Senator Sessions Gets Religion

The  bank-owned shills are silent.  Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions has made a sudden about-face on the patent overhaul bill and turned against the DataTreasury amendment, the very one he authored, or at least signed his name to after the bank lawyers handed it over to him on a silver platter.

According to the Washington Post,


Sessions announced his decision in a letter last week to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.). In the letter, he noted that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office said his amendment to a larger bill could affect more patented check technologies than originally thought and might undercut U.S. patent-protection efforts with trading partners.

“I wanted you to be aware of these developments,” Sessions wrote to Leahy.

That’s awfully thoughtful of him.  After all, the amendment was designed to screw just one specific company, as made clear by the banks’ concerted attacks to smear the Claudio Ballard for having the audacity to invent something that they really, really need.  Maybe the collateral damage would hurt another of Sessions’ close and dear friends?  Or maybe he thought no one would notice how he slipped in this piece of garbage amendment and, when people did notice, when people realize what he was trying to pull under cover of darkness, and he realized that he was caught red-handed, he suddenly found religion?  It happens in prison all the time.

But there’s one last question left unanswered:  Does Sessions have to give the money back?  After all, he tried really hard.

Also, at Patently-O, noted that Arlen Specter has pulled his support, and that the DataTreasury amendment has been pulled from the bill.

Discover more from Simple Justice

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

5 thoughts on “Senator Sessions Gets Religion”

  1. Paull

    Subject: 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    An amendment to the Patent Reform Bill, sponsored by Senator Jeff Sessions, has been withdrawn by the Senator himself.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 at all 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.*)
    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,)

  2. John Fagot

    Why would the Banks go to the effort of getting a Senator to sponsor an amendment to a Patent Reform Bill that has one company as its target, conveniently passing the cost on to the taxpaying public, if they thought they were going to win in court?? Their lawyers have lost several times at US Patent Office levels, and have told the banks that they would lose in court and then would have to pay treble damages if they continued on that course. This is an attempt to negate a court decision before it has even happened because the banks happen to have politicians in their pocket. Whatever you may think about Data Treasury doesn’t matter, it is a legal decision that wll be made by the Courts. If the banks’ claim that they did not steal the intellectual property of Data Treasury is true, then prove it in Court.

Comments are closed.