Supreme Court Invalidates Software Patent...

[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 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)

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.

[wraith808]

If you're in trouble, you need an attorney. Even attorneys are usually smart enough to not represent themselves in court.

-40hz (June 20, 2014, 01:06 PM)

But if you don't have the money...

... and it was in response to laws that were on the book, related to research done pro bono by another attorney that wasn't going to go so far as to represent in court.  If a lawyer had been there, the outcome would have been totally different.  And I go so far as to say that deals had been made behind the scene... which was something found out only later.

Bought and paid for, courtesy of the court fiefdom.

[40hz]

But if you don't have the money...

-wraith808 (June 20, 2014, 01:14 PM)

We have a thing called Legal Aid in our state. If you're below 125% of the poverty level, they get you an attorney. For criminal charges, there's the public defender's office (not bad here actually) which often means some sort of plea deal.

And I go so far as to say that deals had been made behind the scene... which was something found out only later.

FWIW Most criminal cases in my state seem to end up with some kind of a deal. Likely because our prosecutors apparently hate having to go to trial. I think that's becoming the norm in most places for anything less than a class-A felony.

It pays to remember:

"The quixotic desire to do good, be universally fair and make everybody happy is understandable[...]There is only one problem with this approach. We are a court." - Justice Janice Brown, California Supreme Court

"Young man, let me remind you that this is a court of law and not a court of justice." - Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, U.S. Supreme Court

 

[MilesAhead]

"Young man, let me remind you that this is a court of law and not a court of justice." - Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, U.S. Supreme Court

 

-40hz (June 20, 2014, 01:32 PM)

and of course the classic..

In the Halls of Justice the only justice is in the halls.

Lenny Bruce

[Stoic Joker]

But if you don't have the money...

-wraith808 (June 20, 2014, 01:14 PM)

We have a thing called Legal Aid in our state. If you're below 125% of the poverty level, they get you an attorney. For criminal charges, there's the public defender's office (not bad here actually) which often means some sort of plea deal.

-40hz (June 20, 2014, 01:32 PM)

They have something like that in every state, and every single one of them has the same problem.

   If you live in a box in the park...you're covered.

   If you live in a mansion...you're covered.

   If you fall between these two groups...(and you really need counsel)...you will either end up living in a box in the park, or going to prison.

The "poverty level" moves as needed for the benefit of those controlling the system.

[40hz]

If you're below 125% of the poverty level, they get you an attorney. For criminal charges, there's the public defender's office (not bad here actually) which often means some sort of plea deal.

-Stoic Joker (June 20, 2014, 02:22 PM)

They have something like that in every state, and every single one of them has the same problem.

   If you live in a box in the park...you're covered.

   If you live in a mansion...you're covered.

   If you fall between these two groups...(and you really need counsel)...you will either end up living in a box in the park, or going to prison.

That's called: capitalism at work. 

FWIW it's not quite that bad where I am. But you may have different experiences "which will vary from state to state" as some people so dearly love to say. I have a relative who moved from CT to Pensacola some years back. He said FL is nothing like CT. Characterized the FL government's attitude as "generally spiteful" and "somewhat vindictive." Says his neighbors mostly consider him (in a nice way) a "northern liberal." Which is funny. Because up here we always thought of him as an right-wing conservative.

Go figure...

I guess everything's relative. And it's a big country. 

[40hz]

"Young man, let me remind you that this is a court of law and not a court of justice." - Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, U.S. Supreme Court

 

-40hz (June 20, 2014, 01:32 PM)

and of course the classic..

In the Halls of Justice the only justice is in the halls.

Lenny Bruce

-MilesAhead (June 20, 2014, 02:11 PM)

Brilliant!

Never heard that one before. And I thought I heard them all when it came to LB, may he rest in peace.

[wraith808]

We have a thing called Legal Aid in our state. If you're below 125% of the poverty level, they get you an attorney. For criminal charges, there's the public defender's office (not bad here actually) which often means some sort of plea deal.

-40hz (June 20, 2014, 01:32 PM)

But if you're not, but just don't have the money for an attorney, then you're screwed.  In some cases, showing up with an attorney can also leave you screwed, because having the money to pay an attorney means that you obviously have the money to pay, even if you actually don't.  And then there's the money that you used on the attorney that could have been used to pay.

See, this is my problem with the whole thing.  The legal system is supposed to be for the good of all.  But like so many things in the US, it's for the good of all, as long as you have money.  In my case, the only reason that I didn't end up in prison... even though, according to the laws of the land, it couldn't end up in prison as that would be debtor's prison and is outlawed, is because the assistant thought... this guy came in here with the best of intentions, had a plan, and is trying.  So, he should be rewarded for that as many people who come in there under those circumstances don't.

And as far as the deal?  It was on the other side, from the other party, who was able to get legal aid, and thus was able to get them to create a bargain behind the scenes before the farce of a trial played out.  Before legal aid entered the picture... it was cut and dried.  In fact, the judge seemed inclined to rule in my favor.  But me, having a very ... punishable ... sense of justice tried to do the right thing.  And so, they figured that they needed legal aid.

Let the circus begin.

There's just something wrong with that, no matter how much we say that "it's complicated."  Our Justice system is in love with the system rather than with justice.  And in many cases, our legal systems are anything but.  It shouldn't have to be this complicated, IMO.

[wraith808]

"Young man, let me remind you that this is a court of law and not a court of justice." - Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, U.S. Supreme Court

 

-40hz (June 20, 2014, 01:32 PM)

and of course the classic..

In the Halls of Justice the only justice is in the halls.

Lenny Bruce

-MilesAhead (June 20, 2014, 02:11 PM)

Brilliant!

Never heard that one before. And I thought I heard them all when it came to LB, may he rest in peace.

-40hz (June 20, 2014, 02:42 PM)

One last four-letter word concerning Lenny Bruce: Dead. At forty. That's obscene.

[40hz]

There's just something wrong with that, no matter how much we say that "it's complicated."  Our Justice system is in love with the system rather than with justice.  And in many cases, our legal systems are anything but.  It shouldn't have to be this complicated, IMO.

-wraith808 (June 20, 2014, 02:56 PM)

I'm with you 100% on all of that. Problem is - how?

Short of a revolution or a national moral awakening, And I don't see it coming down any time soon. The people that have the most to lose by changing "the system" are the very ones who control it and would need to make the changes.



"Wot a pickle!" as Gabby Hayes used to say.

[Renegade]

But the simple truth is our legal system is extremely complex broken fixed.

-40hz (June 20, 2014, 01:06 PM)

FTFY

The "poverty level" moves as needed for the benefit of those controlling the system.

-Stoic Joker (June 20, 2014, 02:22 PM)

+1

That's called: capitalism at work. 

-40hz (June 20, 2014, 02:29 PM)

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.



Corporations lobbying for new regulations isn't "capitalism". e.g. The taxi industry and Uber and Lyft -- that is the furthest thing from "capitalism", but pretty much par for the course. When it's illegal for children to set up a lemonade stand without a permit, that's not "capitalism". Writing laws that exclude large swaths of the population from meaningful participation in "the system" is not "capitalism".

Patent trolls only exist because the system is rigged in their favour (they can extort people because the costs of the system are higher than the extortion [in many cases]). The backlash against them is merely a recognition that the system is rigged. Creating a law doesn't make anything moral/ethical any more than calling a pig a princess makes the pig a vampiric elite -- the pig is still just a tasty morsel waiting to be served on somebody's table. NOM NOM~! But, those get confused far too often - just as the MPAA or RIAA.

Ultimately, all legal arguments are simply nonsense, and nonsense in a photo-negative evil mirror of Alice's Wonderland. They are arbitrary and contradictory. Made up silliness that people have been conned into believing. The [legal] system merely serves its masters, and certainly not the interests of regular people, as patent trolling so vividly illustrates.

[Renegade]

But if you're not, but just don't have the money for an attorney, then you're screwed.  In some cases, showing up with an attorney can also leave you screwed, because having the money to pay an attorney means that you obviously have the money to pay, even if you actually don't.  And then there's the money that you used on the attorney that could have been used to pay.

-wraith808 (June 20, 2014, 02:56 PM)

^ This.

There's just something wrong with that, no matter how much we say that "it's complicated."  Our Justice system is in love with the system rather than with justice.  And in many cases, our legal systems are anything but.  It shouldn't have to be this complicated, IMO.

-wraith808 (June 20, 2014, 02:56 PM)

^ And this.

The system has NOTHING to do with justice or peace or order or anything of the sort. It has only to do with punishment and retribution for imagined offences. It is solely aimed at maximising the amount of revenue for government and the penal system.

But, that's about the system in general. The patent/copyright/IP system is merely a reflection of the deeper decay and immorality of the broader justice system.

While the ruling in the OP may be a chip away at the rot, it is far from enough. The rot is spreading at far too great a rate for tiny chips to make much difference. Tiny chips merely slow the spread of the disease by miniscule amounts. So when the "justice" system hits you head on, it doesn't hit you at 150 mph - it hits you at 149.9 mph. Either way, you're in for a world of hurt.

But the justice system doesn't even need to slam into you to grind you into dust or spray you all over the road. Patent trolls merely need to threaten you. Monsanto Monsatan is a great example of this. They have used idiotic patents on non-infringing farmers to destroy those farmers. Cross contamination is all that they need to ruin people.

[40hz]

That's called: capitalism at work.  

-40hz (June 20, 2014, 02:29 PM)

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

-Renegade (June 20, 2014, 08:11 PM)

Seems more to me that you keep missing some deliberate sarcasm when you hear it.

(@Ren - For the record I have enough formal and informal education in economic theory to know all six of the major accepted definitions/schools of capitalism along with another six or seven neo-capitalist riffs on it. Ditto enough mathematical background to go beyond a purely humanities-level understanding of the topic. Hope that will put your mind at rest going forward. )

The "poverty level" moves as needed for the benefit of those controlling the system.

-Stoic Joker (June 20, 2014, 02:22 PM)

+1

-Renegade (June 20, 2014, 08:11 PM)

Not really.

It is a lousy metric to be sure. It was never intended (by the people who originally came up with it) to be a metric driving 90% of US social programs. One story goes it was put together quickly (during a lunch break - on the back of a piece of paper) in response to the question: "Exactly what is poverty? How are we defining it?" The fact it was a quick & dirty un-vetted calculation didn't stop it from being adopted by the agency that has since become the Office of Management and Budget.

So yes...is it a half-baked standard that needs to be replaced? Probably. But capricious and changeable? Hardly. Because it's methodology and formula for determining the official "federal poverty level" has remained virtually unchanged since it was first introduced in 1963. The last edit to it was made back in 1981 when farm and female-headed households were eliminated as separate categories with their own poverty thresholds. They are now lumped in with everything else.

Corporations lobbying for new regulations isn't "capitalism".

Go look up the definition for "Corporate Capitalism."

Creating a law doesn't make anything moral/ethical

I doubt anybody over the age of twelve seriously thinks it does. Law is law - it's its own virtual reality - with its own agenda. Ethics and morality may be an influence on the legal system - or serve as an overall justification for one. But they're not the product of that system. They're more what you'd call guidelines.

It pays to remember Oliver Wendell Holmes famous quote about a 'court of law' vs a 'court of justice.' It's an important distinction. And that distinction is why the third branch of the US government is called The Judicial Branch rather than the Justice Branch. If a court actually succeeds in delivering justice, it's purely a side affect of interpreting and enforcing the law.

Wish it weren't so. But that's the way it rolls in this country.

[Renegade]

Seems more to me that you keep missing some deliberate sarcasm when you hear it.

(@Ren - For the record I have enough formal and informal education in economic theory to know all six of the major accepted definitions/schools of capitalism along with another six or seven neo-capitalist riffs on it. Ditto enough mathematical background to go beyond a purely humanities-level understanding of the topic. Hope that will put your mind at rest going forward. )

-40hz (June 20, 2014, 09:58 PM)

I completely missed the sarcasm. My bad.

Corporations lobbying for new regulations isn't "capitalism".

Go look up the definition for "Corporate Capitalism."

-40hz (June 20, 2014, 09:58 PM)

I know that quite well, but I'm missing your point.

For example:

https://en.wikipedia...Corporate_capitalism

Corporate capitalism has been criticized for the amount of power and influence corporations and large business interest groups have over government policy, including the policies of regulatory agencies and influencing political campaigns.

"Corporate Capitalism" makes as much sense as "unfree free market". It's just silly double-speak. You either have a free market, or you don't. When corporations purchase protection (regulations) from government thugs to exclude competition, you no longer have a free market... and... I'm missing what you're trying to say there. Or was that the point? That it's nonsense double-speak?

Creating a law doesn't make anything moral/ethical

I doubt anybody over the age of twelve seriously thinks it does.

-40hz (June 20, 2014, 09:58 PM)

Um, I think you're giving way too many people way too much credit.

Law is law - it's its own virtual reality - with its own agenda. Ethics and morality may be an influence on the legal system - or serve as an overall justification for one. But they're not the product of that system. They're more what you'd call guidelines.

-40hz (June 20, 2014, 09:58 PM)

My bet is that if those involved in the penal/judicial system were all kids having a colouring contest with colouring books, very few would be able to colour withing the "guidelines".

If a court actually succeeds in delivering justice, it's purely a side affect of interpreting and enforcing the law.

-40hz (June 20, 2014, 09:58 PM)

Yup.

Wish it weren't so. But that's the way it rolls in this country.

-40hz (June 20, 2014, 09:58 PM)

Not just there... The disease is global.