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
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.
eDekka's patents had to be seriously deffective to get tossed in East Texas. I doubt seriously that the judge actually wised up but more likely the case was so weak even he couldn't justify it.
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.
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."