Slashdot Mirror

In no way does patent exhaustion allow you to infringe on OTHER patents, whether or not they use the product in question.

I misread your original post, because your original post is a total non sequitur. Qualcomm didn't take Apple to court for infringing some patent they own that wasn't embodied in the chips they were selling. They tried to claim that their battery life management patent was somehow independent of the chip they were selling which... implemented the battery life patent.

We were talking about the seller of the product. It doesn't matter how many patents are embodied in the product, from the transistor to the amplifier, all of the patents are exhausted after the seller of the product has sold the chip, even if some of those patents were licensed by the maker of the actual product rather than owned by them. But it's not me saying that. It's the Supreme Court:

We conclude that a patentee’s decision to sell a product exhausts all of its patent rights in that item, regardless of any restrictions the patentee purports to impose or the location of the sale... [R]estrictions and location are irrelevant; what matters is the patentee’s decision to make a sale.

Emphasis mine.

In any case, Qualcomm didn't go to court to defend some random other company's patents, licensed or otherwise. They went to court to demand more money from Apple, and the legal theory they were using was shaky at best, and flat out unlawful at worst. Apple folding here was them getting the deal they were after, not any indication of the strength of Qualcomm's legal position.

Correction, the link is https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-571_e29f.pdf and whoever runs the site now is a son of a bitch, who hasnâ(TM)t programmed it to figure out what to do with smart quotes from mobile devices and who doesnâ(TM)t offer a chance to preview the post from the mobile interface. Hopefully this works better.

> But you seem to be implying Obama intentionally attacked the coal industry

I don't think White House VIP is Obama. So no, nothing to do with Obama. The identity of VIP isn't publicly known, but probably most people familiar with the evidence in the case think it's Hillary. Doesn't really matter now, what matters is that the government should follow the law they create for the rest of us to follow.

> no safe level of mercury exposure. It builds up in the body over time. It's why pregnant women aren't supposed to eat fish.

And yet you're not wearing a biohazard suit to protect yourself from mercury in the world. You've (quite reasonably) decided to expose yourself to mercury and a lot of other much more dangerous things. Pros and cons. You've made a reasonable decision that it's not worth it. You could also spend $50,000 sealing up your house to keep mercury out, but that would be silly because if you were going to spend $50,000 being safer, you'd spend it on a safer car, more smoke detectors, etc. You want to avoid mercury, and you've already done the reasonable things - like not using mercury oral thermometers. Spending half your salary every year to be even safer from mercury would be unreasonable, in your analysis.

> Based on what I know about mercury (albeit not a huge amount) I'm with Obama on this one.

Not knowing much about mercury isn't a problem in this discussion. You can decide this without knowing anything about mercury, because there is no question about mercury up for discussion. The question is whether the government should follow the law and reveal what they know. The EPA knows about mercury, they did a big analysis of studies about mercury. The question a whether they should unlawfully hide that analysis when the results aren't pleasing to White House VIP, whoever that is.

You asked for a citation. To start with, here's the Supreme Court ruling saying what the EPA did was unlawful.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/o...

  The SCOTUS ruling talks a lot about law, and specifically the specific point of law that SCOTUS chose to address, after the trial court and appeals court handled other issues of law. Issues of fact are handled by the trial court. You can use the case title to find the documents from the trial court for further information on the facts.

Nobody is saying the EPA can't regulate mercury emissions. The law says that when they regulate something, they have to release their analysis, which has to at least arguably show three things, all the while giving the EPA the benefit of the doubt (the law assumes the EPA is right if the analysis shows it's debatable). The EPA has to show that:
They considered the benefits of the proposed regulation
The considered the costs
The proposed regulation could be reasonably be expected to accomplish a lawful goal of the agency

After releasing their analysis they then have to have a comment period in which the public may comment on the analysis, pointing out any major flaws such as if it missed the primary costs, pointing better wording that would be more effective, etc. It's illegal for them to put a regulation in place and say "we don't care what the costs are, and we're not going to give anyone a chance to see our analysis or comment on it. Someone from the White House wants this, so they're going to get it - scientific analysis and the law be damned". That's not legal.

Jane Q. Public misleadingly stated:

At least a couple of federal courts have ruled that Customs needs a warrant to search your computer or phone.

First off, you're conflating Customs and Immigration with the TSA. They are two different agencies, and rulings that apply to the former don't necessarily bind the latter, either theoretically or practically.

By "a couple of federal courts," I presume you're talking about California vs Riley, the unanimous 2014 SCOTUS decision that Federal (and all local government bodies) agencies in general are prohibited from searching cell phones without a warrant, on the principle that they contain, in the words of Chief Justice Roberts, "the privacies of life," and are thus protected under the 4th Amendment? Because the problem with that argument is that the border search exemption, for the legitimacy of which there is a host of supportive court rulings at all levels, says, "Nuh-uh!"

Among those is the relatively recent 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in United States vs Vergara, where the majority held that Riley simply "does not apply at the border," (Judge William Pryor, writing for the majority), and the 2013 9th Circuit Court ruling in United States vs Howard Wesley Cotterman, which held that Riley did not apply in the case of a suspected pedophile whose laptop was siezed at the border and searched with neither his permission nor a warrant, on the grounds that the pattern of precedent established that Riley - and, indeed, 4th Amendment protections in general - did not apply to "routine" searches at the border. (Note that the 6th Circuit Court is generally (and accurately) perceived as the most liberal of the Appeals Courts, and that it heard the case en banc, with every member participating, rather than delegating it to a panel of 3 judges.)

Given that, in the latter case, Cotterman was on the Feds' radar for at least 6 months prior to him crossing the Mexican border - which prompted the U.S. Attorney in the appeal to argue that they had had sufficient "reasonable suspicion" to seize his computer (which one would presume would have prompted them to obtain a warrant beforehand, unless they felt they didn't have enough solid evidence to convince a judge to issue one, and didn't want to risk an on-the-record application for it having been denied for cause) - and the Court ruled that existing investigation was irrelevant, on the grounds that the seizure and search of his laptop was "routine," I see little support for your contention. Cotterman faced decades of prison time, but SCOTUS declined to review that 11th Circuit decsion, nonetheless.

There's still a chance that the 11th's decision in Vergara will be taken up for review by SCOTUS, (frankly, Cotterman was a thicket of complications I doubt they wanted to have to wade through, whereas Vergara seems a great deal simpler to me), but there's no guarantee that they will. In the meantime, the 11th's ruling in Vergara (especially in light of Cotterman) is the existing precedent.

So, no. Sadly, the Federal Court system has come down hard on the side of security theater vs Constitutional guarantees. From my perspective, that's a mistake - but I, personally, wouldn't cross the border with my phone, unless it was encrypted, protected by a strong passphrase, and fully and securely backed-up ahead of time. Not in this legal climate, I wouldn't ...

(Disclaimer: IANAL. YMMV. Objects in mirror are closer than they appear. Contents are packed by weight, not volume. Some settling may have occurred in shipping. Yadda-yadda-yadda, yabba-dabba-do

Nope. California required "Crisis Pregnancy Centers" to disclose they do not provide abortions and abortions are available elsewhere. Apparently, having to tell the truth violated the religion of the people operating these centers.

The applicable provisions in that law were struck down by the Supreme Court for violating the free speech of non-medical clinics and putting an undue burden on medical clinics.

So you want the federal government to treat corporations like people? Citizens United agrees with you on that!

First, you're likely the same sad AC attempting to appear more authoritative by making another comment pretending to be a third party. Keep in mind, if you were, it would look exactly like that post. As such, I have to assume you're probably the same sad fellow.

Second, I did actually validate my position. If you look at the thread, I've posted links that support my position. But just because I don't mind beating dead horse arguments in the street to prove you have no case:
Look at the cited Pew study... that's the supreme court.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/o...
Double voting in kansas:
https://www.denverpost.com/201...
Voter fraud:
https://www.justice.gov/usao-w...
Ice catching some non-citizens illegally voting:
https://www.ice.gov/news/relea...

So... no.

Third, my insults actually come AFTER and indifferent to my arguments. Many people don't seem to know what an Ad Hominem is in the first place. An ad hominem is not me saying 1+1=2 because logic... and you're an idiot. An Ad hominem is me saying "1+1=2" BECAUSE you're an idiot.

My arguments in this discussion are not reliant on my insults. My insults are secondary observations of another's character.

liar liar.

To prove you're a liar again on top of the lie just there...

Let us say we didn't do an ID at all but merely cross referenced the citizenship database with the voter registration database?

because we don't do that.

can we do that?

It would not require US citizens to do anything. The two databases would just be be compared.

I suspect that is also voter suppression, right... Liar?

https://www.supremecourt.gov/o...

Supreme court cites a pew study you would look at in that PDF if you have integrity... you don't so... meh.

https://www.denverpost.com/201...

Evidence of double voting.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-w...

Department of justice catching non-citizens voting some how even though you say that's impossible... because you're a lying retard.

https://www.ice.gov/news/relea...

Ice nabbing non-citizens voting.

I'm sorry, your tired stupid talking points fool only the fools. Peddle your sad lies elsewhere.

I read the introduction of that book and gleaned what I could. Not sure if it titillates my legal intrigue. Why is the opinion of a speech writer for Bill Clinton a good source? A democrat disagrees with a conservative opinion. Shocked I tell you! You can't even get the date right (more than once and corrected) of the decision yet you think it was an excellent overview of the entire subject? Based on that alone it seems faulty. Was it enjoyable because you agreed with it before reading it and you wanted an expert to validate your opinion? Or because it made you question your prior assumptions by using historical references and context that highlighted an understanding that was previously unknown to you? From the introduction, he starts his analysis from the Revolution and moves forward... that isn't the entire history of the 2nd. The 1st, 2nd, and 4th are codifying rights that pre-exist and does not require the Constitution.

More importantly, are the rights in the 1st and 4th amendment collective or individual? They all use the same language to describe an individual right that pre-exists the constitution. Does that mean the same limitations of guns can be applied to speech? Only "militia" err "media/press" can speak freely.

If you haven't, I suggest reading the actual opinion instead of hearing about it from a partisan source.

You're preaching to the choir. Most of us anyway. It's the republicans you have to convince.

FTFY. Though sometimes I wonder if there is much of a difference...

The Supreme Court decisions this week prove that Democrats place funding public employee unions above First Amendment-prohibited compelled association/speech/financial donations.

Literally. Read Janus for Kagan's long-winded dissent in response to:

Under Illinois law, if a public-sector collective-bargaining agreement includes an agency-fee provision and the union certifies to the employer the amount of the fee, that amount is automatically deducted from the non-member’s wages. 315/6(e). No form of employee consent is required.

This procedure violates the First Amendment and can not continue.

Yet it's Democrats and "progressives" who justify compelled association, speech and financial contributions in violation of the First Amendment because
it funds the Democratic Party.

Who are the Nazis here?

I'm thinking it's the group who wants to force people to join organizations they don't want to.

I'm thinking it's the group that wants to force those people to fund political speech they don't agree with.

From the ruling

New Jersey knitters pay sales tax on yarn purchased for art projects, but not on yarn earmarked for sweaters.

Texas taxes sales of plain deodorant at 6.25 percent but imposes no tax on deodorant with antiperspirant.

Illinois categorizes Twix and Snickers bars—chocolate-and-caramel confections usually displayed side-by-side in
the candy aisle—as food and candy, respectively (Twix have flour; Snickers don’t), and taxes them differently.

People choose states to found a business precisely so they don't have to deal with nonsense such as this.

And, why not just use a sales tax service, like TaxCloud to take care of it all for you for $10/month?

Your proposing crony capitalism?

The article didn't provide a link to the SCOTUS opinion, so here it is. It is an interesting split. Thomas wrote for the majority and was joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Alito, Sotomayor, and Kagen. Gorsuch wrote the dissent, joined by Breyer.

Why doesn't my right to free speech allow me to say things that are lies or contrary to the regulatory code of the FTC?

Does the FTC think they are a higher authority than the US Constitution? Show me the case law where SCOTUS has ruled that a regulatory agency overrides a First Amendment right.

You can't lengthen a public domain book's copyright retroactively.

Oh yes you can. The case is Golan v. Holder, another terrible Ginsburg copyright ruling (she and her daughter, a law professor, are notorious copyright maximalists). The key language:

The Constitution states that "Congress shall have Power . . . [t]o promote the Progress of Science . . . by securing for limited Times to Authors . . . the exclusive Right to their . . . Writings." Art. I, sect. 8, cl. 8. Petitioners find in this grant of authority an impenetrable barrier to the extension of copyright protection to authors whose writings, for whatever reason, are in the public domain. We see no such barrier in the text of the Copyright Clause, historical practice, or our precedents.

The text of the Copyright Clause does not exclude application of copyright protection to works in the public domain.

Good summary. The links to the full arguments are up along with links to the other details. Scotsblog post generally, and today's transcript specifically.

The list of amici curiae is impressive. The European Commission, the government of the United Kingdom, the government of Ireland, the Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe, the German Chamber of Industry and Commerce, the French Department of Business, and even the United Nations legal arm for data privacy. All of them said that if the US enforced the order they'd be violating all kinds of international, law, including violating treaties made by the US regarding preserving privacy of some of the information the government is demanding. The Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty, MLAT,

They also all state point #2 that you made, which is the same thing Microsoft says: There is already a procedure for this, done through international treaty, by filing an MLAT request. The procedure is followed all the time and does not take years like the federal government is suggesting. Nations have a solid history of acting on urgent request immediately, generally as soon as the call or email or request is made. Ireland's government has stated at every level of the case that they would immediately act on the request if the justice department would follow the international treaties that are already in place.

The government lawyer stated EXACTLY the reason they want this on page 23 of the transcript. Justice Alito asked why the government didn't use any of the conventional methods to get the data. Government's reply: " We don't have to go to a court first. We just issue the instrument. The provider has to make disclosures. " They freely admit that this is an attempt to grab information in a way that bypasses the courts, bypasses international treaties and MLAT requirements and extraterritorial law, and bypasses the US due process requirements. It is nothing more or less than a power grab to bypass legal protections.

They didn't want one from the catalog, they WANTED a COMPLETE CUSTOM CAKE. Also the Colorado Civil Rights Council is shit-show of anti-religion members, which the justices pointed out multiple times. Here is the transcript from the supreme court , try actually reading parts of it, what you are saying is completly WRONG https://www.supremecourt.gov/o...

There's a small wrinkle in the cake case that makes the "lunch counter" example not 100% comparable, in my mind.
The cake shop offered to sell any off-the-shelf (standard) cake. They only refused to make a customized gay cake, as they claimed that a customized cake is an artistic expression and covered under the first amendment.

Well, yes, and no. From the oral arguments, they also claim that an uncustomized cake would violate his rights:

JUSTICE GINSBURG: Well, suppose we exclude that and say let's make the assumption that he -- if he makes custom-made cakes for others, he must make it for this pair, but he doesn't have to write anything for anybody. He doesn't have to write a message that he disagrees with.

MS. WAGGONER: Well, this Court has recognized in Hurley as well as in other decisions that artistic expression doesn't need to include words and symbols to express a message or to be protected speech.

He was willing to sell them cupcakes or cookies, but would not supply even a blank or generic wedding cake, identical to any other wedding cake he makes for straight couples.

Is that really different from a lunch counter refusing to allow certain condiments, substitutions, or other off-menu items? Gay cakes apparently weren't on the menu at that cake shop. Should all cake bakers be required to offer gluten-free cakes too?

I've yet to see something that makes a cake a "gay" cake or a "straight" cake. Here is the gallery of wedding cakes from the baker in question. Can you point to any feature in those cakes that make them "straight" cakes?

That seems fair. Unless I'm reading the oral arguments though, it's not quite off the shelf:

MS. WAGGONER: Justice Sotomayor, that's not how he responded to the couple. The couple came in and they requested a custom cake for their wedding. At that point, they brought in a folder with all kinds of designs they wanted to discuss and ended up purchasing a rainbow-layered cake or -- or received a free rainbow-layered cake, which certainly is expression. The order below requires Mr. Phillips also to include words and symbols on his cakes. It's that broad. So if, for example, Mr. Phillips had used a Bible verse on a cake in the past, he would be compelled to use that Bible verse in a different context.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/o...

Well, that's a bit misleading... They ended up getting a free rainbow cake from another baker, who donated it because of the controversy. There's no suggestion that they were looking for a rainbow cake originally. You don't turn down free rainbow cake, because, y'know, free cake.

MS. WAGGONER: Justice Sotomayor, that's not how he responded to the couple. The couple came in and they requested a custom cake for their wedding. At that point, they brought in a folder with all kinds of designs they wanted to discuss and ended up purchasing a rainbow-layered cake or -- or received a free rainbow-layered cake, which certainly is expression.
The order below requires Mr. Phillips also to include words and symbols on his cakes. It's that broad. So if, for example, Mr. Phillips had used a Bible verse on a cake in the past, he would be compelled to use that Bible verse in a different context.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/o...

As the oral arguments for this case will be heard Wednesday, you'll be able to download the Argument Transcripts on Wednesday afteroon, or Thursday Morning.

While the questions asked don't necessarily indicate how judges are leaning on the case, as they will sometimes act as devil's advocate, it's still worth checking out as a rough guide to what they think are the important elements are to the case.

No, it's consistent with previous rulings regarding GPS trackers

USSC did conclude, that the use of GPS-trackers requires a warrant (see, this is how you cite things.)

But that — unanimous — decision explicitly said:

In United States v. Jones, we held that “the Government’s installation of a GPS device on a target’s vehicle, and its use of that device to monitor the vehicle’s movements, constitutes a ‘search.’ ”. We stressed the importance of the fact that the Government had “physically occupied private property for the purpose of obtaining information.”

No such occupying private property took place in the case in TFA, which fully invalidates your argument.

No, seriously. Qualcomm's position is that every step in the production chain that includes their IP/hardware needs to be individually licensed. Because company X makes a board that includes Qualcomm's IP, and then sells that board to company Y who makes a phone from it and sells said phone, then both X and Y need to be licensed.

How is this not an open-and-shut case of patent exhaustion?

It is. And the Supreme Court has gotten tired of the Federal Circuit that keeps trying to maintain the fiction that it isn't. So they ruled in May. Qualcomm apparently didn't get the memo. They don't have a leg to stand on. The brief required to scuttle their entire suit, and dismiss with prejudice, is one page long and cites that link.

The courts frequently strike down such arbitration clauses as such clauses are direct unilateral violation of rights in a given jurisdiction.

IANAL

That's obvious, because you're wrong.

The Federal government passed the Federal Arbitration Act, which authorizes such arbitration clauses, and there's a pesky thing in the Constitution called the Supremacy Clause. AT&T itself won a U.S. Supreme court case that said that the Federal Arbitration Act of 1925 preempts state laws that prohibit contracts from disallowing class-wide arbitration, on the basis of statutory interpretation, since nobody seriously questioned that wireless contracts were within the scope of the Interstate Commerce Clause.

Specifically,

Relying on the California Supreme Court's Discover Bank decision, [the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals] found the arbitration provision unconscionable because it disallowed classwide proceedings. The Ninth Circuit agreed that the provision was unconscionable under California law and held that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), which makes arbitration agreements "valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract," 9 U. S. C. sec. 2, did not preempt its ruling.

Held: Because it "stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress," Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U. S. 52, 67, California's Discover Bank rule is preempted by the FAA. Pp. 4-18.

IAAL.

While I expect that it would've remained unanimous, if you read the entire PDF of the court's decision, he took no part in this one. Quoted from the court's decision [PDF]:

KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined. ALITO, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS, J., joined. GORSUCH, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

Unfortunately, it's not politicians allowing this to happen. It's the Supreme court. Here, this is the most relevant decision. Though there are a set of decisions related to that.

... Is what I was going to say. Actually, I'm reading a little more on this and apparently it goes back to the Federal Arbitration Act of 1925, which allows for contractually-based forced arbitration. The recent rulings seem to be about extending this to class-action lawsuits. i.e.: AT&T is using the arbitration clause to not only force individuals into arbitration, but to preclude any class-action suits against them. Someone will hopefully correct me if I'm reading that wrong.

So I guess we could blame present day politicians for failing to get rid of a century-old law, but that seems kind of arbitrary. Maybe we should just point out that this law is a harmful one, and ask that it be removed without placing blame.

Justice Roberts was feeling pretty feisty about Lexmark, too. The wording he chose to use in writing the opinion of the court is entertaining. He wrote, "Lexmark, however, was not so ready to concede that its plan had been foiled." Word for word, page three of the opinion (not the syllabus preceding the opinion in the PDF). Gotta love a judge who uses phrasing to describe the petitioner against whom he is ruling as if they were a super-villain.

>> Gorsuch will "face cases that demand a solid command of the complex issues digital technology raises..."

If you think a 49-year old justice will be bad at tech, you should look up the ages of the rest. There's even one on there named "Ginsburg" who was 35 when Gorsuch was born - probably time for her to finally head out to pasture, right?

https://www.supremecourt.gov/a...

>> Gorsuch will "face cases that demand a solid command of the complex issues digital technology raises..."

I want to call bullshit on that thought.
In what way is digital technological complex in regards to the law? What knowledge is required that (it is supposed) the present justices would not have?
And what has Gorsuch done to educate himself on technological issues that Judge Ginsburg, Thomas, et al has not?

Speaking as someone who fairly old, these "complex issues digital technology raises" are not problems that would be difficult for anyone who's been doing the law for any amount of time. I just don't see complexity in there.
But perhaps I'm wrong. Give me an example of a legal issue involving "complex issue of digital technology" that would be difficult for an intelligent novice to understand with only a few days analysis.

Is there something that prevents people from learning anything new after they turn a 40, or is it just "complex issues digital technology raises" that only young people can understand?

Why have courts if you do not demand that they do justice?

Courts and judges are part of the legal system.

There IS NO 'justice system'.

Really, why? Is there somewhere this is defined? What principles of government specifically establish these contentions of yours? Nowhere?

Or are you just making a poor attempt at fallacious reasoning in order to ignore the problem? Nowhere are your terms used in either the US or Utah Constitutions, making any reference to them as a matter of distinction on your part into a purely arbitrary contention of no particular merit.

And in fact, FWIW, there are courts specifically referred to as "Courts of Justice" or "Justice Courts" such as Montana's, Kentucky's, and yes, even Utah.

So no, you can't even assert that they make a pointed effort to avoid such terms in their own usages just by their states names. Furthermore, by observing their statements of principles and moral axioms, of course, you can see that they do make a concerted and deliberate reference to actual justice.

Or how else am I supposed to take their oath of office: "I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God." ?

There are further examples, both in historical reference and modern development, to establish the place of "Justice" in the provenance of the courts, and even int the executive (It is called the Justice Department, not the Law Department), but I think the mere existence of the oath shows that your argument lacks merit.

It does not exist and never did except as a set of moral goals and standards in the hearts of men. "Justice" is moral and relative, changing with individual circumstance and the opinion of the observer, and therefor can never be codified into law.

Oh, did you think that this is an inherent objection to justice then? If so, why? You seem to be troubled over circumstances and observations, as if it was not a known obligation of justice, which is accepted and recognized, but perhaps you can explain if you meant something else.

In order to achieve the closest thing to "justice" within the limitations of men, the law must be interpreted as written in all cases, because courts and judges are determiners of legalities, not warriors for someone's opinion on what is "just".

You left off your reasoning(which is a bad thing), and contrary to your asertion, if the law is written in some way that is not just, then it is actually going further from justice when you adhere to the law over justice and when you rely on the naive view that purporting to adhere to the law as written is superior, the only thing you are doing is subsuming your obligation to responsibility for your moral decisions by passing it others.

However, even if you had bothered to make such an argument, it would not do anything to undo how your first assertion rings false, to the contrary, judges and their courts are bound by their own statements to justice. That alone is severely discrediting to you. It comes across as if you are merely making slipshod, unconsidered statements to try to advance some pre-established narrative cause, rather than making a truly principled argument that can be weighed and measured on its own merits.

Sorry, Bluestrat, you may used to dealing with people ignorant enough to be fooled by your pomposity, but there are people who can point out the hollow

You seem confused.
I suggest reading it and understanding it before misstating it as you have.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/op...

You're misrepresenting the opinion. The opinion is not "Oh, let's go back to the incremental value added by the patented technology as the yardstick for profitability"

I never said it was. I said they're disregarding the explicit language of a long-standing statute and previous Congress-slap of the court, and replacing it with "you want a test? Go make one up." And sadly that's not a misrepresentation. It's barely even a paraphrase.

In the carpet's case, 100% of the carpet violates the patent, regardless of whether you compare it to a beige carpet or not.

Flip over a carpet sometime. You'll see a standard mat that the fibers are woven into that is the same, regardless of design. That mat is a substantial part of the carpet, literally holding it together.

Reading the opinion, they're not just making up that criterion. The "article of manufacture" concept is long standing in the patent world, and it would certainly mean a complete shake up of patents if patents ceased to apply to components, and only to the whole of a completed product. (Whether that's a good or bad thing I'll leave to the lawyers.)

Yes, but it's not necessary to redefine article of manufacture. Going back to the 1887 statute, the phrase was "the total profit made by him from the manufacture or sale. . . of the article or articles to which the design, or colorable imitation thereof, has been applied.” And this was preserved in the 1952 Act, saying:

Whoever during the term of a patent for a design, without license of the owner, (1) applies the patented design, or any colorable imitation thereof, to any article of manufacture for the purpose of sale, or (2) sells or exposes for sale any article of manufacture to which such design or colorable imitation has been applied shall be liable to the owner to the extent of his total profit, but not less than $250...

So the question is not "what's an article of manufacture, is it just a component", but "to what has the design been applied". And there, it seems that you can either say, "it's applied to the product", or you can go to ever narrower levels of "it's applied to a case... well, part of the case... well, really just the surface of part of the case... well, just the paint on the surface of part of the case... but not the primer either..."

You're misrepresenting the opinion. The opinion is not "Oh, let's go back to the incremental value added by the patented technology as the yardstick for profitability", it's "Let's recognize that this device is made up of separate parts ("articles of manufacture"), and only one part violates the patent. The profits that need to be turned over to Apple are those applying to that component."

What's the difference?

In the carpet's case, 100% of the carpet violates the patent, regardless of whether you compare it to a beige carpet or not. In the phone's case, the phone has a case, a screen, electronics, and so on. Only the case, for example, violates the rounded corners patent.

Reading the opinion, they're not just making up that criterion. The "article of manufacture" concept is long standing in the patent world, and it would certainly mean a complete shake up of patents if patents ceased to apply to components, and only to the whole of a completed product. (Whether that's a good or bad thing I'll leave to the lawyers.)

This hopefully explains why 8 justices who rarely agree on anything outside of which branch of Applebees to have lunch at all agreed with one another this time.

Since this was up-voted, I guess I should at least inform my Democratic colleagues who are interested in fixing gerrymandering. Redistricting happens after each census, and the census happens once a decade in years ending in 0. (This is also when reapportionment happens - changes in number of House members each state gets). So the next census will be in 2020, and the first election with new districts would be 2022. If you've got an idea, a ballot initiative, whatever for fixing gerrymandering, the time to work on it is between now and 2019. You want it to be on the 2020 election ballot at latest so people can vote for it, and if it's approved the changes would go into effect before the districts are redrawn for the 2022 election.

Actually, as Texas in 2003 showed, it can be done between a Census. You might feel inclined to quibble over the details, since technically, the process went to the alternative method since there was deadlock in the state legislature, but the fact is, the Supreme Court already ruled and expressly provided for it. It would be entirely legal to begin to redistrict immediately. There is no need to wait until 2022. It could be done at the next election. (I am not sure if the entire legislature could be dissolved, and schedule elections off-cycle, theoretically there is no impediment, but it has not been tested.)

You should really inform yourself better, before you start giving advice.

This needs to be done on the State level. The Constitution outlines how many House members each state should get, but leaves the details up to the states.

Constitution contains no such outline, except for setting a minimum of one and preventing it from reaching a certain threshold. Well, setting the standard for the count(later modified by the 14th Amendment) and providing for the initial allocation before the first enumeration. Otherwise, there is no constitutional standard for the numbers of the House beyond that. Don't feel bad, I have had many other persons tell me that they thought it was fixed for some reason.

I mean, technically, if you want to consider Article, the First to be still under review, it could be implemented, but meanwhile, no, it is set by statutory law, not the Constitution. And the 435 number dates from act in 1929, which has lingered, despite the awareness of its flaws.

Furthermore, as a review of Section 4 shows you, the Congress has the power over the State Legislatures in this issue. And they have exercised it, by regulating districts, whether at-large, multi-member, or through Civil Rights clauses. This has been an issue in the resolution of a claim over a commission that helped resolve the case, as Congress provided that was permissible in existing law.

Of course, you could say that Congress could also forbid it, but as of yet, they have not done so, making it a minor point. Still, the point is, Congress could act today itself, if it so desired.

As a state matter, by default it ends up being decided by the state legislature (majority vote) and signed by the governor. Unfortunately that's the fox designing the henhouse, which is where the entire problem of gerrymandering comes from. The most popular way to fix it seems to be the people passing a ballot initiative which takes the job away from the legislators and assigns it to a

Most of those "excepts": also blatantly unconstitutional. Convenient for the state. But unconstitutional

Maybe you never took Civics, but the Supreme Court decides what is and what is not constitutional so you see, when you say those things are "unconstitutional", you're simply wrong.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/a...

"While the function of judicial review is not explicitly provided in the Constitution, it had been anticipated before the adoption of that document. Prior to 1789, state courts had already overturned legislative acts which conflicted with state constitutions. Moreover, many of the Founding Fathers expected the Supreme Court to assume this role in regard to the Constitution; Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, for example, had underlined the importance of judicial review in the Federalist Papers, which urged adoption of the Constitution."

You might want a system different from the one we have, but it doesn't change the system we have.

None of the scum that killed police recently are Conservatives.

By "recently", you must mean, "this week".

http://www.nydailynews.com/new...

Excuse me, ... while your sleight of hand is impressive (and good for mod points), you aren't playing this straight. The article you link to doesn't list conservatives, it lists white people. That isn't the same. One deals with skin color, the other deals with ideas. There is nothing contradictory about being black and conservative:
  Clarence Thomas
  Thomas Sowell
  Herman Cain
  Larry Elder
  Sheriff David Clark
  Condoleezza Rice

Also note that there doesn't appear to be any common thread among the killers in that article as there is among the killings with connections to either Black Lives Matter or the New Black Panther Party.

I don't know what you are reading, but the actual order http://www.supremecourt.gov/or... says:

Effective December 2016 with no use of word "immediate".
The order does not mention tor or anonymity.

In the U.S. they need a warrant whether the phone is locked or not:

U.S. Supreme Court Ruling in Riley v. California

In the shorter term: What is on the Court's docket for the remainder of this year? There appear to be two more sessions scheduled, February 22 and March 21. In addition, the justices may have some decisions pending for which Scalia may not yet have given opinions. What happens to these and will his loss make a difference in any important upcoming decisions?

In the shorter term: What is on the Court's docket for the remainder of this year? There appear to be two more sessions scheduled, February 22 and March 21. In addition, the justices may have some decisions pending for which Scalia may not yet have given opinions. What happens to these and will his loss make a difference in any important upcoming decisions?

I'm sorry he died. It does look like he lead a long life doing what he loved. He was a lucky man in that regard.

I disagree with his policies strongly and hope we are able to replace him with a reasonable justice.

On a sort of unrelated note-- he was only 79! So keep that in mind for your retirement plans. Despite having some of the best health care in the world, most of us are dead by 82. And 98.4% are dead by age 90.

Try to retire early and take up a second career doing something you love doing. I love doing therapeutic massage for people in pain. I didn't hate being a project manager too much but it was unpleasant with long hours and holiday work and always just a way to make money.

I thought I'd be drawing and painting more than I have. But reading Splat the Cat says "Sorry" to my grandsons is priceless.

Scalia leaves behind a wife and nine children (unless some have died). Who knows how many grand children.

He looks overweight in recent photos. That might be a side effect of medication (ala Jerry Lewis) or it may have been something that contributed to his early death. Keep in mind that puff pastry or extra gravy might cost you a few years with your grand kids. Not to mention change the course of the country.

I mean wow. ~Ten more months and it might have been a conservative jurist who replaced him. Even with filibustering and so on, I think Obama will seat this one. If the conservatives actually filibuster for 10 months, I think the democrats should filibuster any conservative justice nominee until the end of the term.

Fun Supreme Court Factoids.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/fa...

Quote:
Has anyone ever served as both President and Chief Justice?

William Howard Taft is the only person to have served as both President of the United States (1909-1913) and Chief Justice of the United States (1921-1930).

Recently, SCOTUS handed down an opinion on the ACA that basically said "the actual words in the legislation don't matter ... it's all about the intent." The Court's official opinion was authored by Chief Justice Roberts. (Read Scalia's dissent starting at p.21... it's spot-on.)

Which is correct. When the words in the legislation are ambiguous then what matters is the intent of the legislators. And there's no reason to believe the legislators believed states on the federal exchange shouldn't get the subsidies (note to the obvious response, even if Gruber wrote that section and had that intent he was not a legislator).

In their opinion on gay marriage, Roberts issues a dissenting opinion with the following quote:

Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be.

The internal inconsistencies of the SCOTUS are appalling.

And they have the power to say what it is when the current form violates the constitution, as does the ban on gay marriage.

You're also talking about two very different aspects of what the supreme court does.

In the ACA ruling the court was interpreting the implementation of a law that was passed.

In the Gay Marriage ruling they were deciding if a law was constitutional.

Recently, SCOTUS handed down an opinion on the ACA that basically said "the actual words in the legislation don't matter ... it's all about the intent." The Court's official opinion was authored by Chief Justice Roberts. (Read Scalia's dissent starting at p.21... it's spot-on.)

Which is correct. When the words in the legislation are ambiguous then what matters is the intent of the legislators. And there's no reason to believe the legislators believed states on the federal exchange shouldn't get the subsidies (note to the obvious response, even if Gruber wrote that section and had that intent he was not a legislator).

In their opinion on gay marriage, Roberts issues a dissenting opinion with the following quote:

Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be.

The internal inconsistencies of the SCOTUS are appalling.

And they have the power to say what it is when the current form violates the constitution, as does the ban on gay marriage.

You're also talking about two very different aspects of what the supreme court does.

In the ACA ruling the court was interpreting the implementation of a law that was passed.

In the Gay Marriage ruling they were deciding if a law was constitutional.

Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be.

The internal inconsistencies of the SCOTUS are appalling.

Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be.

The internal inconsistencies of the SCOTUS are appalling.

Apparently, the reason the cops asked him to step out of the car was because the windshield was broken and there was fresh glass on the hood. And, contrary to the NPR report, apparently the 3 shots were fired while the car was basically "boxed in" by the cops, though apparently he wasn't really trapped, since he escaped and then the cops fired 12 more shots during his flight.

Very different account from what NPR says.

In any case, police still usually have "qualified immunity" unless their actions are clearly illegal or unconstitutional, as well as "unreasonable" given the circumstances.

Not a retrial, yet. They remanded it back to the 3rd circuit to figure out what to do with the guy.

And I think the court screwed up. I agree with Justice Alito (I just finished reading the court opinion). They sent it back to the 3rd circuit but didn't give them a clear guide on what to do.

The issue is this:

1) "True threats" are not constitutionally protected. They never have been, never will be. "I can say whatever I want" ends when a reasonable person hearing what you say becomes afraid for their safety. And rhyming doesn't make it okay. It will never be protected to call up a school and say "roses are red, violets are blue, you're dead and all the kiddies are too." That's going to justifiably freak a lot of people out. This is not the same thing as merely being offended. I mean actually threatened.

2) Elonis was convicted on four out of five counts of violating 18 U. S. C. 875(c), which makes it a federal crime to transmit in interstate commerce "any communication containing any threat . . . to injure the person of another."

3) The problem is there's no mens rea requirement in that. The lower courts instructed the jury that mere negligence is enough. "He should have known people would be threatened by this."

4) Elonis argued that criminal law very rarely works that way. Negligence is a fine standard in civil and tort law. But to actually punish somebody for crime, they need to have knowledge that what they were doing was wrong. "Should have known better" isn't good enough. Elonis argues that they need to establish that he intended to threaten. (Not intended to carry out the threat. Intended to threaten.)

5) Elonis is right in that. He got a bum deal on the negligence standard. That isn't good enough. But there's another standard between "negligence" and "intent" and that's "reckless." Recklessness is a reasonable standard by which to merit criminal punishment. That would be "knew it would probably make people afraid for their lives and did it anyway." Is that a reasonable standard for mens rea for this law?

6) The majority decision didn't address recklessness. They just said "it wasn't really argued by either side and the lower courts didn't rule on recklessness." However, that's...wrong. Both sides did bring it up in oral arguments, Elonis obviously saying "no, there has to be intent" and the state saying "who cares, negligence is enough." They could have decided they didn't have enough information to answer that question and gone back to the parties for further briefing and argument. But they just said "nope, not saying."

7) So where does that leave the lower courts, and users of social media? What IS the standard whereby one may be convicted of threatening others? All the Supremes will say is "not negligence." But now we don't know if the standard is actually recklessness or intent. Thanks a lot guys!

As an aside...Dear Congress: Please always write the mens rea requirements into each law so the courts know what standard to apply and don't leave them to guess. Thanks! xoxo, monkeykins.

So now the 3rd Circuit will figure out what to do with him. I don't know what that will be. His conviction under the negligence standard is overturned. I think the only way to reapply a recklessness standard would be with a new trial. The problem was the jury instructions, so you need a new jury. I don't think there's a double jeopardy issue, because this would essentially be a mistrial, stemming from action instigated by the defendant. But then the question is, "what should the jury instructions be this time?" Don't know!

My guess would be "recklessness," and it could kind of go either way.

He clearly knew lots of people were taking the things he was saying in the way he was saying them seriously. He made threats against his coworkers and his boss fired him. He made threats against his wife and she found them credible enough to get a restraining order

Whatever the interpretation of the grammar, it's clear as day that it was meant that the amendment was intended to retain state powers in the face of a federal government gone amuck - not for anyone to have a gun. Militia had a very specific meaning at that time as well.

You're actually completely wrong. If you really want a comprehensive examination of the language of the second amendment (rather that just blather on cluelessly about it) then you should read the entirety of District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008): http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Okay, lets say we're fighting Nazi germany and you're going to run a charity in the US to send medical supplies to starving orphans in Germany that have suffered because of American bombing.

Do you think the US government is going to let you do that?

No, but that's a different case. Quite apart from the fact that the Third Reich was a nation-state whilst neither the PKK nor the Tamil Tigers are, and that we're not at war with either of those organizations (aside from being "at war" with "terrorism"), what the Humanitarian Law project in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project said they wanted to do was "[trainin] PKK members to use international law to resolve disputes peacefully; [teach] PKK mem- bers to petition the United Nations and other representative bodies for relief; and [engage] in political advocacy on behalf of Kurds living in Turkey and Tamils living in Sri Lanka."

If you want a closer apples to apples comparision... lets say you're helping the nazis file legal challenges against the US war against Nazi Germany... See?

It all applies.

Again, no; there is no U.S. war against the PKK or the Tamil Tigers.

Look, I feel for the Kurds. They should really have their own country. But our alliance with the turks requires us to not recognize the kurds. And the tamil tigars are not getting their independence this side of ever. So what is the point?

The point of what? Trying to advise the PKK or Tamil Tigers how to peacefully attempt to achieve their goals? Maybe it's Quixotic, but that hardly makes it criminal.

Both of these groups are more likely to get genocided then they are to get independence. If I were them, I'd keep my head down and not piss off the powers that hold sway over me. I might prepare... stock pile weapons... organize. But never give them any provocation to distrust me or oppress my people.

Presumably by "stock pile weapons" you mean "stockpile weapons very secretly", as if "they" find out about it, that would sure turn into "provocation to distrust me or oppress my people".

I'd recommend both groups be loyal members of their respective nations and stop fighting. It serves no purpose.

Perhaps that's what the HLP had in mind?

Look, you don't help terrorists. With anything. That's the law.

It may be the law, but, if "with anything" includes "with trying to achieve your goals with non-terrorist means", then, well, the law is an ass, and should be fixed to more clearly indicate what is, and what isn't, "material support and resources".

If he'd happened to have had the dog with him, and decided to have the dog give the car a once-over, fine.

Actually, NO. Read the ruling at http://www.supremecourt.gov/op...

I'll spare you... Read page 11... Basically SCOTUS is saying that you can't suddenly decide to do your traffic duties "expeditiously" to gain bonus time to do "other things", like a drug dog sniff. If your purpose is to write a ticket, that's it. Rodriguez declined a search, he was detained & searched anyway, and it was outside the scope of writing a traffic ticket (and the usual stuff that goes along with that--drivers license check, proof of insurance, checking for warrants, etc.) Case closed, 6-3.

IMO, never read an article about a SCOTUS opinion. Always read the opinion itself. They are not difficult to find and not difficult to read.

It doesn't look like he was under the influence at the time, but the term "driving out of his lane" does kind of give reasonable cause for drug use, but maybe thats profiling.

No, it really doesn't.

Maybe the driver was futzing with their cell phone. Maybe their eyesight has degraded but they still have a license. Maybe there was something in the road that the officer didn't see. Maybe there was a bee in the car. Maybe the passenger grabbed the wheel. Maybe the vehicle is malfunctioning (say, headlights are out). Maybe the driver hit a pothole. Maybe the lines were unclear, having been repainted. Maybe the driver was falling asleep.

The core issue here was that the police officer was finished with the traffic stop. Then he asked to do a search, and the driver refused, and then he detained the driver.

Searches are legal, but waiting for backup to conduct a search isn't?

You can't detain someone longer than is reasonable (4th Amendment), and the decision says it's only reasonable to detain someone as long as it takes to complete the traffic stop (a definition established in Illinois v. Caballes in 2005). So case law says that the 4th Amendment's "reasonable" means "as long as it takes to finish the traffic stop." By the officer's own admission, the traffic stop was complete. Since nothing incriminating had been discovered by that point, that makes further detention or search unreasonable, and that makes the it all unconstitutional.

Fair enough. But let me put on my lawyer hat (i.e., go to Wikipedia, try to find a pertinent precedent, find the actual opinion, and quote like hell) and see what I can do. ...

I reference Campbell, aka Skyywalker, et al. v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. from the United State Reports Volume 510: Cases Adjudged in The Supreme Court at October Term,1993 (PDF page 773).

Concerning the fair use defense of 2 Live Crew to parody Roy Orbison's song "Oh, Pretty Woman", to quote Justice Souter's opinion for a unanimous Court decision (pp. 782-783):

The first factor in a fair use enquiry is ... to see ... whether the new work merely "supersede[s] the objects" of the original ..., or instead adds something new, with a further purpose or different character, altering the first with new expression, meaning, or message; it asks, in other words, whether and to what extent the new work is "transformative."

I would argue, thought I'm sure not without debated, that POWER/RANGERS fulfills this transformative requirement of fair use.

Concerning the issue of parody, Justice Souter goes on to say (p.784):

For the purposes of copyright law, the nub of the definitions, and the heart of any parodist’s claim to quote from existing material, is the use of some elements of a prior author’s composition to create a new one that, at least in part, comments on that author’s works.

POWER/RANGERS offers the perspective, or critique, of teenagers being recruited to fight an intergalactic war with more actual war-like elements that stand in stark contrast to the light-hearted portrayal of the sampled work. It mimics the characters and world but does make a point: war isn't as fun as was shown.

Concerning the issue of excessive use of elements from the original work, the Justice says (p.792):

Parody presents a difficult case. Parody’s humor, or in any event its comment, necessarily springs from recognizable allusion to its object through distorted imitation. Its art lies in the tension between a known original and its parodic twin. When parody takes aim at a particular original work, the parody must be able to “conjure up” at least enough of that original to make the object of its critical wit recognizable.

I would argue that the author of the work in question took as many elements as needed to make the parody recognizable to the audience such that the parody would function. In taking those elements however, the author did transform a number of aspects to suite the intended parodic purpose of the piece (e.g., newly added machine guns, Bulk and Skull turning homicidal, the protagonists losing and dying).

Lastly, concerning the economic incentive, the Justice states (p.794):

[The fourth fair use factor] requires courts to consider not only the extent of market harm caused by the particular actions of the alleged infringer, but also "whether unrestricted and widespread conduct of the sort engaged in by the defendant . . . would result in a substantially adverse impact on the potential market" for the original.

Since the work is blatantly made without the desire of monetary feedback, is not intended to supersede or replace any of the extant or future productions of the original work or author, and has done nothing but bring attention to the original work through this parody, the fourth factor of fair use is satisfied.

But again, I'm no lawyer. I just play one on Slashdot.