Slashdot Mirror

Just in case anyone is interested in the actual opinions:

The Supreme Court opinion of Microsoft v. AT&T .

For completeness: The previous story was (mainly) about KSR v. Teleflex , although it did mention Microsoft v. AT&T as well, in the fifth paragraph.

Just in case anyone is interested in the actual opinions:

The Supreme Court opinion of Microsoft v. AT&T .

For completeness: The previous story was (mainly) about KSR v. Teleflex , although it did mention Microsoft v. AT&T as well, in the fifth paragraph.

The issue is whether the US patent held by AT&T applies to copies of Windows that are installed on foreign-built computers. The ruling is that OS installs from a master disk made in the US don't qualify as US-made export goods themselves, and therefore aren't subject to US patents.

Now here's the key twist. In an Amicus brief that was probably not appreciated by Microsoft and apparently not embraced by the court, the SFLC argued that *all* software is like a blueprint or an algorithm, as this weird test case of installing it overseas versus installing it domestically demonstrates (in their view). Therefore, software should be fundamentally unpatentable.

JUSTICE BREYER: I take it that we are operating under the assumption that software is patentable? We have never held that in this Court, have we?

MR. JOSEFFER: No,..

Are you bored by legal technicalities? Would you rather be watching a 90 mph police car chase that ends in a cataclysmic crash?? Well the SCOTUS has delivered just what you want in their other big decision today: SCOTT v. HARRIS.

Yes, seriously here is the 93MB RealPlayer video: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/video/scott _v_harris.rmvb There are actually two videos of the chase back to back--the second one is better. Choice quote: "Let me have him 78, my car is already tore up!"

(I guess it is ironic that RealVideo format is probably heavily protected by patents.)

If you want the boring legal details of the case they are here: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-16 31.pdf

And here's a news story about it: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=310057 5

Are you bored by legal technicalities? Would you rather be watching a 90 mph police car chase that ends in a cataclysmic crash?? Well the SCOTUS has delivered just what you want in their other big decision today: SCOTT v. HARRIS.

Yes, seriously here is the 93MB RealPlayer video: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/video/scott _v_harris.rmvb There are actually two videos of the chase back to back--the second one is better. Choice quote: "Let me have him 78, my car is already tore up!"

(I guess it is ironic that RealVideo format is probably heavily protected by patents.)

If you want the boring legal details of the case they are here: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-16 31.pdf

And here's a news story about it: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=310057 5

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-10 56.pdf

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/04-13 50.pdf

I agree that the special interest groups are working with state and local governments to re-district for their own interests. I think that we disagree on what defines a special interest group, though. It's not the minorities or minority groups that scare me -- it's the majorities, such as the Republicans in Texas who redistricted well after the census. Make no mistake, Democrats gerrymander when they have control of the government, but they redistrict at the appropriate time -- after the census results are published, not between censuses.

We're operating under the assumption that software is patentable... but we've never held that in this court, ever.

They settled before the case went to the Supreme Court. From pages 3 and 4 of the transcript:

JUSTICE SCALIA: Mr. Olson, before you get into the merits I have a question, a preliminary question. I understand from AT&T's brief that there has been a stipulation entered into between the parties after the judgment below which preserved Microsoft's right to appeal and prescribed different dollar amounts that Microsoft must pay AT&T depending on the outcome of the appeal.
...
JUSTICE SCALIA: Well, suppose two parties just, you know, parties that otherwise do not have a case or controversy, bet each other that the district court will come out one way or the other way in, in a trumped-up suit.
...
JUSTICE SCALIA: Do you know of any, any precedent for that?

I don't think Microsoft wants to win. Perhaps that's why the case involved ridiculous arguments about electrons, photons, and weaving equipment. Nowhere in the oral arguments was the word 'algorithm' used. Instead they debated as to what constitutes a component of software in terms of the physical object it was stored on.

Full transcript.

Having said that, and assuming you meant what you almost said, I think you are wrong. I seriously doubt anyone at Microsoft was stupid enough to turn this into a software patents debate. It was almost assuredly the lawyer. How he screwed up that majorly, I cannot imagine.

JUSTICE BREYER:I take it that we are operating under the assumption that software is patentable? We have never held that in this Court, have we?
MR. JOSEFFER: No,...

As the numerous posts suggest, how to determine if something is obvious is difficult. As the transcript of the argument shows, you need a lot of experts to determine if something is obvious. And just who do you get to give expert testimony of an invention's obviousness?

See lines 17-21 on page 49 of this transcript of the argument. It seems like Chief Justice Roberts is a bit of a smart ass.

Courts are not known for haste in posting official transcripts.

Except for the Supreme Court, which posts its transcripts the same day.

Yeah, I was mostly playing devil's advocate there on the voter qualification thing. In all honesty, I have a lot of faith in the electorate, and think the truly clueless mostly stay home. I also favor a voter id requirement. The Supreme Court decision temporarily reinstating Arizona's voter id requirement (which I voted for) has some good arguments for it. It quotes the 1964 Reynolds vs. Sims decision: ""[T]he right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen's vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise."

Sometimes I worry that people get too much of a one-sided influence from the media, though. FactCheck.org looks like a great site. I gave up trying to discredit all the misleading campaign rhetoric a long time ago. I generally avoid traditional media and ignore campaign ads altogether, and prefer to get my information on a candidate's platform from his or her own website, facts on voting records from unquestionably impartial sites like thomas.loc.gov, and balance opinions by visiting both rnc.org and dnc.org, for example.

Own Criminal Acts.

Hamdi v Rumsfeld calls for a need for 'Military Tribunals' so as to ensure that when they 'goof' it's under strictest cover, and no-one will ever know what happened.

Is it any accident the CIA is CIA (Covering Its Ass)?

Gonzales is looking to legitimize the fact that the .gov has already been caught with it's hands in the til...

The abuses of The Constitution are being watched by everyone, everywhere. What was once the beacon of hope and bastion of freedom for the whole world is being trashed by criminals and oligarchs who seek to douse its light once and for all. The abuses against the American public must be arrested at the earliest possible juncture.

The truly frightening thing is that you can't even trust your democratic process anymore. So who's the terrorist? Where does he live?

Even Republicans can't deny the fact that it's getting out of hand.

Just today: On Tuesday, President Bush said, "Freedom, by its nature, cannot be imposed -- it must be chosen. From Beirut to Baghdad , people are making the choice for freedom.

Some choice.

No, no no. See, it's ok if we do it, because we're the good guys. That's what evil looks like in the mirror, but so what? Before you answer, don't forget: "Americans should watch what they say", and those who claim the administration is gutting the liberty America is famous for "only aid the terrorists" :

"All persons being detained have the right to contact their lawyers and their families". Never mind that that liberty was a phantom six months later. Ashcroft couldn't be bothered with phantom niceties like keeping his word or honoring habeas corpus.

But that was then. Now? They're still at it. Now they're sending Generals to the Supreme Court to argue:

GENERAL CLEMENT: And if you think, in order for there be to a -- to be a valid suspension, Congress has to do it consciously, then I think you could see why the arguments are mutually exclusive. My view would be that if Congress, sort of, stumbles upon a suspension of the writ, but the preconditions are satisfied, that would still be constitutionally valid.

Those preconditions, by the way, are invasion or insurrection. Lincoln tried it with the Civil War in progress and it's widely considered a permanent stain on not just his reputation but his character. Nobody else, ever before, never since. Not in 1941 when the Japanese Navy invaded Pearl Harbor. Not in 1814 when the invading army reached Washington D.C. and burned every government building to the ground. No. Now the country's in real danger. We must suspend accountability now, and apply only his military authority to whomever he pleases. Bush has been scouring the country for almost five years to find evidence of those Islamo- fascists' secret invasion, and hasn't come up with enough evidence to charge even one person, so we must suspend habeas to stop it from succeeding.

He promises the only people he'll imprison without enough evidence to convince a criminal court will be Scary Bad non-citizens. We must trust the President. If that invasion nobody can find but he tells the Supreme Court is underway anyway really doesn't exist, that would be ... sad.

The Supreme Court (bless them!) ruled that the President only has "extraordinary wartime powers" as a temporary expedient to quickly do things that would take Congress too much time.

I'm not sure I've heard that, though I have heard that such "extraordinary powers" most certainly do not extend to denying constitutional rights, no matter what Hollywood may tell us.

For example, I'm pretty sure that the Supreme Court later determined that Lincoln's suspension of Habeus Corpus was, in fact, unconstitutional. Also, the Supreme Court determined that the suspension in 1942 of civillian rule in favor of military courts in Hawaii was also unconstitutional (and this was a territory, not yet a state, that had just been attacked by a foreign power's military, and even under those incredibly exceptional circumstances the constitution wasn't permitted to be suspended).

Here are some remarks by the former Chief Justice in 2000, and again in 2002, that address the question of civilian versus military judical authority in wartime.

Can anyone provide clear case evidence of the court determining that the President *can* suspend certain civil rights or federal laws in wartime? So far as I've ever been able to ascertain, every single time a President has gone "too far" with the wartime powers argument, he's been rebuffed years later by the Supreme Court, which tells me, at least, that any argument that a president has special lattitude in wartime is a crock, at least from a legal perspective. From a practical perspective, though, since it's always taken the Court years to get around to it, it's certainly been proven true. (though if the Court can decide a presidential election question in a matter of days, you'd think they could handle these other serious issues more quickly, too...)

The Supreme Court (bless them!) ruled that the President only has "extraordinary wartime powers" as a temporary expedient to quickly do things that would take Congress too much time.

I'm not sure I've heard that, though I have heard that such "extraordinary powers" most certainly do not extend to denying constitutional rights, no matter what Hollywood may tell us.

For example, I'm pretty sure that the Supreme Court later determined that Lincoln's suspension of Habeus Corpus was, in fact, unconstitutional. Also, the Supreme Court determined that the suspension in 1942 of civillian rule in favor of military courts in Hawaii was also unconstitutional (and this was a territory, not yet a state, that had just been attacked by a foreign power's military, and even under those incredibly exceptional circumstances the constitution wasn't permitted to be suspended).

Here are some remarks by the former Chief Justice in 2000, and again in 2002, that address the question of civilian versus military judical authority in wartime.

Can anyone provide clear case evidence of the court determining that the President *can* suspend certain civil rights or federal laws in wartime? So far as I've ever been able to ascertain, every single time a President has gone "too far" with the wartime powers argument, he's been rebuffed years later by the Supreme Court, which tells me, at least, that any argument that a president has special lattitude in wartime is a crock, at least from a legal perspective. From a practical perspective, though, since it's always taken the Court years to get around to it, it's certainly been proven true. (though if the Court can decide a presidential election question in a matter of days, you'd think they could handle these other serious issues more quickly, too...)

*disclaimer* I have yet to read the opinion and refuse to state my OWN opinion before READING what the court ACTUALLY said..

Here it is...that is, unless you've decided to make up your mind without research.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/04-47 3.pdf

Original text of the ruling is here: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/04-47 3.pdf

(2) The government CANNOT stop citizens from bringing up issues in the public interest.

Which brings us to this case...
The majority of the court simply said that in this case, the petitioner was acting in his official duties and falls in category (1) and not category (2). Federal whistleblower laws etc... might protect him, but he has no CONSITUTIONAL right of action under the First Amendment.

Before you go crazy and mod me down, take a moment to read the opinion. IMHO it's a quite reasonable outcome.

It goes without saying that sfgate.com is a Liberal publication. (does that word apply to web sites?) If anything, the headline gives their bias away. They could have titled it "Supreme court rejects rogue government employees claim to wistleblower status." That would, of course, reveal the opposite bias.

What troubles me is that their biased view is accepted by so many people without critical thinking. We are all very comfortable being manipulated, so long as the manipulation agrees with our world view.

To their credit, sfgate.com links to the actual judgement: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/04-47 3.pdf

I'll summarize (with my bias). Ceballos had a difference of opinion with his superiors about how to handle a case (he was a deputy district attorney for L.A. County). I don't see how this makes him a whistleblower. He wasn't revealing corruption. He disagreed with his boss(es) about the robustness of a search warrant affidavit. I imagine that happens all the time. I infer that he didn't handle this disagreement in a way that endeared him to his boss. His boss responded by transfering him, and denying him a promotion. These sound like reasoanble actions for a boss to take if he doesn't see eye-to-eye with an employee.

Anyway, the truth is out there. What good is intellectual freedom if we merely surrender the forming of our opinions to the media?

Actually whats interesting is if you read the opinion http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/04-47 3.pdf you would see that more importantly they are seperating job related communications from whistleblower communications. Meaning if in our official capacity you regularly sent notices of the "official" opinion of your office, in which one day in it you added your personal opinion you could be fired. Versus, you using your off the clock time to send a whisleblower announcemnet concerning your personal opinions.

It actually doesn't. I invite you to read the ruling. The concurring opinion is like 16 of the 43 pages.

Hey thanks! And I just finished reading the opinion of the court. It's pretty narrowly defined. The concuring opinion is 16 of the 43 pages. This is not a bad ruling.

"Whether the Federal Circuit erred in setting forth a general rule in patent cases that a district court must, absent exceptional circumstances, issue a permanent injunction after a finding of infringement."

"Whether the Federal Circuit erred in setting forth a general rule in patent cases that a district court must, absent exceptional circumstances, issue a permanent injunction after a finding of infringement."

Homeland Security Heroes Silenced By Self-Deluded Library Propaganda! An Example of the Effectiveness of the ALA's Propaganda Machine: Getting Government Officials to Silence Themselves.

Here is one example of the effectiveness of the ALA's propaganda campaign. In Policing Porn Is Not Part of Job Description; Montgomery Homeland Security Officers Reassigned After Library Incident, 17 Feb 2006, two Montgomery County Homeland Security Department heroes do the right thing, perhaps in the wrong way, by telling library users to stop viewing porn on public library computers! Reaction? The librarians squawk their propaganda lines. Result? The Homeland Security heroes are assigned to different jobs and their boss apologizes for their actions then apparently unknowingly spouts ALA propaganda that a library is a public forum where anything goes and that people may view pornography unfettered. (Not true, read US v. ALA.)

The ALA has got the government officials to silence themselves using a propaganda technique called "conversion": "We mean conversion of the average American's emotions, mind, and will, through a planned psychological attack, in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via the media."

Even worse, the boss then says his whole department will undergo ALA mind control: "Montgomery plans to train its homeland security officers 'so they fully understand library policy and its consistency with residents' First Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution,' Romer said in his statement." Here is a sneak peek at the ALA's mind control sessions the Montgomery County Homeland Security Department will use due to its self delusion that library policy is pure and ALA librarians know best and would never violate the law or endanger children:

Repeat 100 times, 10 times a day while facing ALA headquarters in Chicago, IL:

• US v. ALA does not exist.
• It is age discrimination to keep kids from seeing porn.
• A public library is an open forum where anything goes including pornography.
• Taxpayers have no control over public libraries and public school libraries because they are unsophisticated and librarians know best.
• All people are equal but some people at the ALA are more equal than others.
• The ALA knows more than the United States Supreme Court about what is constitutional.
• It is the absolute right of the ALA to supervise the formation of public opinion.

Homeland Security Heroes Silenced By Self-Deluded Library Propaganda! An Example of the Effectiveness of the ALA's Propaganda Machine: Getting Government Officials to Silence Themselves.

Here is one example of the effectiveness of the ALA's propaganda campaign. In Policing Porn Is Not Part of Job Description; Montgomery Homeland Security Officers Reassigned After Library Incident, 17 Feb 2006, two Montgomery County Homeland Security Department heroes do the right thing, perhaps in the wrong way, by telling library users to stop viewing porn on public library computers! Reaction? The librarians squawk their propaganda lines. Result? The Homeland Security heroes are assigned to different jobs and their boss apologizes for their actions then apparently unknowingly spouts ALA propaganda that a library is a public forum where anything goes and that people may view pornography unfettered. (Not true, read US v. ALA.)

The ALA has got the government officials to silence themselves using a propaganda technique called "conversion": "We mean conversion of the average American's emotions, mind, and will, through a planned psychological attack, in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via the media."

Even worse, the boss then says his whole department will undergo ALA mind control: "Montgomery plans to train its homeland security officers 'so they fully understand library policy and its consistency with residents' First Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution,' Romer said in his statement." Here is a sneak peek at the ALA's mind control sessions the Montgomery County Homeland Security Department will use due to its self delusion that library policy is pure and ALA librarians know best and would never violate the law or endanger children:

Repeat 100 times, 10 times a day while facing ALA headquarters in Chicago, IL:

• US v. ALA does not exist.
• It is age discrimination to keep kids from seeing porn.
• A public library is an open forum where anything goes including pornography.
• Taxpayers have no control over public libraries and public school libraries because they are unsophisticated and librarians know best.
• All people are equal but some people at the ALA are more equal than others.
• The ALA knows more than the United States Supreme Court about what is constitutional.
• It is the absolute right of the ALA to supervise the formation of public opinion.

  JUSTICE BREYER: You're not saying -- now you're
22 using different tests. Your test is "substantial." All
23 right, on your test, are we sure, if you were the counsel
24 to Mr. Carlson, that you recommend going ahead with the
25 Xerox machine? Are you sure, if you were the counsel to

1 the creator of the VCR, that you could recommend, given
2 the use, copying movies, that we should ever have a VCR?
3 Are you sure that you could recommend to the iPod inventor
4 that he could go ahead and have an iPod, or, for that
5 matter, Gutenberg, the press? I mean, you see the
6 problem.
7 MR. VERRILLI: Yeah, I think my answer to -

From the RIAA's DMCA filing, pages 31 and 32: "The Register was right in 2003 to be "skeptical" of the merits of any fair use analysis that asserts that space shifting or format shifting is a non-infringing use. This is particularly the case in today's market, where inexpensive digital copies of most types of works are readily available, and increasingly can be obtained through online download services. ... In such a market, the inconvenience that faces consumers of works tethered to specific devices is far outweighed by the threat to enjoyment of copyright posed by illegal distrobution faced by copyright owners."

Wow! In one paragraph, the RIAA lawyer goes from a private citizen in his own home, making a personal copy of a work to change its' technical form to distributing that copy. What an amazing conclusion, that every person copying a CD has the intent to distribute! Furthermore, it seems when the record companies are before the courts that they sing a totally different tune. Now I know that big organizations have the "left hand doesn't know what right hand does" thing going on, but when your own lawyers can't remember what they said to this or that court then you have a real problem.

From Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios v Grokster, Donald Verrilli representing the petitioners:

...and let me pick out the iPod as one, because it's the most current example, I guess. From the moment that device was introduced, it was obvious that there were very significant lawful commercial uses for it. And let me clarify something I think is unclear from the amicus briefs. The record companies, my clients, have said, for some time now, and it's been on their Website for some time now, that it's perfectly lawful to take a CD that you've purchased, upload it onto your computer, put it onto your iPod...

Funny how I can't find this on anyone's website anymore

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argum ent_transcripts/04-480.pdf

A new development on the state of the NTP v. RIM case is mentioned in this article. Another of NTP's patents has headed south, thanks to the Patent Office, so they may have started looking for some new artillery. The patent law, which many have declaimed against on /., or spoken with great certainty on, is actually in great flux right now. There is a case pending in the U.S. Supreme Court, EBay v. MercExchange, having to do with small companies who don't currently manufacture anything shutting down big companies by using court injunctions. It hasn't been decided yet. Congress was considering the issue, passed the ball to the Supreme Court, but is still contemplating other important changes to the patent system. There was some discussion about submarine patents. Symbol Tech v. Lemelson Foundation was the case that laid those to rest, though as one /.er pointed out, a change in the rules about patent terms has just about eliminated the possibility that new ones will arise in the future In the meantime, Microsoft has given and gotten some in the patent litigation wars. The Supreme Court refused to take up their loss against Eolas Technologies for basic browser patents. Eolas was a small firm holding patents developed by the University of California. The case has gone back to district court for further proceedings. This kind of case, like the Visto case, hinges on whether the courts and/or the Patent Office will uphold or invalidate the patents at issue. This co$t$ $ome time and effort to re$olve, a$ everyone know$.

According to this he did not take part in the decision.

"Justice Souter delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question is under what circumstances the distributor of a product capable of both lawful and unlawful use is liable for acts of copyright infringement by third parties using the product. We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties."

But even with these photos, the angle doesn't seem to have been chosen for any particular artistic purpose.

And this has exactly what to do with copyright?

Promotion of the arts is the whole purpose of copyright law!

By your logic, it would impossible for any astronomical image to be copyrighted.

Not really, an astronomical image contains much more selection than this. Google Maps cover the whole Earth. There isn't any selection at all.

I tend to think that these guys would disagree with that.

Who cares whether or not Sky and Telescope would disagree? All that matters is whether or not these guys would agree. You know, the people that said "The primary objective of copyright is not to reward the labor of authors, but 'to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.'" And "the 1976 revisions to the Copyright Act leave no doubt that originality, not 'sweat of the brow,' is the [p*360] touchstone of copyright protection in directories and other fact-based works." And "the Constitution mandates some minimal degree of creativity"

I can hope we get another David Souter.

How can you hope for another David Souter after his recent ruling on eminent domain??? People don't seem to understand that both the Democrats and Republicans are now statist parties. Just b/c the Democrats oppose the Republicans doesn't mean they're suddenly libertarian good guys.

And to set the record straight, it was the conservative, Republican-appointed judges who opposed this decision - three of Reagan's four judges (Rehnquist, Scalia, Connor, but not Kennedy) and one of Bush Sr's two judges (Thomas, but not Souter) opposed the ruling[pdf]. Furthermore, it is Congressional Republicans introducing legislation to mitigate its damage, while Congressional Democrats state both their opposition to that legislation and support of the Kelo decision. Of course, there are plenty of examples of people on both sides of political spectrum opposing this, even socialists, so it's much more complex than the typical dumbed-down Democrat-vs-Republican football match. So enough of the uninformed, knee-jerk reactions please, and we'll take two more Rehnquists President Bush, thank you very much.

Uh, I think there might be a chance that decisions like Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. may have some slight effect on Your Rights Online, and thus might qualify as "News for nerds".

From the opinion:

"They also argue that potential noninfringing uses of their software are significant in kind, even if infrequent in practice. Some musical performers, for example, have gained new audiences by distributing their copyrighted works for free across peer-to-peer networks, and some distributors of unprotected content have used peer-to-peer networks to disseminate files, Shakespeare being an example. Indeed, StreamCast has given Morpheus users the opportunity to download the briefs in this very case, though their popularity has not been quantified. "

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04slipopini on.html

From the opinion:

"They also argue that potential noninfringing uses of their software are significant in kind, even if infrequent in practice. Some musical performers, for example, have gained new audiences by distributing their copyrighted works for free across peer-to-peer networks, and some distributors of unprotected content have used peer-to-peer networks to disseminate files, Shakespeare being an example. Indeed, StreamCast has given Morpheus users the opportunity to download the briefs in this very case, though their popularity has not been quantified. "

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04slipopini on.html

The judgment is available here (linked to from here). That includes the summary, Souter's opinion, and the two concurring opinions. Other people have already talked about the important parts of Souter's opinion, but I found the concurrences just as interesting (though less important).

The first concurrence, Ginsburg's (page 30 of the above file), sounded pretty dangerous to me. It lists over a page of evidence for non-infringing uses (pages 34-35) and then immediately dismisses at all without considering it. It doesn't even talk of the dangers to new technologies. But the last paragraph is the scariest. "If, on remand, the case is not resolved on summary judgment in favor of MGM... the Court... should reconsider, on a fuller record, its interpretation of Sony's product distribution holding. Now, IANAL at all, but that sounds pretty bad.

The second concurrence (page 38), also by three judges, is a lot nicer to me. Pages 42 and 44 have long lists of non-infringing uses including books, Linux software, and things licensed under Creative Commons. It even says that Grokster is protected by the Sony standard. It goes on to talk about how the Sony standard has been a fairly good one. It talks of how both non-infringing uses of Grokster and use of legal programs (like iTunes) will grow. It's still a concurring opinion, but the tone is much more mindful of protecting technology and looking forward to the future, a view that was missing from the first concurrence.

Slaughter session:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argum ent_transcripts/04-480.pdf

Highlight
p.3: JUSTICE STEVENS: May I just interrupt for the one -- you said "the only significant use." There's a footnote in the red brief that says the figure is some 2.6 billion legitimate uses.

Grokster tried to claim 2.6 billion users! bwahaha

I think we should wait for the text of the ruling to be posted online (to happen here) before rushing to say "the sky is falling". We'll be much wiser after reading what they had to say.

AP has a story. It seems the ruling turned on the grounds that they distributed the software "with the object of promoting infringement of copyright", and that they may be liable for third-party infringement by their users, depending on how egregious this promition was. We'll only know had bleak the future is though after reading what the justices had to say.

Really? The constitution says this? I must have missed that part.

You certainly did. Do they not teach this in school anymore?

Check out the "brief overview" for a background on the court's origin and jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court of the United States isn't the only governmental entity responsible for upholding the Constitution.

They are the last and final word on constitutionality. We all must uphold the constitution, but only they can tell you what exactly to uphold, by interpreting individual cases.

If they declare tommorrow that the first amendment means that speech is not free, their word is final. There is no one else to appeal to; not another court, not Congress, not the President.

I'd like to see where they put on paper that they refuse to enforce the 5th Amendment, because I read the opinion and I don't remember seeing that part.

You're a funny character. Can I get away with robbing you, as long as I don't say that I'm robbing you?

Are you really stooping to this level of argument?

here is the complete PDF file with the ruling, I found it from The Supreme Court website.

Although I live in the other side of the Atlantic, I wrote about this issue on my blog. I read most of the ruling, and I didn't like it.

Here's what happened:

1. New London is a small city which had high unemployment and declining population levels lately. In 1996 the Federal Government closed a facility which employed 1500 people there, so something had to be done to boost the local economy, especially in Fort Trumbull.
2. The NLDC (New London Development Corporation) was authorised by the State in January 1998 to help with the situation. NLDC is a private non-profit entity, but its members are not elected by the people.
3. The city/NLDC wanted to create a state park with marinas, maybe a parking, and hotels etc, in Fort Trumbull.
4. In February, the pharmaceutical megacorp Pfizer announced it would build a $300 million research facility next to Fort Trumbull. That would create new jobs, so it was good news.
5. Oopps! But there was a problem: Some land needed for the state park was the property of individuals. This property included residential homes as well as investment homes. NLDC was authorised to buy the necessary land from the people. That's ok, but there are bad news too: NLDC was authorised by the city to seize property too!
6. Some people (Kelo et al.) disliked the idea that their beautiful home would be destroyed to allow Pfizer open its facility near there. One of these people was born and lived in their home for their whole lives. NLDC said it would seize their homes and provide compensation. The people remembered the last sentence of the Fifth Amendment: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation". They went to the courts. Their problem is not with the compensation, they don't want higher compensation, it's a matter of principle, about the definition of "public use". Why a Pfizer facility would be of any "public use"? Of course it would be beneficial for the city's economy and create jobs, but is this enough to justify home seizure for "public use"? I personally would say: No! (but IANAL - I am not a lawyer).
7. Some time the matter reached the Supreme Court of the United States. It decided 5-4 to allow the city/NLDC to seize the property. Too bad: Now corporations have a way to use your land for their factory, if a city government can prove that it would generate more tax revenue, jobs etc than your home. Theoretically the land would still be public property, but in practice some private entity is using it. Do you see the problem? Gov takes your land and allows someone else to use it because it says he can use it more productively than you.
8. Dissenting Justice O'Connor, J., said in his opinion to the Supreme Court: "Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms. As for the victims, the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result" (I quoted from Supreme Court of United States case 04-108, O'Connor, J., dissenting, 13, in page 39, I added the emphasis myself).

I wrote this overview quickly from my memory after reading most of the 04-108 ruling. I encourage you to read it, too, as it contains many interesting references to other court rulings too.

Believe it

Stevens, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Scalia, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. O'Connor, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Thomas, J., joined as to all but Part III. Thomas, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

To all US /. readers who still believe that the USA has freedom.

Read this http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/04-10 8.pdf

Your government can now take your property for the "public good"
You are no longer safe in your own home!

The end has come and you only have yourself to blame.

What are you going to do?

To all US /. readers who still believe that the USA has freedom.

Read this http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/04-10 8.pdf

Your government can now take your property for the "public good"
You are no longer safe in your own home!

The end has come and you only have yourself to blame.

What are you going to do?