After bank stock owning Senator Jeff Session’s (R-Ala) gave up on his quest to divest DataTreasury of its patent rights, maybe some believed that the idea that patent owners would be shown some respect when banks infringed at will. But not Arizona Republican Senator Jon Kyl. From the Dow Jones Newswire :
The Judiciary panel is scheduled to take up a bill Tuesday to overhaul the nation’s patent system. Two industry sources said Sen.Jon Kyl , R-Ariz., has circulated a possible amendment to colleagues that would shield banks from having to pay money damages if they infringe on checking-imaging patents.Kyl’s proposal is similar to a provision offered last year by Sen.
Jeff Sessions , R-Ala., another member of the Judiciary Committee.Sessions’ amendment proved controversial because it targeted ongoing litigation and because Sessions owned stock in two banks that stood to gain from the provision.
Sessions said at the time that the legislation was necessary because DataTreasury had abused the patent system, but he later withdrew his support for the provision and expressed doubts about its legality.
The patent bill containing the Sessions provision died last year in the Senate.
It’s baa-aack. Anybody want to bet that out banks, on publicly funded life support for doing such a fine job for our nation, will use the few pennies they have left to engage the shills to go around smearing DataTreasury like they did last time out? But this time, Kyl will have an extra special trick in his bag, one that didn’t cost the banks a cent.
When last we left our patent-infringing banks, they were still the omnipotent giants of finance. This time, they are sniveling runts, barely able to move on their own (at least without new private corporate jets). And so, as we infuse them with large amounts of cash to maintain their liquidity and save them from their “toxic assets,” our savior, Senator Kyl, can invoke the need to protect the public till from the terrible cost of paying the patent infringement tab.
In other words, before the Senate was protecting the banks from having to pay for their unlawful conduct. Now, they can claim that they are protecting the public from covering the cost to the banks of having to pay for their unlawful conduct. The smell is no better, but the question is whether it will get traction because of whose pocket will pay the damages.
Isn’t it ironic that the banks never seem very shy when it comes to us paying their fees? And now they want our sympathy?
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It came as no surprise that Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-AZ) (and apparently with a straight face) has recently introduced HIS Patent Reform Act (S610), a copycat of the Bill he proposed last September (S3600) in the wake of the failure of the other patent reform bill then pending in the Senate and contrary to (S515) and (HR1260) currently pending in Congress.
It again includes a “Check 21” exception (sec. 13,): “With respect to the use by a financial institution of a check collection system that constitutes an infringement under subsection (a) or (b) of section 271, the provisions of sections 281, 283, 284, and 285 shall not apply against the financial institution with respect to such a check collection system.” Although a small Technology Company named Data Treasury and its patents were NOT specifically mentioned, the intent of the exception is aimed directly at Data Treasury and its ongoing litigation against the banking industry for infringing upon its “Check Collection” remote image capture technology.
This exception, as written, pollutes a legitimate legislative effort with ex post facto and probably unconstitutional provisions having the lofty purpose of allowing banks infringing Data Treasury Patents to negate and or dramatically reduce the damages they face. So rather than face a jury, where they obviously fear losing, the banks decided to call on their friends in Congress for legal protection. So what was the purpose of his adding this exception with the Gov’t provision to the bill other than to protect the banking industry depicting a clear and crass example of who gets bought in Congress? Legislation should not be used to grant retroactive legal immunity to large corporations that willfully ignored the property rights of a small, innovative company. And no elected official who has pledged to maintain the integrity of our legal system should be a party to such a travesty. Senator Kyle by championing this exception should be made (with a clear answer devoid of spin) to explain why exactly, banks should be immune to patent law that applies to everybody else.
Gee, as much as I happen to agree with you, don’t you think running around the blogosphere copying a prepared script has a bit of a stench to it? I take it that DT is doing some pre-emptive posting, given how the bank shills were all over the story like flies on shit last time around. Still, if you tried to make it, oh, just a little less robotic, it might not emit such a bad odor.
The stench is coming from the banks and their “PURCHASED” cronies- NOT ME!!!
The script is the same because nothing has changed since the last go-round..
We are on very dangerous grounds with congressional tampering with the constitutional right of intellectual property protection. These are high-quality patents; to not enforce patent rights would be a discredit to those who fairly and lawfully use these licenses.
Second try (and follow closely, as there won’t be a third). I agree with you completely that this latest back door attempt to undermine DataTreasury’s absolutely legitimate patent infringement actions is wrong and dangerous. What I’m hope you get (and I mean this) is that posting “packaged” comments isn’t particularly helpful to the cause or persuasive. Nobody likes it when the arguments come pre-packaged. It’s not your position that’s a problem, but how it’s packaged. Instead of copy and paste comments, post significantly shorter (because nobody reads comments the length of yours anyway) and more directed to the substance of the post.
Consider this an attempt from a friend to help you learn how to male friends and influence people on the internet. No charge.
Commentary accepted,with my thanks.
I said it before and I`ll continue to say it until this crew (The Coalition for Patent Fairness) stops there attempt to perpetrate a hoax on the American public!!! The Coalition for Patent Fairness is a group of one hundred and fifty high tech companies. They are backed by the (Financial Round Table.) The Financial Round Table represents the countries one hundred largest banks. Data Treasury is suing these banks for patent infringement. A substantial number of banks have come to terms and have signed licensing agreements with Data Treasury. The banking industry has spent in excess of ONE BILLION DOLLARS to fight this case and to justify there illegal infringement .To date ,they have not won a single court battle. They attempted to buy there way out of this dilemma, with an unconstitutional amendment sponsored by Rep Jeff Sessions. By the senators own admission ” I don`t know how (the provision ) can pass a constitutional muster.”
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 involved lobbyists, buying politicians! (It had nothing to do with merit!)
NOW THERE AT IT AGAIN ! —Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-AZ) has recently introduced the latest Patent Reform Act (S3600). In it includes a “Check 21” exception. The latest Patent Reform Act (S3600). In it includes a “Check 21” exception (sec. 13, page 80): “With respect to the use by a financial institution of a check collection system that constitutes an infringement under subsection (a) or (b) of section 271, the provisions of sections 281, 283, 284, and 285 “SHALL NOT APPLY AGAINST THE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS WITH RESPECT TO SUCH A CHECK COLLECTION SYSTEM” WHO`S PAYROLL ARE THESE GUYS ON??? WHY SHOULD BANKS NOT BE LIABLE FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT??? THIS ISSUE SHOULD BE RESOLVED IN THE COURTS, NOT BY A GROUP OF PAID OFF POLITICIANS’. Come on Minority Whip Kyl HOW ABOUT A REPLY?????
(Coalition for Patent Fairness )— Not even in anyone’s wildest dreams, does this name fit!
Fairness by definition —( FREEDOM FROM DISHONESTY AND INJUSTICE.)— ONCE AGAIN, WHO DO THESE GUYS THINK THEY ARE FOOLING?
Inspector Cluseau.
Senator Kyl is attempting to pass the same legislation that Session’s himself in so many words already conceded was unconstitutional. The only difference being the clause inserted stating that the amendment would be void if deemed a takings. The end result(who picks up the tab, the banks or the taxpayer) should have no bearing on the justification or legality of the means. Furthermore, the CBO has already deemed such an action as a takings. So what are we accomplishing here other wasting every bodies time and more taxpayer money.
I think this is just wrong. Remember, this may or may not be in the final draft which gets submitted to the House and Senate (yes?). Sure DT has a lot to loose, but also remember, they are not the only ones in the Check 21 patent arena. It would seem that everyone is getting screwed here (and there).
contrary to what others say I think it is a joke that anyone would be more concerned about how and how long you response to a comment instead of the fact that time is running out and the banks are and will continue to have to pay wells fargo next then we go north to Canada. Its good to know sometimes people can not buy the government and the good guy wins in the end.