U.S. Senate Drives a Stake Through Heart of Patent Reform

CommanderFrank

CommanderFrank

Cat Can't Scratch It
Joined
May 9, 2000
Messages
75,399
Just when it appeared that Congress was finally getting it together and passing legislature to control the rise of patent trolls and the flood of frivolous law suits, the vote on the bill was pulled by Senator Patrick Leahy.

The organization placed the blame for the bill’s death squarely on Leahy, who previously introduced the controversial PIPA bill, which would have forced ISPs to blacklist certain websites.
Click to expand...
 
The patent system does suck, but they have more important things to do than worry about what company is suing what over an on-screen widget or whether or not the edges are round.
 
We all know the reason for his action... money. Dig deep enough and I'd wager everything I own that somewhere, someone came and "talked to him" about how patent reform would harm their income stream. So in some sort of back alley promise or pay off... the crooked bastard pulled the thing before they could even vote on it.

I have no doubt this country used to be great at one point, but it seems like no matter what level you peer into, all you see is greed, corruption, and the need to lord power and control over others. Really makes you kind of sick knowing your "freedom" can be bought and sold over a 5000 dollar dinner (at the tax payers expense of course)
 
collegeboy69us said:
We all know the reason for his action... money. Dig deep enough and I'd wager everything I own that somewhere, someone came and "talked to him" about how patent reform would harm their income stream. So in some sort of back alley promise or pay off... the crooked bastard pulled the thing before they could even vote on it.

I have no doubt this country used to be great at one point, but it seems like no matter what level you peer into, all you see is greed, corruption, and the need to lord power and control over others. Really makes you kind of sick knowing your "freedom" can be bought and sold over a 5000 dollar dinner (at the tax payers expense of course)
Click to expand...
Oh come on, I'm sure at least 3% of our politicians have some integrity.
 
daglesj said:
Introduce a two consecutive term limit for all.
Click to expand...

We probably would have had that awhile ago if it were for the fact that the very people it would affect are the ones who need to do it.
 
daglesj said:
Introduce a two consecutive term limit for all.
Click to expand...

The law of unintended consequences favors that this might cause more problems than it solves ... unless they make other fundamental changes to government, term limits would only strengthen the power of the lobbyists and the career bureaucrats (since they would be the only experienced people with the constant turnover in the elected officials) ... term limits might very well be a good idea but eliminating the pensions that Congress gets might solve more problems than term limits (but since Congress has to approve this I don't see this happening either) :cool:
 
daglesj said:
Introduce a two consecutive term limit for all.
Click to expand...

I don't get why people think that term limits would solve anything. You'd just get a new batch of corrupt politicians every few years, being even more corrupt so they can make their money quickly. It would be more productive to get rid of the money that's causing the corruption in the first place.

Perhaps there's one area where limiting the length of time they serve would be good. Put limits on an entirely different branch of the government: the Supreme Court. They've done far more to corrupt the government than Congress has over the last few years, and they get to serve for life.
 
What we call influence and spendings scandals here in Canada are the equivalent of sentator having lunch with a CEO in the US.
 
How about working on fixing broken congress next? Yanno, have a bill, vote on just that bill, don't allow any fucking amendments to slide into it. "So sorry we had a bill to stamp out hunger in this country for $1 million a year, but ol' Senator Nutjob decided that he would add an amendment to buy 10,000 F-22 fighters into it"
 
sfsuphysics said:
How about working on fixing broken congress next? Yanno, have a bill, vote on just that bill, don't allow any fucking amendments to slide into it. "So sorry we had a bill to stamp out hunger in this country for $1 million a year, but ol' Senator Nutjob decided that he would add an amendment to buy 10,000 F-22 fighters into it"
Click to expand...

But that would mean Congress would have to be in session doing their jobs and voting for more than 90 days a year.
 
sfsuphysics said:
How about working on fixing broken congress next? Yanno, have a bill, vote on just that bill, don't allow any fucking amendments to slide into it. "So sorry we had a bill to stamp out hunger in this country for $1 million a year, but ol' Senator Nutjob decided that he would add an amendment to buy 10,000 F-22 fighters into it"
Click to expand...

Until we start electing people that love their country more than they love their jobs and the power associated with it we will never fix the problems with Congress ;)
 
kbrickley said:
Until we start electing people that love their country more than they love their jobs and the power associated with it we will never fix the problems with Congress ;)
Click to expand...

Heh, everyone has a price. And at the national level, that price is easily met.
 
tetris42 said:
Oh come on, I'm sure at least 3% of our politicians have some integrity.
Click to expand...

Well that would mean there is at least 1 politician who isnt corrupt. I think the correct phrase is some politicians are 3% uncorrupt.
 
Super-D said:
I don't get why people think that term limits would solve anything. You'd just get a new batch of corrupt politicians every few years, being even more corrupt so they can make their money quickly. It would be more productive to get rid of the money that's causing the corruption in the first place.
Click to expand...
It's part money and part power. Why do you think billionaires dont just give away half their fortune? I mean they're billionaires, they can never spend all that money. They will die billionaires. So why dont they just donate to charity or something? Because like also enjoy the power that comes with being a billionaire. They would become trillionaires if they could. They just like knowing that they own an industry, or multiple industries, and that they have influence and control over vast swaths of enterprise and legislature.
 
So in essence, it wouldnt matter if you capped politicians salary at 50k and audited them every year, those who stay in it would just do it to exert control over the populace.
 
I've always thought congressmen should be term limited with no retirement packages, and limited pay equal to your average middle class income earner. It should be something like glorified jury duty. We need to guarantee that those who go to serve actually go to serve.
 
Sadly, no one will care as there's no Republican boogeyman to blame. I appreciate Wired's efforts to point fingers at the GOP though.

325 - 91 was the vote tally in the house in favor of the legislation? And Leahy pulls it in the Senate Judiciary phase? Christ almighty what a douche.
 
Skripka said:
Heh, everyone has a price. And at the national level, that price is easily met.
Click to expand...

If only enough smart people who care about their country payed attention. I would absolutely support charging the worst in Congress with treason. Then let's see how the rest of them act.
 
kbrickley said:
The law of unintended consequences favors that this might cause more problems than it solves ... unless they make other fundamental changes to government, term limits would only strengthen the power of the lobbyists and the career bureaucrats (since they would be the only experienced people with the constant turnover in the elected officials) ... term limits might very well be a good idea but eliminating the pensions that Congress gets might solve more problems than term limits (but since Congress has to approve this I don't see this happening either) :cool:
Click to expand...

It'd be an interesting tweak to see congressional benefits (pay / pension / healthcare / etc) voted on by the people. It'd probably get more people to vote if we they wanted to give themselves a pay raise. I'd vote no.
 
Spidey329 said:
It'd be an interesting tweak to see congressional benefits (pay / pension / healthcare / etc) voted on by the people. It'd probably get more people to vote if we they wanted to give themselves a pay raise. I'd vote no.
Click to expand...

It was this way in Arizona ... we were a ballot initiative state ... the state congressmen voted themselves a raise which someone got put on a ballot initiative and rescinded ... I wouldn't want just anything going to national ballot but I think government benefits and tenure requirements would be reasonable to have the people vote on :cool:
 
How does this one person (Leahy) get veto power over all bills in the Senate? Especially when the bill already passed the House?
 
sir-gold said:
How does this one person (Leahy) get veto power over all bills in the Senate? Especially when the bill already passed the House?
Click to expand...

It isn't veto power strictly speaking...he killed it in committee.
 
Super-D said:
I don't get why people think that term limits would solve anything. You'd just get a new batch of corrupt politicians every few years, being even more corrupt so they can make their money quickly. It would be more productive to get rid of the money that's causing the corruption in the first place.

Perhaps there's one area where limiting the length of time they serve would be good. Put limits on an entirely different branch of the government: the Supreme Court. They've done far more to corrupt the government than Congress has over the last few years, and they get to serve for life.
Click to expand...

Well, when you impose a term limit, it makes it so certain people in their position less endearing? to pay off. Because they won't be in there that long, so it's less attractive to pay them LOTS and LOTS of money because it won't last that long.

At least I think that's what would happen. I'm sure they'll find ways around it though.
 
crusty_juggler said:
Sadly, no one will care as there's no Republican boogeyman to blame. I appreciate Wired's efforts to point fingers at the GOP though.

325 - 91 was the vote tally in the house in favor of the legislation? And Leahy pulls it in the Senate Judiciary phase? Christ almighty what a douche.
Click to expand...

True.
 
crusty_juggler said:
Sadly, no one will care as there's no Republican boogeyman to blame. I appreciate Wired's efforts to point fingers at the GOP though.

325 - 91 was the vote tally in the house in favor of the legislation? And Leahy pulls it in the Senate Judiciary phase? Christ almighty what a douche.
Click to expand...

That's insane. There should be some law that if over 75% of the House votes in favor of a bill it must be brought up for a vote in the Senate.

Even if the Senate votes it down that's fine. But it should at least be brought for a vote.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top