
let me say that again, with slightly more spin: companies that are often sued for patent infringement by inventors now get to help decide which patents get approved.
huh? haven't we learned a lesson about this kind of incestuous relationship between the guv & industry vis a vis the fda and big pharma? are we really stoopid enough to go right ahead & set up the same kind of pervy uncle/pliable niece scenario all over again?
here's a pretty clear indication that these companies aren't proposing change for our own good: they'd like to limit the awards paid to inventors that win lawsuits against them. in other words, if you invent something & a company steals your idea, at best you will only be able to get back a fraction of the money that should have been yours in the first place. the company gets to keep the rest.
novel concept, that. kinda like saying that a thief that cleans out your house won't go to jail, only has to give back your garage door opener, & gets to keep all of your appliances.
the argument made by industry is that these lawsuits slow down the pace of american inventiveness. as we always recommend, it pays to look at the metrics whenever any side makes a claim. if what industry says is true, why does the number of patent applications have such a steep curve:

here's the elsewhen counter-proposal:
we believe that this is a fair & equitable arrangement that protects the legitimate interests of both sides without putting the fox in charge of the henhouse.
(another brilliant piece of gratis consulting work from your friendly neighborhood elsewhen staff. remember us at christmas.)