3M
    Adobe Systems
    Boston Scientific
    Dolby Laboratories
    The Dow Chemical Company
    DuPont
    Fairchild Semiconductor
    Fairfield Crystal Technology
    General Electric
    IBM
    IEEE-USA
    Johnson & Johnson
    Microsoft
    Procter & Gamble
    Qualcomm
    Xerox Corporation

Insinuating that they may be a paid shill is truly obnoxious behavior.

To be fair, I don't think the author's a shill. But I've been following him since he wrote for Ars (and he's also on HN sometimes), so I can tell he certainly has drunk some Kool-aid, and it has a slight Google flavor. He interned there after all, so that may explain why Microsoft was highlighted in the headlines. 

But notably, he also is (or was) a "scholar" at the Cato Institute, which believes in "limited government and free markets" and seems to have anti-IP leanings. Unsurprisingly the author's articles (even this one!) often uncritically cite the works published by academics like James Bessen, which like to paint a "sky is falling" situation with respect to US IP policies, even though these works have time and again been strongly called into question by other academics. Given that he's a scholar himself, I'd be surprised if he's unaware of that, but his articles only ever present one side.

So the Kool-aid may have other, stronger flavors as well, but he's definitely drunk some.

If a big fuss was made about such problems, they might chagne their tune.

> And few firms have larger software patent portfolios than Microsoft and IBM. These companies, which also happen to have two of the software industry's largest lobbying budgets, have been leading voices against the expansion of the CBM program.

I can believe that IBM does far more software patent lobbying than most of the firms whose core products are not directly software related

This is in part because they have a heavy patent culture, perhaps due to their legacy as a machines company.

This is what tech companies spent in Q3 2013, maybe someone else can post IBM's stats but Microsoft's spending doesn't look all that high to me.

Google 3.4M

Microsoft 2.2M

Facebook 1.7M

Apple 0.97M

Amazon 0.78M

I think the real story is how cheap the lobbying costs are.

What I completely fail to understand with all the Snowden revelations and stories like this is that Silicon Valley tech folks have enormous salaries and high disposable income.

If they would actually contribute some of that to a PAC or to the EFF, it would be way more productive than sitting in Starbucks sipping a $5 latte and posting "Not going to get the Xbox from M$. Getting a PS4 for $400 + games for $60 each instead! That's going to teach them! And Bill Gates sucks despite helping the poorest people in Africa and India!" from their latest MacBook or iPad Air on HN articles such as these(you can see those posts below).

I guess gathering HN karma feels better and is cheaper than actually trying to make a real difference on issues that people seem to write emotional posts about.

Having seen a lot of such issues and discussions from my Slashdot days, my prediction is that nothing will come out of it except a lot of hot air discussion.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/29/dark-money-2012-ele...

... nonprofits like Crossroads GPS and trade associations like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are allowed to keep their donors secret. As a result, there is a great flood of campaign spending this election cycle for which there is no official paper trail.

I don't think the proper response of rich Valley people is to ramp up their donations to PACs unless it's the Wolf-PAC which is organizing to pass a Constitutional amendment to reform campaign finance and lobbying:

http://www.wolf-pac.com/

Software patent reform is battling a symptom, not the cause.

Oh, and then there are the insider trading tips too.

As to this bill, it's a shame. I don't think there's a politician out there who understands B.F. Skinner.

Seriously, people need to understand that unless you are reasonably famous, people care way less about what you say than what you do. That means money. Don't give it to people and companies you don't like. Give it to people and companies you do like.

Oh and for the love of god, don't argue for silly "campaign finance" laws that restrict our ability to donate to politicians. I guarantee these large companies with armies of lawyers and lobbyists will be way more adept at finding loopholes than we the average people will be. It silences us way more than them.

Rather, you should focus your ire and spending practices on the congress people that agreed to leave the CBM out of the legislation. They care more about what you think or care about.

Or give your money to folks like the EFF that will use their lobbying power to counterweight these other folks.

Or rather.. do both; do anything we can.. Boycoting the products its also a good idea.. a very good one.. if we can get a "anti-patent" conscious citizen the same way we do with the green conscience..

The companies will fall faster, less money to spend in lobbies.. so why not?

Looking through the list of P&G brands, I can say that I haven't bought anything from them in years, even when I lived in the US.

I do agree though that boycotting every company that engages in questionable behavior would be near impossible. It's better to change the system, but if in the meantime you can avoid giving money to the most heinous companies then why not?

Hint: You've already said it.

If you buy store generic-equivalents, its quite likely your money is going to exactly the same major corporation as the name brand in pretty much the same quantity (after deducting that the part that the major corporation would be paying to marketing/advertising firms to market the name brand.)

So, while it saves you money, it may not be as effective a boycott technique as you think. Unless your boycott target is the advertising industry.

The fact of the matter is that Procter and Gamble doesn't need to "bribe" any politicians to get favorable legislation. They just have to call up a Congressman and say: "hey, we have tens of thousands of workers in your state, it would be a shame if anything happened to them."

I dropped mine last year over their copyright policies.