way. We are going to resolve this issue in court!]]>
An amendment to the Patent Reform Bill, sponsored by Senator Jeff Sessions, has been withdrawn by the Senator himself. This 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 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!)

(*The case, Data Treasury VS. Wells Fargo, and numerous other banks, was filed on Feb 24,2006 and is still in progress.*) ------ ( Their is no room in this equation for banks attempting to buy a new law because they are dissatisfied with existing patent legislation). Truth be told! ( It`s all about greed! ) They believe they can buy your way out of anything. Now we are going to do it the old fashion way. We are going to resolve this issue in court!]]> http://www.policybytes.org/blog/policybytes.nsf/dx/the-usual-misleading-stuff-from-tim-lee-on-intellectual-property.htm?opendocument&comments#04162008124216PMSERNRY.htm Tue, 15 Apr 2008 06:24:45 PM -0500 principo Illogical arguments from Asa Hutchinson and commentors on the DataTreasury patent issue
The rest is RIGHT ON !!!]]>
The rest is RIGHT ON !!!]]> http://www.policybytes.org/blog/policybytes.nsf/dx/illogical-arguments.htm?opendocument&comments#04152008062445PMSERVG2.htm Tue, 15 Apr 2008 06:14:18 PM -0500 PRINCIPO Illogical arguments from Asa Hutchinson and commentors on the DataTreasury patent issue
Posted by SHG at 4/15/2008 1:07 PM and is filed under uncategorized

You can't make this stuff up. When Senators Arlen Specter and Jeff Sessions abandoned the Datatreasury amendment in the face of public humiliation, we thought we had heard the end of it. Nope. There was still one step (at least) further into the gutter that the banks are willing to go.

This time, no less (expensive) a personage as Asa Hutchinson, former undersecretary of Homeland Security and now CEO of his very own "consulting" firm, has an Op-Ed in the Washington Times (not Post, Times) that argues that America must stop DataTreasury to protect itself from Osama Bin Laden.

And here we thought this was only about saving banks from having to pay billions of dollars. Now we know it's part of the war on Osama. Like I said, you can't make this stuff up.

Asa's argument relies entirely on long-discredited allegations and, in an over-abundance of blather, contends that any issues as to the validity of patents are too important to be left to the courts when they involve matters of national security.

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.

That's right. Unless you want Osama to win, our government must seize control of the patents from DataTreasury and hand them over to the banks to use for free. The cost, shouldered by the taxpayers, is nothing when compared to the safety and security of Americans.

When the banks tried to smear the company on the last go-round, not to mention the wealth of comments left by bank shills in their effort to spin, spin, spin, their smear campaign, I thought we had reached the nadir of PR stupidity. But the level of desperation has now fallen to an embarrassing new low.

But Asa Hutchinson harping on Osama? Give me a break. This is just getting too funny.

Update: From IPI PolicyBytes, Blogger Tom Giovanetti, who I don't know but may be a tad more conservative than me, has this to say about Asa's Op-Ed:

Several commentors want to know "what I think now" after the Hutchinson op/ed. The answer? I now think far less of Hutchinson's intellect and integrity than I did before reading his op/ed.

You see why he appears more conservative? I probably couldn't think less of Asa than I did before. If anything, I'm beginning to feel sorry for him because this was so pathetic.

I am immediately suspicious of anyone who tries to cloak their issue in national security. In Hutchinson's article, he spends his first 5 paragraphs raising the turbaned-menace, mentioning Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, 9/11, the Pentagon, terrorists, etc. This is an insulting smoke screen. The issue, as everyone knows, is whether or not it is right to specifically obliterate someone's patent rights after having repeatedly failed to invalidate the patent. Hutchinson insults his readers by trying to sneak his issue through the smokescreen of national defense.

Well, if its a good enough reason for the USA Patriot Act, are you saying it isn't good enough to protect the financial interest of American banks from a patent holder? So what's your bottom line Tom?

Hutchinson's article is an embarrassment, and should embarrass even those who are on his side of the issue.

After what the banks lost on Sessions, now Asa, not to mention all the little bank shills that run around the internet spreading the word, this has got to be costing the banks a fortune. It tells you a lot about what the true value of beating DataTreasury must be.]]>
Posted by SHG at 4/15/2008 1:07 PM and is filed under uncategorized

You can't make this stuff up. When Senators Arlen Specter and Jeff Sessions abandoned the Datatreasury amendment in the face of public humiliation, we thought we had heard the end of it. Nope. There was still one step (at least) further into the gutter that the banks are willing to go.

This time, no less (expensive) a personage as Asa Hutchinson, former undersecretary of Homeland Security and now CEO of his very own "consulting" firm, has an Op-Ed in the Washington Times (not Post, Times) that argues that America must stop DataTreasury to protect itself from Osama Bin Laden.

And here we thought this was only about saving banks from having to pay billions of dollars. Now we know it's part of the war on Osama. Like I said, you can't make this stuff up.

Asa's argument relies entirely on long-discredited allegations and, in an over-abundance of blather, contends that any issues as to the validity of patents are too important to be left to the courts when they involve matters of national security.

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.

That's right. Unless you want Osama to win, our government must seize control of the patents from DataTreasury and hand them over to the banks to use for free. The cost, shouldered by the taxpayers, is nothing when compared to the safety and security of Americans.

When the banks tried to smear the company on the last go-round, not to mention the wealth of comments left by bank shills in their effort to spin, spin, spin, their smear campaign, I thought we had reached the nadir of PR stupidity. But the level of desperation has now fallen to an embarrassing new low.

But Asa Hutchinson harping on Osama? Give me a break. This is just getting too funny.

Update: From IPI PolicyBytes, Blogger Tom Giovanetti, who I don't know but may be a tad more conservative than me, has this to say about Asa's Op-Ed:

Several commentors want to know "what I think now" after the Hutchinson op/ed. The answer? I now think far less of Hutchinson's intellect and integrity than I did before reading his op/ed.

You see why he appears more conservative? I probably couldn't think less of Asa than I did before. If anything, I'm beginning to feel sorry for him because this was so pathetic.

I am immediately suspicious of anyone who tries to cloak their issue in national security. In Hutchinson's article, he spends his first 5 paragraphs raising the turbaned-menace, mentioning Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, 9/11, the Pentagon, terrorists, etc. This is an insulting smoke screen. The issue, as everyone knows, is whether or not it is right to specifically obliterate someone's patent rights after having repeatedly failed to invalidate the patent. Hutchinson insults his readers by trying to sneak his issue through the smokescreen of national defense.

Well, if its a good enough reason for the USA Patriot Act, are you saying it isn't good enough to protect the financial interest of American banks from a patent holder? So what's your bottom line Tom?

Hutchinson's article is an embarrassment, and should embarrass even those who are on his side of the issue.

After what the banks lost on Sessions, now Asa, not to mention all the little bank shills that run around the internet spreading the word, this has got to be costing the banks a fortune. It tells you a lot about what the true value of beating DataTreasury must be.]]> http://www.policybytes.org/blog/policybytes.nsf/dx/illogical-arguments.htm?opendocument&comments#04152008061418PMSERV9H.htm Tue, 15 Apr 2008 12:47:48 PM -0500 Anonymous Illogical arguments from Asa Hutchinson and commentors on the DataTreasury patent issue
1). Banks have claimed (or at least implied) in making their case for the Sessions Amendment to S1145 that Check 21 legislation has required them to adopt infringing technology and, that consequently, they should be held harmless.

The Check 21 Act legalized “Check Imaging” and does not force Banks to comply with its usage. Banks remain free to process checks the old way or themselves invent a non-infringing new way or license use of the Data Treasury road map for a modest portion of the savings it offers. Nothing in the Check 21 Act requires banks infringe the Data Treasury patents. Check 21 made it possible for the banks to dramatically reduce check clearance costs, relative to then current processes. Check 21 was opportunity, not burden!!

2). Numerous banks rebuffed Data Treasury when it tried to sell the many benefits of practicing his invention before anyone even new about Check 21. Three to more than 6 years after these applications were filed, virtually every major bank in America has gotten around to implementing systems that allegedly infringe, most after previously expressing disinterest in derivative products or licenses, and a few after have negotiated licenses in good faith.

3). The Data Treasury patents have withstood the best legal challenges the banks could buy, and that some of the more responsible banks have admitted the validity of the patents by licensing them. And every entity that has been sued almost surely had opportunity to negotiate a license before being sued.

These are high-quality patents; to not enforce its' patent rights would be a discredit to those who fairly and lawfully use these licenses."

4). This is the industry that Sessions champions:

The “innocent banks” and their ilk:

From: Chief Executive (U.S.)5/1/2001 Author: PRINCE, C.J

It's not every CEO who freely admits to swiping other people's ideas--although, truth be told, the vast majority of successful chief executives have probably taken the liberty. But ask Richard Kovacevich, CEO OF WELLS FARGO, whether he prefers inventing ideas or stealing them and he's quick with his response. "Oh, I'd much rather steal an idea," the 57-year-old CEO says matter-of-factly. "Quite frankly, it's much easier mentally. I have no pride about that."

Such disclosure was for the purpose of marketing new technology. I am told this includes Mr Kovacavich's bank and while his comments may have been in another context, they clearly set a tone and standard for his senior executives actions over the ensuing two years.]]>
1). Banks have claimed (or at least implied) in making their case for the Sessions Amendment to S1145 that Check 21 legislation has required them to adopt infringing technology and, that consequently, they should be held harmless.

The Check 21 Act legalized “Check Imaging” and does not force Banks to comply with its usage. Banks remain free to process checks the old way or themselves invent a non-infringing new way or license use of the Data Treasury road map for a modest portion of the savings it offers. Nothing in the Check 21 Act requires banks infringe the Data Treasury patents. Check 21 made it possible for the banks to dramatically reduce check clearance costs, relative to then current processes. Check 21 was opportunity, not burden!!

2). Numerous banks rebuffed Data Treasury when it tried to sell the many benefits of practicing his invention before anyone even new about Check 21. Three to more than 6 years after these applications were filed, virtually every major bank in America has gotten around to implementing systems that allegedly infringe, most after previously expressing disinterest in derivative products or licenses, and a few after have negotiated licenses in good faith.

3). The Data Treasury patents have withstood the best legal challenges the banks could buy, and that some of the more responsible banks have admitted the validity of the patents by licensing them. And every entity that has been sued almost surely had opportunity to negotiate a license before being sued.

These are high-quality patents; to not enforce its' patent rights would be a discredit to those who fairly and lawfully use these licenses."

4). This is the industry that Sessions champions:

The “innocent banks” and their ilk:

From: Chief Executive (U.S.)5/1/2001 Author: PRINCE, C.J

It's not every CEO who freely admits to swiping other people's ideas--although, truth be told, the vast majority of successful chief executives have probably taken the liberty. But ask Richard Kovacevich, CEO OF WELLS FARGO, whether he prefers inventing ideas or stealing them and he's quick with his response. "Oh, I'd much rather steal an idea," the 57-year-old CEO says matter-of-factly. "Quite frankly, it's much easier mentally. I have no pride about that."

Such disclosure was for the purpose of marketing new technology. I am told this includes Mr Kovacavich's bank and while his comments may have been in another context, they clearly set a tone and standard for his senior executives actions over the ensuing two years.]]> http://www.policybytes.org/blog/policybytes.nsf/dx/illogical-arguments.htm?opendocument&comments#04152008124748PMSERNVF.htm Tue, 15 Apr 2008 08:37:25 AM -0500 F Paul DiMaria Illogical arguments from Asa Hutchinson and commentors on the DataTreasury patent issue
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 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!)

(*The case, Data Treasury VS. Wells Fargo, and numerous other banks, was filed on Feb 24,2006 and is still in progress.*) ( Sorry ,their is no room in this equation for banks attempting to buy a new law because they are dissatisfied with existing patent legislation) .These guys believe ,if you have enough money, you can buy your way in or out of anything. How about we try it the old fashion way? Lets resolve theis issue in court!]]>
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 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!)

(*The case, Data Treasury VS. Wells Fargo, and numerous other banks, was filed on Feb 24,2006 and is still in progress.*) ( Sorry ,their is no room in this equation for banks attempting to buy a new law because they are dissatisfied with existing patent legislation) .These guys believe ,if you have enough money, you can buy your way in or out of anything. How about we try it the old fashion way? Lets resolve theis issue in court!]]> http://www.policybytes.org/blog/policybytes.nsf/dx/illogical-arguments.htm?opendocument&comments#04152008083725AMSERHYX.htm