[Discuss] FYI: We the People...

[Derek Martin]

On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 03:56:51PM -0400, Bill Bogstad wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 8:35 AM, Edward Ned Harvey <blu at nedharvey.com> wrote:
> >> From: discuss-bounces+blu=nedharvey.com at blu.org [mailto:discuss-
> >> bounces+blu=nedharvey.com at blu.org] On Behalf Of Hsuanyeh Chang
> >>
> >> Petitioning President Obama to End Software Patents.
> >
> > Pres. Obama doesn't have control over it.
> > See the recent white house press release, telling people to stop bugging him
> > about it.  It's controlled by congress and the judicial system.
> 
> That's a little disingenuous.   Sure, he doesn't decide patent law any
> more then he decides health care law.  It involves legislation which
> Congress passes and he signs (or vetoes).  

But only once they've passed it.

> That doesn't mean he can't lobby for things he wants.  

Absolutely true, but how successful would you say Obama has been at
getting Congress to do what he wanted?  You can only lead those
willing to follow... :)

> And he could probably make changes in the operations of the patent
> office via executive order which would make a difference.

Unlikely.  The law around executive orders is a bit vague, but
typically the President can only effect orders which affect the
operation of the executive branch (the military, and federal security
and law enforcement agencies), or those areas where Congress has
expressly delegated some amount of discretionary power to the
President as codified in legislation.  I'm neither a lawyer, nor am I
extensively versed in patent-related law, but I've never heard it even
suggested that the President have any such power in any of the
readings I've done on the topic.  All of the law blogs and articles
I've read suggest that this power lies solely with Congress.

> > Besides, there are solid arguments both for and against it.
> >  Arguments I'd rather not see on this list because they will go
> > forever, and we won't represent the people who actually have a
> > stake in the matter anyway.
> 
> Given that these issues were discussed on this list recently, I agree
> that there isn't much point in discussing it again.  I do take
> exception to what appears to be your suggestion that people here don't
> have a stake in the matter.   

Completely agreed -- nearly posted to say the same, but decided it was
not worth the effort.

> At least some of the people here are software developers and
> virtually all of us make use of free/open software which has been
> impacted by patents in the past.  We definitely DO have a stake in
> the matter.

The frustrating thing is that so many smart people think this only
affects OSS.  To be clear, software patents directly or indirectly
affect everyone working in the technology industries, anyone who
develops software as a profession or as a hobby, as well as anyone who
buys products which in whole or in part consist of software.
Virtually EVERYONE has a stake, whether they realize it or not.
Patent-related litigation and contractual negotiation drives up the
cost of producing software for EVERYONE, a cost which is passed onto
you, the consumer.  Furthermore, it stifles innovation, and has
almost certainly resulted and will continue to result in software
which you might benefit from never being produced, or in inferior
products being produced due to the threat of being sued or
unwillingness or inability to pay licensing fees.

-- 
Derek D. Martin    http://www.pizzashack.org/   GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02
-=-=-=-=-
This message is posted from an invalid address.  Replying to it will result in
undeliverable mail due to spam prevention.  Sorry for the inconvenience.