Slashdot Mirror

It might be more instructional than reading dozens of comments that start with, "I don't know a thing about law, but... ." It's like marketers talking about programming: "I don't know C# from sharp cheddar, but... ." Here are a few views from lawyers who know patent law:

KSR v. Teleflex:

• Workmanlike, yet frustrating
• A narrow ruling

Microsoft v. AT&T:

• Get a patent overseas, or get Congress to change the law
• Nervous about the result

If the transportation of a slave across state lines wasn't eligible for interstate commerce in 1857 then what has changed since then? A Constitutional Amendment was required, even a Civil War wasn't enough, for the slave trade to be considered "commerce".

Where does the EPA derive its power from?

The EPA derives its power from the Commerce Clause, like many other Federal agencies created by Act of Congress. And I won't argue interstate jurisdictional hooks or necessary and proper or rational basis with you here. I think you're taking an argument that was crafted to oppose Roe v. Wade by comparing it to Dredd Scott, and trying to apply it to this case. Write me up for No Sale.

I do agree with CJ Roberts' dissent(pdf, the Roberts dissent starts on page 39) in this case, that the Court should have declined to hear it in the first place becuase the state of Massachusetts lacks standing, which is not at all the same thing as lacking power under the Commerce Clause.

Step two will be to announce "tiered" pricing floors, where retailers with monthly volumes of 0 to 10 units are required to have a floor of 1.0*x, with 11 to 999,999 units have a floor of 0.99*x, and Wal*Mart has a floor of 0.75*x. Oh, they'll find a way around public outrage, like offering absolutely identical Silver, Gold and Platinum Editions of the same product, but only when they're purchased in quantity profiles matching, well, whatever the hell they want them to match.

SCOTUSblog has a writeup on today's arguments. Interesting is Justice Kennedy's question that if it's illegal for a whole bunch of retailers to band together and fix the price on a product, why is it okay for the manufacturer to do the same?

I just finished reading Theodore Rex, a history of Theodore Roosevelt's presidency. I am absolutely blown away by the parallels between America now and America a century ago, and the differences between how Roosevelt and Bush are executing their duties. In this case it's to do with whether corporations consolidating their power and reducing the free market to a tight little oligarchy controlled by a single politician's prayer breakfast is a good thing or a bad thing.

Uh no.. Will Slashdot lose its patent on dupes?

It's not really a dupe. You see, last time the "news" was that news.com was running a story about the case. This time, the "news" is that embedded.com is running a story about the case. The case itself is hardly news -- it's been around since April of 2005. Well, the real case is still older, but that's when they appealed to the Supreme Court.

Next week, it'll be news again -- and with a lot of luck they might find a link that's actually informative. Then again, that page has been around since June, so it's hardly news. Maybe coverage of the recent arguments would really be better. Oh wait...that's only a blog entry, undoubtedly written by some left wing nutcase. Maybe by next week, we can get a highly informed piece from a legitimate news service instead.



What, me sarcastic? Nevvvvverrrrrr!

http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/200 6/05/more_on_ebay_v.html

http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/200 6/05/more_on_ebay_v.html

FTA:

It is essential to remember that the Supreme Court sent the case back to the district court for a do-over.

...not one justice questioned the United States' application of the four-factor test, which, according to the United States, required an injunction in this case.

In short, the case is going back to square one with no instruction as to how to rule. The Court's only dictate is to follow the old four-factor test and to stop thinking creatively about how to improve the status quo.

Thanks to SCOTUS Blog's sister site Supreme Court Nomination Blog for the following info.

Relevant post from which this is taken

*****Copied Post Follows*****

Which Important Precedents are Likely to Be in Jeopardy?
Jurisprudential Effects | Posted by Marty Lederman at 01:23 PM

These are among the cases in which Justice O'Connor's has been the decisive vote or opinion, and in which a more conservative Justice might well vote to overrule the governing precedent. (Post in progress. Please suggest additional cases.)

Note: Because most Justices consider stare decisis a more serious obstacle in cases of statutory construction, those cases (e.g., the Davis and Jackson Title IX decisions) might be more secure, even if Justice O'Connor's replacement would not have agreed with her as a matter of first impression.

McCreary County v. ACLU (2005) -- Ten Commandments displays

Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Educ. (2005) -- Title IX Liability for Retaliation

Rompilla v. Beard (2005) -- standard of reasonable competence that Sixth Amendment requires on the part of defense counsel

Johanns v. Livestock Marketing (2005) -- assessments for government speech

Smith v. Massachusetts (2005) -- double jeopardy

Small v. United States (2005) - felon firearm possession ban doesn't cover foreign convictions

Tennessee v. Lane (2004) -- Congress's Section 5 power

Hibbs v. Winn (2004) -- Tax Injunction Act

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation v. EPA (2004) -- EPA authority under Clean Air Act to issue orders when a state conservation agency fails to act

McConnell v. FEC (2004) -- campaign finance

Groh v. Ramirez (2004) -- sufficiency of non-particularized search warrant

Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) -- affirmative action

Brown v. Legal Foundation of Washington (2003) -- no takings violation in IOLTA funding scheme

American Insurance Ass'n v. Garamendi (2003) -- presidential foreign-affairs "pre-emption" of state law

Stogner v. California (2003) -- ex post facto clause as applied to changes in statutes of limitations

Alabama v. Shelton (2002) -- right to counsel

Rush Prudential HMO v. Moran (2002) -- upholding state laws giving patients the right to second doctor's opinion over HMOs' objections

Kelly v. South Carolina (2002) -- capital defendant's due process right to inform jury of his parole ineligibility

FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee (2001) -- upholding limits on "coordinated" political party expenditures

Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) -- prohibiting indefinite detention of immigrants under final orders of removal where no other country will accept them

Easley v. Cromartie (2001) -- race-based redistricting

Rogers v. Tennessee (2001) -- "judicial" ex post facto

Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association (2001) -- state action

Stenberg v. Carhart (2000) -- "partial-birth abortion" ban

Mitchell v. Helms (1999) -- direct aid to religious schools

Davis v. Monroe County Board of Educ. (1999) -- recognizing school district liability under Title IX for student-on-student sexual harrassment

Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network (1997) -- injunctions against abortion-clinic protestors

Richardson v. McKnight (1997) -- private prison guards not entitled to qualified immunity in section 1983 suits

Morse v. Republican Party of Virginia (1996) -- provisions of the Voting Rights Act are constitutional as applied to choice of candidates at party political conventions

Go to SCOTUSblog for a reasoned discussion by actual law professors who have actually read the opinion (warning: PDF file).

The direct link to their discussion of this case is here. They point out that the case didn't rule in MGM's favor. It merely said the summary judgment in favor of Grokster was wrong. The case goes on.

Absolutely the best weblog for supreme court coverage is the SCOTUS Blog, sponsored and operated by the DC law firm of Goldstein & Howe, who argue many cases in front of the supreme court. In addition to all the information you could need there is great legal commentary from many guest bloggers.

SCOTUSblog has a more detailed look at the happenings today.