Slashdot Mirror
East Texas Judge Throws Out 168 Patent Cases
Earthquake Retrofit writes: Ars Technica is reporting that an East Texas judge has thrown out 168 patent cases in one fell swoop. The judge's order puts the most litigious patent troll of 2014, eDekka LLC, out of business. The ruling comes from a surprising source: U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, the East Texas judge who has been criticized for making life extra-difficult for patent defendants. Gilstrap, who hears more patent cases than any other U.S. judge, will eliminate about 10 percent of his entire patent docket by wiping out the eDekka cases.
Someone's bribe check bounced
He figured out that the parasite school of economics wasn't going to work in the long run.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Looks like someones check didn't clear
As of 1630 PDT today.
https://weather.yahoo.com/united-states/michigan/hell-2419784/
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
All the cases were related to the same patent, which the judge ruled was too vague. Clearly the right decision but there's still a long way to go.
The judge in question has learned a lot about patent law (he's only been a district judge for 4 years). He threw out the cases, and invited the defendants to file for attorney fees.
The threat of having to pay attorney fees if they lose will stop patent trolls dead. Millions for defense, not a penny for tribute will take on a new meaning when you can get the millions back.
You need to look at the rational for granting patents. The original rational was that by providing a monopoly on an invention for a limited period of time, it would encourage inventors to publish new and useful inventions instead of keeping those inventions as trade secrets. So the original inventor would be guaranteed exclusivity for a period of time, and in exchange everyone would benefit after the exclusivity period had expired.
But now people have started filing for patents which do not describe an invention in a useful manner, and then suing anyone who makes a similar invention. This basically reverses the intended purpose of patents.
Analogy: patents were intended to protect invention prospectors from claim jumpers, but instead are being used by speculators who see an idea railway going a certain direction and buy up all the mindspace in its way.
"Yes, terrible!
1) The large, non-innovative company simply steals the work of another company expending neither effort, nor time, nor money, nor creativity.
2) Other startups refuse wasting time and money building new products.
3) Customer lives with the same crap product for decades."
Sensible rationale. It makes sense.
But real world seems to probe it doesn't work that way: software development, for instance, has flourished without the need of a strong patent chest. Neither Microsoft, nor Oracle, nor Google, nor Facebook, nor Twitter, nor SAP, nor Red Hat, etc. made their way into big companies thanks to strong patent protection for their innovations, but by being innovative, fast to implement and with good business acumen. It's arguable, though, that they acquired a strong patent portfolio once they were big as a war chest against other big companies also with large patent portfolios and to increase the entry barrier for new competitors.
This particular judge invited defendants to file to have the troll pay their fees. That puts this troll, who is 10% of the problem, out of business.
It wouldn't take too many cases in which Intellectual Ventures has to pay the people they sue before IV would run out of money and be gone. They are responsible for around 30% of the trolling.
Four companies file 90% of the patent cases. Of the remaining 10%, many are legitimate disputes, so well over 90% of the trolling is those four entities. Put those four out of business and you've pretty much solved the problem of patent trolls. (And by making it costly for those four, others will be discouraged from attempting it).
Sorry but customers are fickle. Look at the industries without IP like restaurants and fashion. Lots of innovation and competition. What will happen is instead of taking a long time and lots of resources to get a patent companies will push every upgrade to market as fast as possible to get the first movers advantage.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
The original purpose and function of patents was a method of rewarding people the King favored. How it ended up as an institution separate from the King relates more to attempts by the Parliament to limit the King's powers than to reasoned debate about the function of patents.
The concepts of patents as a method of motivating people to publish trade secrets was an after-the-fact rationalization. Even so, it also helps to realize that for a long time patents were really only limited to methods of manufacture, not usages. It's easy to keeps methods of manufacturing secret.
Which is why until the mid 20th century in non-Anglophone countries you couldn't, for example, patent a chemical or its use, but only the method of manufacture. This is one reason why the German and French chemical industries were so inventive and competitive compared to American companies in the first half of the 20th century. But then they got greedy and wanted the same protections their American counterparts got.
The trade secret rationalization doesn't work very well in the modern era. It's much more difficult to keep manufacturing methods secret. And patents are so broad that that for the most part they protect things which aren't even remotely in dangerous of being kept secret.
Which is why economists today favor return on capital investment as a rationale for the patent system. Like the trade secret rationale it seems logical on its face, but doesn't hold up to empirical data. There's no less innovation in the increasingly small areas where patent protection is non-existent than in patent-protectable areas. There may be more investment, but that's the tail wagging the dog in an analysis. _Output_, not investment money, is the relevant metric.
People forget that the beauty of a free market system is that with enough wealthy capitalists, the necessary investment tends to happen even without government protections. Indeed, _especially_ without government protections like patents and copyrights. Once you start adding government monopoly rents, the money will chase those protections rather than seeking out truly innovative ideas. Without government protections it's not like capitalists will just sit on their money. Inflation provides all the incentive you need for capitalists to get out their and hustle, looking for profitable opportunities.
You really think nature meant for a male to have sex with another male? Or a female with a female? Nature designed sex for procreation and without a male and female you don't have that. I'd say that if a man desires a man either he made a choice or maybe it's a kind of birth defect. Given that rampant homosexuality is a recent phenomenon I'd say either we've had a huge rash of birth defects or either a lot of people decided to dabble in perverted sex. It's a common thing in decadent societies. I'm not really against homosexuality just all the foolish attempts to say it's normal. Anyone can see it's not. I don't care who's dick you suck as long as it is not mine.
If by "recent phenomenon" you mean "let's forget all about the ancient Greeks" then yes, okay, it's recent, as long as "recent" means "longer than thousands of years ago". Those beautiful philosophers of Athens et al? Lots of homosexual sex. Ever read Symposium? This isn't some "get your rocks off" stuff. This is real romantic love. Funny how most of Western society is based on such Classical ideals, yet they conveniently gloss over that part.
Nature doesn't intend for anything. It's not an intelligent agent.
There are several models based in genetic evolution which support the emergence of homosexual behavior. For example, a trait which promotes excessively promiscuous behavior in females might have unintended consequences in males. The trait would be stable if the increase in fecundity of the effected females offset any decrease in effected males. And don't forget that it was quite common for gay men and gay women to have children through sex, especially in the days when they were forced by society to into marriage. The evolutionary pressures suppressing homosexual behaviors would be much less than you might think.
There's no evidence that homosexual proclivity is a recent phenomenon. Quite the contrary, actually. The social identity of being homosexual, not to mention the whole notion of sexuality, is certainly recent, but that's a distinct phenomena.
LIkewise, what the heck does "normal" have to do with anything? Is it evolutionarily "normal" to drive around in cars? To step on the moon? I'm pretty sure that notions of shame and moral culpability doesn't exist in the animal kingdom, at least not to any appreciable degree. Humanity is _distinguished_ by it's ability to divorce itself, at least in part, from the natural processes which govern all other forms of life. The very notion of "free will" which you use to affix moral blame on homosexuals undermines your implied notion that there's a "normal" that homosexuals are violating, where "normal" is something objective and immutable. Instead, we exist in a much more complex world, subject to far more complex phenomena by dint of our incredible capacity for self-reflection and rational thought.
Thus the question of the genetic origins of homosexuality is actually quite irrelevant in terms of its "correctness". I simply couldn't care whether homosexuality is inherent or not. Personally I think it's quite obvious that there's a significant degree of so-called "free choice" in homosexual identity and behavior, more so for some than others. But LGBT advocacy unfortunately internalized the fallacious premise (a naturalistic fallacy) in conservative arguments.
Unless you can show objective reasons why homosexuality, per se, causes you or other harms (and that harm cannot simply be disgust, physical or moral), then you have no reasonable basis to judge homosexuals or their behavior. The past decade has shown quite persuasively that such reasons simply do not exist, despite considered efforts on the part of large parts of global society. Instead, your arguments and points simply prove yourself a judgmental idiot out of touch with your own personal moral failings and unaware of your diminished capacity for rational thinking. If I were you I'd start my education from scratch, reading Socrates and Plato to learn how to question myself and identify my own assumptions before wasting time judging others.
And at this point, who gives a shit about gays beside closeted people?
Well, some of the most creepy, objectifying straight men worry intensely about gay men. They think the gay men are looking at them the way they look at women. That's probably very frightening.
So then, you DO remember the day you decided "hey, I can be heterosexual or I can be homosexual, hmm ... hmm ... yeah I guess I'll just be hetero"?
Actually? Kind of, sort of, yes? There was a time where I was curious about what my sexuality might be and was open enough to investigate such. It turns out that kissing a man is not as much fun as I'd hoped. So, yeah... I quite clearly remember having a very similar conversation with myself and with others - I was also very drunk throughout that period of my life. But yes, I suppose, I figured I could prefer either one gender or both and, as it turns out, I'm kind of partial to the womenfolk.
I might have an odd fascination with transgendered folk, however. I mean, yeah, they're the gender they identify with - right? So, no, I'm not gay but I'm pretty damned open to new experiences or at least trying them.
Hmm...
Discussing my sexuality on Slashdot...
Expecting serious replies...
While in another state...
Miles from home...
In a city...
Filled with hookers.
Filled with loose women...
Might even have some transsexuals...
Plenty of money...
Sitting in my hotel room...
Using VNC to connect to my home computer...
Compiling shit just 'cause I like the scrolling text - sort of - don't need to compile it...
More compute devices than pairs of shoes...
More compute devices than suits...
Fucking around on Slashdot...
Talking about my sexuality...
On Slashdot...
I need help. *sighs*
"So long and thanks for all the fish."