That was not hostile to the tech sector. First to file vs. first to invent is neither favorable to nor unfavorable to the tech sector, and the AIA contains some strong anti-troll provisions which are quite favorable to the tech sector.
First-to-file only matters when you have two parties eligible for the same conflicting patentable idea. It does not create some new gold rush of patentability; it applies only in the tiny minority of cases where two people are filing conflicting patents simultaneously. It's possible that there hasn't been a single widely-known trolled patent that was obtained under these kinds of circumstances.
MEANWHILE: AIA also includes provisions that prevent trolls from joining together defendants in suits into a single case in the troll's jurisdiction. Since that was a major part of the litigation M.O. for patent trolls, it's hard to look at AIA as a win for trolls.
Do you feel as though IP does not have any place in technology? Curious to here your take.
Dont know if I would agree with you about the of cycle dud candidate. I see your point, just seems like the polls show that this wont be a landslide. I think (thought?) Romney had a realistic chance at winning.
But Bush Jr was vulnerable in 2004. Hell he probably only won in 2000 because Gore himself was a dud candidate. Anyway, two things contributed to the 2004 reelection: John Kerry being an out-of-touch dandy and playboy and the gay marriage referenda (which were a call-to-arms to the religious right).
This time around Obama is vulnerable too. A lot of people are disenchanted him over, for example, Iraq (still going on). Look at the difference in rhetoric between Obama the candidate and Obama the president. World of difference.
My view is you need to understand that each party understands who their bases are.
The Republican base is the religious right, corporations and the wealthy.
The Democrat base is unions, the poor, African-Americans and... trial lawyers [1]. It's why you see the Democrats fight, for example, tort reform [2] [3] [4].
Lawyers love patents, which is why you'll never see patent reform from the Democratic Party. Things is, big corporations love them too so you'll never see it from the Republican Party either. But at least patents may hurt companies enough to notice at some point. A lot of tech companies are against software patents.
Personally, I am 100% against software patents in any form. The idea, to paraphrase John Carmack, that I can write a program and then someone else can independently write that same program and violate any number of my patents is horrifying. The fact that any given smartphone may contain and/or violate hundreds if not thousands of patents tells you the system is broken.
Patents are intended to protect innovation but it seems clear it does the opposite. Patents on aviation in the early 20th century left the US unable to build planes when it entered World War One, to the point that it had to buy them from France and Congress needed to intervene [5].
[1]: http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202473540921&Tria...
[2]: http://voices.yahoo.com/democrats-against-tort-reform-regard...
[3]: http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2012/07/30/obamacare-and-n...
[4]: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230383020457744...
[5]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wright_brothers_patent_war
If your primary concern is the tech sector and entrepreneurs then the choices are pretty woeful.
The Obama administration is without doubt the most hostile to the tech sector through and the Internet its strong pro-IP stance between:
- staffing the DoJ with RIAA lawyers [1]
- appointing RIAA lobbyists as federal judges [2]
- having an anaemic stance on software patents ("don't blame us") [3] since the White House is by far the largest bully pulpit in the country they could act if they wanted to. It is within the power of Congress and the White House to reform the American Appeals Court for the Federal Circuit, which is responsible for a lot of software patent nonsense and, at this point, is arguably an example of regulatory capture
- only came out against SOPA/PIPA when public backlash had already basically killed them [4] [5]
- tried to negotiate and pass the original ACTA treaty in secret, which would have largely equated piracy with terrorism [6]
- used diplomatic pressure on foreign governments to tow the same hardline IP stance eg the AFACT downloading case against iiNet in Australia (which was ultimately lost) [7]
- enacted the America Invents Act, which gives patents to the first-to-file [8]
Romney has been essentially silent on the issue of software patents and, let's face it, he's the off-cycle dud candidate of this election. By this I mean look at the candidates that went up against the incumbent seeking reelection:
2004: John Kerry
1996: Bob Dole
1992: Clinton obviously won against Bush Sr but this was in large part to Ross Perot more than anything else (IMHO)
1984: Walter Mondale
Anyway, if the tech sector concerns you--and since you're reading HN it probably does--the choices are terrible this time around. Software patents threaten the entire tech sector [1]: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/04/obama-taps-fift/
[2]: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/03/riaa-lobbyist-bec...
[3]: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/11/white-house-blame...
[4]: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/18/sopa-obama-donors-h...
[5]: http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngaudiosi/2012/01/16/obama-sa...
[6]: http://boingboing.net/2009/11/03/secret-copyright-tre.html
[7]: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/08/31/afact_subcontractor_...
[8]: http://macdailynews.com/2011/09/16/obama-signs-first-to-file...