Slashdot Mirror
US Supreme Court Limits Patent Claims
Aire Libre and other readers noted a unanimous Supreme Court decision that denied LG Electronics's attempt to evade the first-sale doctrine by use of "business method" patents. LG licensed patents to Intel, then attempted to dictate what use Intel's customers could make of the Intel products incorporating LG patents. The decision (PDF) notes how easily patents can be written up as "business methods" to nullify the first-sale doctrine ("exhaustion") and to give the patent owner perpetual control downstream. Aire Libre adds, "That reasoning bodes well for copyright freedom as well, in light of the growing number of copyright holders who seek to nullify the Copyright Act's limitation on the distribution right by claiming the goods are 'licensed, not sold,' or subject to some restrictive EULA."
Reason has no place in a legal proceeding. Sad, but true. This ruling doesn't have any direct implications on copyright issues. Any perceived reason the justices showed with this ruling can only be tested against copyright if and when a similar dispute regarding copyright makes it to the Supreme Court. Until a person or organization has deep enough pockets to push/appeal a court case to the SC we'll never know if the justices' reason extends to copyright or not.
Well, let's put this in perspective. This is about one batch of capitalists battling against another batch of capitalists over an abusive patent method that, while ultimately screwing the consumer, does not in fact directly involve the consumer (it's not terribly likely that you or I were going to be directly sued by LG).
Still, it's good to see that there's some recognition at the top of the system that these patent shenanigans are beginning to seriously compromise manufacturing and development.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
WTF?! SCOTUS shouldn't be "left" or "right" wing! I want a Supreme Court that will read the Constitution as-is and from the beginning of it's creation. That last thing we need is for SCOTUS to interperate it in a shape/form that fits with "modern times". Screw that! If a line isn't drawn in drawn in the sand from the get go, what's the point of having this core document?
Sorry for my ranting folks, but this just bugs the hell outta me. If you want the Constitution changed, then vote to ammend it. I do not want some judge changing the original meaning to fit with their own political ideology and/or dreams for a different future.
Life is not for the lazy.
This suddenoutbreakofcommonsense only took 8 years, and one stubborn company that refused to settle when all the others did. It may have been an obvious outcome to some, but apparently not to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals or the unnamed number of other companies who gave in to the royalty demands.
The real question in all this is why the appeal court sided with LG.
Murphey's fighting Occam, and we're in the stands.
WTF?! SCOTUS shouldn't be "left" or "right" wing! I want a Supreme Court that will read the Constitution as-is and from the beginning of it's creation. That last thing we need is for SCOTUS to interperate it in a shape/form that fits with "modern times". Screw that! If a line isn't drawn in drawn in the sand from the get go, what's the point of having this core document?
Which, as I was trying to point out, is largely the case. You can't possibly prevent the justices from holding what you might call conservative or liberal viewpoints. Yet despite this, and despite efforts to deliberately get as many of a certain viewpoint on the bench as possible, the Supreme Court of the U.S. remains largely centrist. Overall, they have done a better job of respecting and sticking to the Constitution by far than either of the other two branches. They are the "line in the sand" you refer to, and they've done a very good job of stopping people from crossing it.
In so much as they can. I mean, they don't have the ability to rule on arbitrary issues, so as long as warrantless wiretapping doesn't come before them in a case, they have no ability to rule on it.
Sorry for my ranting folks, but this just bugs the hell outta me. If you want the Constitution changed, then vote to ammend it. I do not want some judge changing the original meaning to fit with their own political ideology and/or dreams for a different future.
Which has been happening far, far less often than you probably think. The fact is that everyone colors their interpretation of the Constitution and what it means "from the beginning of its creation" with the political ideology. I consider myself very much a constructionist (or I guess origionalist), yet I don't delude myself that my reading of what "the Founding Father's intended" isn't affected by my own beliefs.
The demonstrated ability of SCOTUS to resist this influence in their rulings is rather impressive to me, especially compared to the other two examples. All this screaming about "activist judges" changing the Constitution to suit their whims (in either direction, "left" or "right") is vastly overplayed, if not played out.
The enemies of Democracy are
> I do not want some judge changing the original meaning
I don't get it. You actually believe that the words of the Constitution encode enough information to enable everyone to unequivocally understand what the authors of that document believed should be done in all possible situations (even assuming they had one unanimous opinion)?
Face it. That's impossible, and that's why we have judges. And why they're constantly overturning old decisions and laws.
Of course, I do agree with you that judges shouldn't be making their decisions based on partisan loyalty. But one has to cope with the fact that they are human also.
I agree, though you'll still get odd 'liberal' and 'conservative' readings of the constitution. Especially stuff that isn't cut and dried in the constitution, such as abortion.
For example, the earlier poster thinks that the court is conservative, while I think that it's dangerously liberal - just look at the gaping hole that is the commerce clause today.
Of course, I tend to think that the founders wrote in rather plain language, and generally speaking, KISS should apply. Especially from circuit courts, I've seen torturous readings of laws to essentially try to say that the law means the opposite of what it says.
And yes, this includes stuff like same sex marriage, abortion, discrimination, etc... It's not that I actually have a problem with same sex marriage*. I'm generally pro-choice**, and I don't care whether you're white, yellow, or black. Don't even care if you're green or purple other than curiosity as to how you got to be that way.
My objection is philosophical in nature - courts are not to be 'legislating from the bench', inventing rights, etc... If we decide that we need a new right, it should be acknowledged in the traditional way - amend the constitution. For that matter, I tend to think that legislators who propose, vote for, and enact blatantly unconstitutional laws should be fired.
*I'm of the opinion it should be civil unions for all, if you want to call yourself married find a priest, priestess, rabbi, mullah, witchdoctor, whatever willing to perform the ceremony.
**for first trimester, second should require some special circumstances, and third some serious medical issue(like it being discovered that said baby has no brain, and will die within a week of birth even with life support). If it should be done, the morning-after pill should be used. It should not be for sex selection, or just because you're too lazy of a dumbass to use birth control. On the other hand, if you're such a dumbass, you shouldn't be having kids anyways.
I don't read AC A human right
While I understand (and mostly agree with) your point...
I do not want my neighbors to have thermonuclear weapons under the 2nd amendment.
And if they can't, then the document is subject to interpretation in light of current technology for reasonableness.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
You really can't limit term of copyright to the author's lifetime. People work for companies that fund their work in exchange for a regular salary. This would bind the value of the work to the age and health of the employee, leading to all sorts of economic pressure to not fund the work of older people.