Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

Supreme Court Invalidates Software Patent...

(1/4) > >>

wraith808:
...because it's a software patent. (via boingboing)

Ruling at End Soft Pats

It's a step.  Not 100% done... but a definite positive step.  And a blow to patent trolls everywhere!

mouser:
excellent.

40hz:
Excellent first step.

But since the SC's many IP rulings are still being ignored by a certain federal circuit and appeals courts (esp. the notorious Eastern District of Texas court) it's becoming increasingly obvious that patents and IP need a separate court system that rules in a consistent manner - and on the national level.

The US already has "special jurisdiction" courts set up for things such as bankruptcy, claims, military matters, and tax disputes. So it wouldn't be introducing any major changes in the current US court structure to do this. (Immigration would be another logical candidate for a separate court btw. But that's a discussion for a separate thread.)

There's far too much influence peddling and politics surrounding IP on the regional circuit and appeals court level in the federal system. Having a centralized IP court system would go a long way towards eliminating the "venue shopping" and "rogue judge" problems we're experiencing today.

Just my :two: anyway.

wraith808:
There's far too much influence peddling and politics surrounding IP on the regional circuit and appeals court level in the federal system. Having a centralized IP court system would go a long way towards eliminating the "venue shopping" and "rogue judge" problems we're experiencing today.
-40hz (June 20, 2014, 11:47 AM)
--- End quote ---

That's the justice system in general.

Imagine if I told you that in a courtroom, a judge said "if you wanted to follow the rules of law, you should have hired a lawyer.  without one, the law is what I say it is."

Now, take off the imagine.  I was struck with a definite blow to my belief in the justice system when I heard that.  And realized that many judges believe that.

*sigh*

40hz:
I wasn't in the court to hear in what context that remark got made.

But the simple truth is our legal system is extremely complex. Especially with regard to procedure and rules of evidence. If you're in trouble, you need an attorney. Even attorneys are usually smart enough to not represent themselves in court.

So was that a sarcastic remark I wonder - or just a pointed if uncomfortable bit of good advice?

I was in court where a 19 year-old was up on a DUI charge. When the judge asked if he was represented by counsel, this kid said "I didn't think I needed one for something like this, your honor." The judge looked at him blankly for a minute, then said "I don't think you fully appreciate the degree of trouble you're in right now young man. Since the records show this is your first time in court, I'm going to do you a really big favor. I'm postponing your case. Go get yourself some legal counsel. I expect to see you back in this court in...(glances at his clerk who mutters "Six.") ...six weeks from today. And when you return I strongly suggest you bring an attorney with you."

Some people would consider that snarky. But I thought he was doing this kid a big favor too. Because certain factors surrounding his DUI arrest (additional minors in vehicle, alcohol possession by a minor, expired license, expired registration, failure to stop) taken together could have netted him to some jail time under our state's laws.

I've seen a lot of "tough love" like that shown in courtrooms.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page