I agree, the bill doesn’t seem to be dead — Senator Specter merely noted that a better agreement had to be reached. I believe that our legislature is smarter than to drop such an important bill, especially the Check 21 amendment. The provision is intended to save the American public money, not increase cost, as the roundup might suggest.

On September 11, planes were grounded and the U.S. lost A LOT of money (Note: this is YOUR money) in a very real way. We are still feeling the effects of this economic instability and one of the large contributing factors to economic slow down in the wake of the attacks was the delay of paper checks on the ground. If this happened again, tax payers would pay a much larger load than the proposed Congressional payback. Without passing this bill, Congress would allow Data Treasury to continue with their frivolous law suits that hinder the security of banks and our national economic security itself.

The company holds a patent to a process that it neither created or expanded — it only reaps the benefits from suing banks at exorbitant cost to the financial industry. The threat of suits has made medium and small banks unable to employ the important technology in fear of being victimized by Data Treasury suits. Since many Americans still bank with small institutions that have not been able to use electronic check processing, the economy will suffer in the case of another attack — as it did in 2001.

I can’t help but think that Congressmen and women are too smart to throw this opportunity out. Data Treasury needs to be stopped.

Check out this op-ed, penned by Asa Hutchinson, a former Member and practicing attorney, that makes the case:

“Let’s be clear: A company should be compensated for a competitor’s infringement on its patents. The question, however, is whether Data Treasury has valid patents for having laid claim to commonly used processing methods that banks, financial institutions and others had been using for years.

The claim of the patent holder in this case, compared to the national-security needs of the nation, is further undermined when it becomes clear that the company in question neither invents new products nor sells them. To quote the New York Times, this is a company “whose only business, other than one client, appears to be suing other companies.” (“Small Company is Specializing in Suing Banks,” New York Times, Dec. 24, 2004) One issue that rises above the validity of the patents is the role of the federal government in prompting the private sector to take certain actions. When the government dictates to the private sector, inevitably the latter faces certain costs. This is why government interference in the private sector should be done with extreme caution.

In this case, due caution was given, but the enormous responsibility for the safety and security of American citizens outweighed the specific and narrowly tailored costs to the private sector.

To address this unintended obstacle to realizing its intent, the Senate Judiciary Committee introduced bipartisan legislation that passed unanimously last summer. The legislation would protect the financial system, respect legitimate intellectual property rights and prevent frivolous lawsuits by clarifying the regulation for the financial system, for national security purposes, to efficiently process checks and transfer funds.

As patent-reform legislation heads to the full Senate for a vote, it’s critical this legislation be included. Speedy passage will ensure that we close critical gaps in our nation’s financial security that should have been addressed years ago.”

The full piece is found here: http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20080414/EDITORIAL/306333846/1013/EDITORIAL