Native American Tribe Can't Be a 'Sovereign' Shield During Patent Review, Says Court (arstechnica.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Native American Tribe Can't Be a 'Sovereign' Shield During Patent Review, Says Court (arstechnica.com)

Posted by BeauHD on Wednesday July 25, 2018 @10:00PM from the safety-zone dept.

Cyrus Farivar writes via Ars Technica: In a unanimous decision, an appellate court has resoundingly rejected the legal claim that sovereign immunity, as argued by a Native American tribe, can act as a shield for a patent review process. On July 20, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found in a 3-0 decision that the inter partes review (IPR) process (a process that allows anyone to challenge a patent's validity at the United States Patent and Trademark Office) is closer to an "agency enforcement action" -- like a complaint brought by the FTC or the FCC -- than a regular lawsuit.

This case really began in September 2015. That was when Allergan, a pharma company, sued rival Mylan, claiming that Mylan's generics infringed on Allergan's dry eye treatment known as Restasis. Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe was initially filed in the Eastern District of Texas, known as a judicial region that is particularly friendly to entities that are often dubbed patent trolls. By 2016, Mylan initiated the IPR. But Allergan, in an attempt to stave it off, struck a strange deal, transferring ownership of the six Restasis-related patents to the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe, based in Upstate New York, near the Canadian border. As part of that deal, Allergan paid $13.75 million to the tribe, with a promise of $15 million in annual payments -- if the patents were upheld, that is. The Mohawk Tribe attempted to end the IPR, citing sovereign immunity, which was denied. The tribe struck at least one other similar deal with a firm known as SRC Labs, which sued Amazon and Microsoft.

150 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-25 22:11 · Score: 0

Your (you're, yaw) laws, courts and country are all daft.
1. Re:Stupid by x0ra · 2018-07-25 22:18 · Score: 2
  
  Actually, no. Identity politics and tribalism (quite literally) have no place in the US, and that's good thing.
2. Re: Stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-25 23:01 · Score: 0
  
  By saying you have the right to tell others what they can and can't do and feeling that your perspective is correct, you are engaging in identity politics.
  Who are you to tell some native group of people what they can and can't do?
3. Re: Stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-25 23:08 · Score: 0
  
  STFU
4. Re: Stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-25 23:14 · Score: 0
  
  The baby threw it's toys again.
5. Re: Stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-25 23:33 · Score: 0
  
  By saying you have the right to tell others what they can and can't do and feeling that your perspective is correct, you are engaging in identity politics.
  Who are you to tell some native group of people what they can and can't do?
  Yeah.
  It's almost as stupid and hypocritical as an "abolish ICE" open-borders protest encampment putting up fences and walls and using guards to keep people they don't want in out of their encampment.
6. Re: Stupid by JaredOfEuropa · 2018-07-25 23:36 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  No one is telling them what to do. What they are saying is that their ownership of a patent is not enough grounds to stop review of said patent.
  
  --
  If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
7. Re: Stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-25 23:45 · Score: 0
  
  GO TO HELL
8. Re: Stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-26 00:00 · Score: 1
  
  It doesn't exist you fool.
9. Re:Stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-26 01:34 · Score: 0
  
  Do name the country you are from, so we can all point and laugh at you as well
10. Re:Stupid by kilfarsnar · 2018-07-26 01:37 · Score: 2
  
  Actually, no. Identity politics and tribalism (quite literally) have no place in the US, and that's good thing.
  Look around you. That is manifestly untrue. You may prefer it otherwise, but tribalism and identity politics are alive, well, and thoroughly embedded in American culture. They are as American as chanting, "USA! USA!"
  
  --
  "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
11. Re: Stupid by kilfarsnar · 2018-07-26 01:42 · Score: 0
  
  Who are you to tell some native group of people what they can and can't do?
  Europeans showed up and straight up took it; that's who. Native Americans have been fucked over left, right and center since Columbus arrived. Sure, we told the that their reservations were sovereign territory. But when push comes to shove, the American system isn't going to let them actually assert that right. I mean, who's in charge here?
  
  --
  "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
12. Re:Stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-26 01:44 · Score: 0
  
  Do name the country you are from, so we can all point and laugh at you as well
  In his defense, the US does look pretty stupid these days.
13. Re: Stupid by x0ra · 2018-07-26 02:24 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  We probably should have force them to assimilate thoroughly , it would have been less troublesome today.
14. Re:Stupid by x0ra · 2018-07-26 02:25 · Score: 1
  
  I do not condone such nationalism either.
15. Re: Stupid by terrycarlino · 2018-07-26 02:51 · Score: 2
  
  Oh, please.
  Before Europeans came along various tribes and nations of Native Americans were busy fighting each other over territory and resources just like their European cousins. Read up on the Aztecs. Many of the traditional areas ascribed to tribes are based on where they were when Europeans met them. Search back 100 years and you find that their distribution is different, based on migration, conquest and warfare. Being basically stone age civilizations they were simply less effective than their Iron and industrial age opponents.
  All this case says is that you can't violate a patent by assigning it to someone outside the U.S. It wouldn't have been found a valid tactic if it had been Canada or Moldova either.
16. Re: Stupid by c6gunner · 2018-07-26 03:07 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Sure, we told the that their reservations were sovereign territory
  That's just a convenient fiction to make everyone involved feel better. They have no monetary system, no independent economy, no military, no ability to maintain relations with other nations, and no control over their borders. The idea that they're "sovereign" in any meaningful sense of the word is absurd. At best they're a "sovereign state" in the same way that Texas or California are; able to pass and enforce laws within their own territory, but subject to most of the same federal regulations as any other state.
17. Re: Stupid by Immerman · 2018-07-26 03:12 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Nobody was trying to get them to assimilate. They massacred them, then drove out the survivors to land nobody wanted. Then, when people wanted that land they drove them out again, sometimes forcing them to walk vast distances without adequate supplies - in massacres only slightly less destructive than the original ones.
  Assimilation would have involved giving them legal property and civil rights that would be honored, rather than sovereign immunity via treaties which were universally discarded as soon as they became inconvenient to the U.S. business interests of the day.
  
  --
  --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
18. Re:Stupid by Immerman · 2018-07-26 03:18 · Score: 1
  
  Neither do I. Sadly, what we do or do not condone has no impact on what does and doesn't have a place here. It is here. It has been here since the beginning, and been embraced by both the public and those with power pretty much the entire time. Some of us may wish to eliminate it, but to say it has no place here is to deny past and present reality.
  
  --
  --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
19. Re: Stupid by dahlellama · 2018-07-26 03:20 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  The US government did try to force them to assimilate. They forcibly took children from their families and made them attend boarding schools that forbade the culture which they came from.
  https://www.history.com/news/h...
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
20. Re: Stupid by x0ra · 2018-07-26 03:25 · Score: 0
  
  Bullshit, All property is acquired and/or inherited. Noboby is owed any property at birth, by default. To some extend, Civil Rights should be earned as well (by abiding to the Rule of Law and not thinking yourself to be above the law).
  
  That said, just like with the Endangered Species Act, the solution should probably have been to SSS as early as possible to avoid the plague to spread.
21. Re:Stupid by x0ra · 2018-07-26 03:26 · Score: 0
  
  Indians haven't been there since the beginning either. Early indians were migrants just as well.
22. Re: Stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-26 05:02 · Score: 0
  
  Lets get it right which people did it. The Jacksonian Democrats did it. My European ancestors came in the early 1900's and had nothing to do with it.
23. Re: Stupid by aceboomblain · 2018-07-26 05:19 · Score: 2
  
  Actually, the various tribes were not necessarily warring with each other, at least not the ones in the western part of what is now the U.S. That notion was propaganda to help the conquerors rationalize their cause to be "just". The books "Thunder Over the Ochoco" go into this in great detail - a very interesting read.
24. Re: Stupid by Immerman · 2018-07-26 06:03 · Score: 1
  
  Did you reply to the right comment? You seem rather tangential. My entire point was that natives were routinely stripped of their acquired and inherited wealth, at gunpoint, and were never really granted any civil rights whatsoever until recently - only the temporary respecting of of tribal sovereignty until it became inconvenient to do so, at which point they were stripped of any rights at all.
  In the long term they might have been better off being granted citizenshp - but nobody with any power had any intention of doing that.
  And what exactly is SSS referring to? In context it sounds a bit genocidal, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
  
  --
  --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
25. Re:Stupid by Immerman · 2018-07-26 06:13 · Score: 1
  
  I was referring to the beginning of the U.S., arguably 1492 - humans haven't existed since any more fundamental beginning. But tribalism seems to have accompanied humanity from it's beginnings as as a technological species, and followed the early migrants to this continent, along with the several subsequent migrant waves, including the final (to date) European one.
  Tribalism has been part of humanity, and part of the United States, since the beginning of each. You need only look at the ever-thriving anti-immigrant propaganda spread in early media to see for yourself - there've always been the unwanted - the Irish, the Germans - take your pick. Anyone with notable cultural differences has always been demonized in this country, and as the melting pot integrated their culture into its own - well then it shifted to "whites versus coloreds" - finally uniting the various "white races" only when there were enough non-whites to maintain similar levels of outrage, and this time without the possibility of integration. Division within the working classes has long been an important tool used by the powerful to maintain their position.
  
  --
  --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
26. Re: Stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-26 07:28 · Score: 0
  
  "If this were something other than a radical-left operation, it would be ironic. Instead, itâ(TM)s par for the course."
  When your blog post starts out with partisan bullshit, you know the website/blog is trash. Try reading unbiased news you cuck.
27. Re: Stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-26 07:35 · Score: 0
  
  LUL. Who all stopped being democrat when the party became sane. Soon as the Democrats stopped being racist, some left and became Republicans.
28. Re: Stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-26 07:37 · Score: 0
  
  How's that brexit thing working out for ya? LUL.
29. Re: Stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-26 07:41 · Score: 0
  
  PROVE IT.
  I THOUGHT SO
30. Re: Stupid by Darinbob · 2018-07-26 08:54 · Score: 1
  
  However the laws of the US override your theory. The constitution takes precedence over "might makes right", and so the treaties we make with the tribes have the force of law (assuming the US attempts to hold up the treaties).
31. Re: Stupid by Darinbob · 2018-07-26 08:58 · Score: 2
  
  Sovereign in the sense that the US passed treaties saying so. While it's true that these treaties are not often upheld, the current state of the law in the US is that native American tribes enjoy an amount of sovereignty and autonomy on their reservations.
32. Re:Stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-26 09:13 · Score: 0
  
  I was referring to the beginning of the U.S., arguably 1492 - humans haven't existed since any more fundamental beginning. But tribalism seems to have accompanied humanity from it's beginnings as as a technological species, and followed the early migrants to this continent, along with the several subsequent migrant waves, including the final (to date) European one.
  Tribalism has been part of humanity, and part of the United States, since the beginning of each. You need only look at the ever-thriving anti-immigrant propaganda spread in early media to see for yourself - there've always been the unwanted - the Irish, the Germans - take your pick. Anyone with notable cultural differences has always been demonized in this country, and as the melting pot integrated their culture into its own - well then it shifted to "whites versus coloreds" - finally uniting the various "white races" only when there were enough non-whites to maintain similar levels of outrage, and this time without the possibility of integration. Division within the working classes has long been an important tool used by the powerful to maintain their position.
  You seem to be ascribing an ubiquitously human attribute to the white/European population United States like it is the only malefactor of rasism.
  You might have trouble telling the difference between the Hmong, the Vietnamese and Laotian peoples; the difference between the Myanmar and Rohinga; and the all various ethnicity and tribes of other places, but they certainly recognize the differences and who belongs to which group.
  This exists on every continent - Europe, Asia, Africa, and America.
  Racism and tribalism is not exclusively or inherently a US (white/European) quandary, it's a human quandary.
  The US just happens to be in a place that allows for the discussion to take place and possibly something to be done about it.
33. Re:Stupid by Immerman · 2018-07-26 13:33 · Score: 1
  
  How is that not what I just said? Try rereading the first sentence of the second paragraph. Everything else is about the U.S., because that's the country being discussed.
  
  --
  --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
34. Re: Stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-26 16:01 · Score: 0
  
  that's funny. what happens when the judges are in on it (personal gain or just prejudice)... the executive branch starts to ignore the judicial decrees in part or in whole, or puts political pressure on the judicial branch?
  and we haven't gotten to the legislative branch and its ability to keep throwing bullshit laws out there or passes laws messing with what and how the judicial branch can act...
35. Re: Stupid by dcw3 · 2018-07-27 00:03 · Score: 1
  
  Why would they bother? When did they ever need to rationalize it, and to who?
  
  --
  Just another day in Paradise
36. Re: Stupid by c6gunner · 2018-07-27 07:10 · Score: 1
  
  If the US passed treaties saying that PI is exactly 3, it still wouldn't make it so.
37. Re: Stupid by Darinbob · 2018-07-27 09:32 · Score: 1
  
  In reality, the tribes do indeed have an amount of sovereignty and autonomy. I didn't say that it should be that way or not, just that this is the way it is in practice today in law.
38. Re: Stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-27 15:22 · Score: 0
  
  You still use feet and inches, so anythings possible I guess.
Work of fiction about sovereign immunity by CHiRd · 2018-07-25 22:18 · Score: 4, Informative

If you're interested in the relation between native american tribes and misuse of sovereign immunity, I can recommend The Whistler by John Grisham, a nice read. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
1. Re:Work of fiction about sovereign immunity by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-26 01:25 · Score: 0
  
  misuse?
  they are the conquered, so everything they do is an attempt to fight for their land. Only the conquerors think otherwise.
2. Re: Work of fiction about sovereign immunity by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-26 01:46 · Score: 1
  
  And they should be grateful some of them still exist at all. They could have been simply made extinct.
  Witness the American mindset. Truth and justice! It's the American way!
3. Re: Work of fiction about sovereign immunity by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-26 03:02 · Score: 0
  
  American mindset
  So how many tribes did your Eurotrash ancestors eradicate in the New World, sperglord?
4. Re: Work of fiction about sovereign immunity by DickBreath · 2018-07-26 03:09 · Score: 0
  
  > Witness the American mindset.
  
  Did you misspell Whiteness?
  
  --
  
  I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
5. Re: Work of fiction about sovereign immunity by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-26 03:21 · Score: 0
  
  > Witness the American mindset.
  Did you misspell Whiteness?
  Oh, puh-lease.... People OF ALL COLOR have done this going back before there were really even Whites... This isn't new, nor is it limited to a single race. Trying to say otherwise is actually a form of racism.
6. Re:Work of fiction about sovereign immunity by greythax · 2018-07-26 05:49 · Score: 1
  
  Am I missing something? The book you are citing is a work of FICTION, correct? How can that be informative for this issue?
7. Re:Work of fiction about sovereign immunity by Cajun+Hell · 2018-07-26 05:59 · Score: 1
  
  they are the conquered, so everything they do is an attempt to fight for their land. Only the conquerors think otherwise.
  Whaddya mean by "otherwise?" Conquerers fight for their land too.
  We're all in the same boat on this: we all want maximum/unlimited resources, but we can't all have it. Fighting is nature's dispute resolution process. Unfortunately, nature is known for always coming up with the absolutely worst, cruellest solutions.
  
  --
  "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
8. Re: Work of fiction about sovereign immunity by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-26 07:38 · Score: 0
  
  And he's modded to +4. Welcome to slashdot
Tribe diversifying from the casino business. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-25 22:23 · Score: 0

Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe’s gaming enterprise:
Open 24 hours a day
1,600 Slot and Video Game machines
30 Table Games
Poker Room
500 Seat bingo hall
Bet with your head, not over it. Gambling problem? Call 1.800.522.4700.
https://mohawkcasino.com/about/
1. Re:Tribe diversifying from the casino business. by Mathinker · 2018-07-25 23:47 · Score: 2
  
  Their casino isn't bad, as casinos go. Was only there on the off season, though.
  But diversifying into taking money for no reason from patent trolls --- I'm all for it!
Shield by dohzer · 2018-07-25 22:32 · Score: 1

OK, and what is a 'shield' in this sense?
1. Re:Shield by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-25 23:04 · Score: 0
  
  they were basically contending that as a sovereign they were above the law and could not be questioned on this matter and that the patents could not be reviewed under this process. the drug companies were trying to find a way to be exempt from law. I find it appalling the length companies will go to undermine the rule of law. The US culture of profit at any cost and loss of morality is disheartening. We have tolerated the US become a country of predators and no healthy future is down that path. Other tribes should shame them for their dishonor. Cheating and making the world worse for others is not sport, its deplorable.
  captcha: shoddy
2. Re:Shield by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-26 01:30 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  OK, and what is a 'shield' in this sense?
  It's actually one of the first links in the summary here:
  
  Sovereign immunity, or crown immunity, is a legal doctrine by which the sovereign or state cannot commit a legal wrong and is immune from civil suit or criminal prosecution. It is a principle of international law which exempts a sovereign state from the jurisdiction of foreign national courts. Sovereign immunity is based on the concept of sovereignty in the sense that a sovereign may not be subjected without its approval to the jurisdiction of another sovereign.
  Basically, we don't recognise your jurisdiction because we're a sovereign nation, so please fuck off.
  The courts just told them it doesn't apply here.
3. Re:Shield by omnichad · 2018-07-26 02:19 · Score: 1
  
  And more importantly, US companies sue other companies in sovereign nations all the time. Just because it's located in an enclave of the US makes no difference.
4. Re:Shield by 1ucius · 2018-07-26 08:27 · Score: 1
  
  Ignore the others... the issue here is that there are two places a defendant can challenge a patent, in federal court or in the Patent Office. In theory, the two tribunals should follow the same standard, but in practice, the Patent Office is far more willing to invalidate patents. As a result, both sides will spend big money fighting about which of the two tribunals will decide the case.
  The specific 'shield' is here actually the 11th amendment (which states and tribes can't be sued in Federal court) + rules stating patent suits must be brought in federal court. The tribe's theory was that the defendant can't preemptively file in the Patent Office, and instead, must wait until it sued by the tribe. And the tribe, of course, will file in Federal Court.
  This 'forum shopping,' as it's called, is an ugly situation. As a rough analogy, think of a sport event where a fan of the local team gets to act as referee and comes out with his face painted in that team's colors.
summary is incomprehensible by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-25 22:36 · Score: 1

> Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe was initially filed in the Eastern District of Texas
What the hell is that supposed to mean?
1. Re:summary is incomprehensible by Mathinker · 2018-07-25 23:52 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Court cases are often named by "X vs. Y" where X is the name of the plaintiff and Y the name of the defendant. In this case, it was shortened to solely "X" which is "Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe" in this case.
  And yes, usually the quotation marks are omitted. See, for example, the article in Wikipedia:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
2. Re:summary is incomprehensible by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-26 00:32 · Score: 0
  
  The thing is that the only way to make the chronology comprehensible is if the lawsuit was named something completely different when filed, so it really seems to be even more incompetent editing than usual.
3. Re:summary is incomprehensible by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-26 03:41 · Score: 0
  
  Thanks for the explanation.
  Gotta say, shortening it to just X seems completely stupid to me.
  At least with "v." in there you can easily identify it as a case.
  Maybe people who regularly read about cases instantly understand what that sentence means, but for me it made no sense no matter how long I looked at it.
A clear as mud ... by Martin+S. · 2018-07-25 22:40 · Score: 3, Informative

The summary is about as clear as mud, and the underlying story seems to be deliberate obfuscation
1. Re: A clear as mud ... by Ecuador · 2018-07-25 23:01 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  What I understood is that a pharmaceutical company has some bogus patents and in order to avoid having them voided transferred them to a native American tribe so they can claim so ereign immunity.
  Which doesn't make any sense at all to me, a US patent is itself valid or not, how can it matter who it belongs to. So if I understood correctly the decision seems right and rather obvious. Then again you never know with the judicial system...
  
  --
  Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
2. Re: A clear as mud ... by Sique · 2018-07-26 00:07 · Score: 3
  
  The problem is not, if a patent is valid or not. The problem is how to determine if a patent is valid or not. If someone can claim souvereignity, the processual possibilities to invalidate a patent in his ownership are limited. Basicly he can say: Don't touch it, it's mine! And because the USPTO once agreed to the claims and issued the patent, it is valid as of now, and because of the don't-touch-it-doctrin, the state of validity can't be changed.
  
  --
  .sig: Sique *sigh*
3. Re: A clear as mud ... by dissy · 2018-07-26 00:29 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  The problem is not, if a patent is valid or not. The problem is how to determine if a patent is valid or not. If someone can claim souvereignity, the processual possibilities to invalidate a patent in his ownership are limited. Basicly he can say: Don't touch it, it's mine! And because the USPTO once agreed to the claims and issued the patent, it is valid as of now, and because of the don't-touch-it-doctrin, the state of validity can't be changed.
  Silly question, but what would the case be if you replaced "native american" with any other citizenship that isn't US based?
  For example say an Australian sent a patent filing to the USPTO, paid the fees, and the patent was initially granted without issue. Later the patent was challenged and the USPTO agreed it was not valid to be issued after all.
  What happens?
  It seems obvious the patent wouldn't be legally valid in the US, but what about Internationally?
  Is the patent then only seen as invalid to the rest of the world due to a treaty, some equivalent of the berne convention of copyright but for patents instead?
  Are sovereign native americans not a party to such a treaty?
  I just don't understand why a native american tribe would be any different to any other countries citizen doing the same, or perhaps don't understand what you mean when you say "Don't touch it, it's mine" in this context.
4. Re: A clear as mud ... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-26 00:53 · Score: 0
  
  What I understood is that a pharmaceutical company has some bogus patents and in order to avoid having them voided transferred them to a native American tribe so they can claim so ereign immunity
  ... and the court is essentially saying that the 'injians' have no right over White Men's Patents
5. Re: A clear as mud ... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-26 01:15 · Score: 0
  
  It's "injuns"
6. Re: A clear as mud ... by iCEBaLM · 2018-07-26 01:24 · Score: 3
  
  Which doesn't make any sense at all to me, a US patent is itself valid or not, how can it matter who it belongs to.
  Allergan was claiming the challenge to a patent was the same as a lawsuit and since the patents belonged to a sovereign entity which was immune to lawsuits it therefore couldn't be challenged. The court got this one right.
7. Re: A clear as mud ... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-26 02:12 · Score: 0
  
  You have to figure this was a last ditch effort given the way that the sovereign logic works. If the Mohawks aren't subject to USPTO jurisdiction that's fine, they can produce and sell the drugs inside their own nation, and their own state could even block imports that are in violation of that patent. What they can't do is force a different sovereign nation to accept the patent, and the fact that it was only sold to their nation instead of produced within it seems to get around any good will mechanism that the PTO might otherwise grant.
8. Re: A clear as mud ... by jmauro · 2018-07-26 02:55 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  It's more akin to if Australia owned a patent not an individual Australian. According to US law, a tribe has the same standing as a whole other country, hence the sovereign part of sovereign immunity.
  It was sort a Hail Mary though by the pharmaceutical company, since state colleges fall under the same doctrine as they are legally part of the state government, and it's already been ruled that that isn't any sort of shield for reviewing the status of their patents. This just confirms that the same things applies to other countries and tribes as well as individual states.
  Also, patents, copyrights, and trademarks are not recognized internationally anyway, you have to file in each jurisdiction. There are some exceptions like the EU countries, but buy and large they're jurisdiction by jurisdiction.
9. Re: A clear as mud ... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-26 02:57 · Score: 0
  
  I get where you are coming from, and am wondering the same thing, but I think a better analogy would be if the Australian government was listed as the owner of the patent rather than a random Australian citizen.
10. Re: A clear as mud ... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-26 03:00 · Score: 0
  
  hahaha you attempted to equate "native american" with "any other citizenship that isn't US based". Go back to Europe/Asia/Africa. You're not real american.
11. Re: A clear as mud ... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-26 04:08 · Score: 0
  
  The correct analogy would be to a patent held by the Australian government, not an Australian citizen.
  It seems obvious that any procedures for establishing the validity (or lack thereof) of a patent must be independent of whatever entity holds the patent.
12. Re: A clear as mud ... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2018-07-26 04:19 · Score: 1
  
  Go back to Europe/Asia/Africa. You're not real american.
  Putin Russia troll caught with his pants down.
  
  --
  (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
13. Re: A clear as mud ... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2018-07-26 04:21 · Score: 1
  
  And "injuns" have the exact same patent rights as everyone else. Not less, as the GP troll suggests, and not more, as the court ruling states.
  
  --
  (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
14. Re: A clear as mud ... by Theaetetus · 2018-07-26 06:20 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  The problem is not, if a patent is valid or not. The problem is how to determine if a patent is valid or not. If someone can claim souvereignity, the processual possibilities to invalidate a patent in his ownership are limited. Basicly he can say: Don't touch it, it's mine! And because the USPTO once agreed to the claims and issued the patent, it is valid as of now, and because of the don't-touch-it-doctrin, the state of validity can't be changed.
  Silly question, but what would the case be if you replaced "native american" with any other citizenship that isn't US based?
  For example say an Australian sent a patent filing to the USPTO, paid the fees, and the patent was initially granted without issue. Later the patent was challenged and the USPTO agreed it was not valid to be issued after all.
  What happens?
  It seems obvious the patent wouldn't be legally valid in the US, but what about Internationally?
  Is the patent then only seen as invalid to the rest of the world due to a treaty, some equivalent of the berne convention of copyright but for patents instead?
  Not a silly question, but it has an easy answer: US patents are only good in the US. You have to get a patent in every country you want to enforce your rights in. Most entities only get patents in the big countries as a rules - US, China, Japan, France, Germany, the UK, etc., with some occasional ones in other countries like Canada, Australia, India, etc., usually depending if they have a large market or competitor there. Hardly anyone bothers getting a patent in, say, Ghana.
  There is an international treaty called the Patent Cooperation Treaty, but it's more procedural - you file a PCT application, and it gets an examination by WIPO and is then transmitted to each national patent office... And then you pay fees only in the countries you want a patent in, and those countries usually do a further examination. It saves a bit of money if you're going into more than about 3-4 countries, but it doesn't provide any substantive rights.
  
  Are sovereign native americans not a party to such a treaty?
  I just don't understand why a native american tribe would be any different to any other countries citizen doing the same, or perhaps don't understand what you mean when you say "Don't touch it, it's mine" in this context.
  It has to do with sovereign immunity. Generally, you can't sue the US or a state unless there's a statute that gives you permission to do so (e.g. the Federal Tort Claims Act, etc.). The weird wrinkle with native americans is that the US has given them pseudo-sovereign status, so generally, you can't sue a tribe unless there's a statute that allows the suit.
  So the tricksy part here is that the pharma company with the crap patent sold it to a tribe. One way to invalidate a patent is to initiate an Inter Partes Review before the Board of Patent Appeals at the USPTO, but that's kind of like "suing" the tribe, so they're immune, right?
  Well, no. The Fed. Circ. threw that out in an entirely predictable decision.
15. Re: A clear as mud ... by 1ucius · 2018-07-26 08:45 · Score: 1
  
  >The problem is how to determine
  It's not 'how,' it's 'who gets to determine.' That is, the fight is over whether validity will be decided by a Patent Office judge or Federal Court judge/jury.
  >he processual possibilities to invalidate a patent in his ownership are limited.
  It depends on what you mean by that... All defenses/procedures available in the PTO are also available in Federal Court, plus a bunch more. The defendant here just prefers the Patent Office because it thinks the PTO judge will be more favorable to its position.
16. Re: A clear as mud ... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-26 09:03 · Score: 0
  
  What I understood is that a pharmaceutical company has some bogus patents and in order to avoid having them voided transferred them to a native American tribe so they can claim so ereign immunity.
  Which doesn't make any sense at all to me, a US patent is itself valid or not, how can it matter who it belongs to. So if I understood correctly the decision seems right and rather obvious. Then again you never know with the judicial system...
  It also strikes me that this strategy is a catch-22. A US Patent is an artificial construct of US law that allows an inventor a period of time to own and financially benefit from the sale of products based on the invention. It gives them a period of time where the law will stop others from copying their invention and enforce a monopoly. Everywhere in the definition does the sovereign law come into play.
  So by using this strategy, they were trying to make a claim that as a sovereign nation they were exempt from the review of the patents. So they were trying to claim the patents should be valid and thus enforced by US law through royalties, but that US law has no jurisdiction to review the validity of the patent because they're a sovereign nation and above that. You can't be above US Law and then require US law to enforce your rights, so the strategy was doomed from the start.
great story by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-25 22:52 · Score: 0

this is truly stuff that matters! Or at least stuff that might matter to a law student or something.
1. Re: great story by phantomfive · 2018-07-26 01:13 · Score: 2
  
  If you write open source code, you need to be at least somewhat aware of copyright and patent laws.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
2. Re:great story by ranton · 2018-07-26 02:08 · Score: 1
  
  You think patent law is something tech nerds in general aren't interested in? Are you new here?
  
  --
  -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
Native American tribes are exempt from many laws. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-25 23:20 · Score: 1

Native American tribes are exempt from many laws. List of 511 "indian" gaming operations https://www.500nations.com/Indian_Casinos_List.asp
Protecting the Native Way of Life ... by thsths · 2018-07-25 23:38 · Score: 1

... which is ripping off rival pharmaceutical companies? Somehow that does not seem like a traditional lifestyle.
I am all for autonomous, but this seems more like a tax haven than autonomy to me.
1. Re:Protecting the Native Way of Life ... by Mathinker · 2018-07-25 23:58 · Score: 2
  
  > which is ripping off rival pharmaceutical companies?
  No, actually, as posted elsewhere here, most of this tribe's income comes from a casino which is legal because of its special legal status.
  You can just think of this as the tribe letting these patent owners bet at a really high stakes table, the Federal court system.
  (Yes, I realize that gambling income is also not your idea of "the Native Way of Life", but on the other hand, the "non-Native Way of Life" has mostly made "the Native Way of Life" a practical impossibility, so this is the weird result.)
2. Re:Protecting the Native Way of Life ... by The+Cynical+Critic · 2018-07-26 00:57 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Many states in the U.S have allowed the natives to skirt around various laws for god knows how many years as sort of repayment for what their ancestors did to them. To a foreigner like myself it seems to be pretty absurd, but to some people the idea of having the natives subject to the same laws as everyone else is somehow repressive.
  
  Most of what they use their sovereign status for is skirting around gambling laws, but you do from time to time hear about suspect alliances like this where tribes help people get around various laws. Last example I heard of was one payday loan company, who operated in a different state, who used the claim of being associated with a tribe to skirt around loads of financial regulations. Thankfully the authorities saw right trough it and just dismantled the whole company. Even went as far as putting their executives in jail, thou one avoided jail by committing suicide, and having them forfeit most of their property.
  
  The most shocking thing about that case was how dismissive the members of the tribe were to the distress of the people screwed over by the company, how they didn't see anything wrong with what the company did and how after the company's justified demise they were in the process of building up a similar enterprise themselves.
  
  --
  "Why should I want to make anything up? Life's bad enough as it is without wanting to invent any more of it."
3. Re:Protecting the Native Way of Life ... by drinkypoo · 2018-07-26 01:18 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  The most shocking thing about that case was how dismissive the members of the tribe were to the distress of the people screwed over by the company,
  That's shocking? They're still being screwed over by our government daily. Even putting aside the past, what is their motivation to care?
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
4. Re:Protecting the Native Way of Life ... by cascadingstylesheet · 2018-07-26 02:15 · Score: 1
  
  The most shocking thing about that case was how dismissive the members of the tribe were to the distress of the people screwed over by the company,
  That's shocking? They're still being screwed over by our government daily. Even putting aside the past, what is their motivation to care?
  Modern Indians have all the rights and privileges of all US citizens, plus some additional ones if they live on a reservation.
5. Re:Protecting the Native Way of Life ... by The+Cynical+Critic · 2018-07-26 02:22 · Score: 1
  
  I've heard people claim they're being screwed by the government, but I honestly have't ever seen much evidence of this. The closest I've seen to them actually being screwed over is local municipalities not going out of their way in building out water mains and roads on reservations, which is kind of explained by said reservations mostly being low population density areas (i.e big per-resident costs) and legal issues relating land use and ownership. A municipality is obviously going to have all kinds of legal issues building on sovereign soil that obviously doesn't belong to them and isn't subject to things like eminent domain laws.
  
  --
  "Why should I want to make anything up? Life's bad enough as it is without wanting to invent any more of it."
6. Re:Protecting the Native Way of Life ... by omnichad · 2018-07-26 02:24 · Score: 1
  
  And if they only sold the patented medication inside of their reservation, there would be no reason for a lawsuit. If the pharmaceutical country transferred the ownership of the patent to Canada, another sovereign nation, they new owner would still be sued.
7. Re:Protecting the Native Way of Life ... by drinkypoo · 2018-07-26 02:32 · Score: 2
  
  I've heard people claim they're being screwed by the government, but I honestly have't ever seen much evidence of this.
  The ACLU has, and posts about it somewhat regularly.
  
  and legal issues relating land use and ownership.
  Yeah. They're supposed to be in charge of their own lands, right? But then cities make it impossible for them to do things like have events on it. For example, one of the local tribelets of Pomos wanted to host the Northern California Renaissance Faire in Nice, CA. But the rich old white cocks who have been crapping up Lake County, CA since time was time prevented it. Told them they couldn't do it because of traffic issues, etc etc. Meanwhile they have the largest Bass tournament in the country there. It packs the county with fish-lovin' tourists.
  
  A municipality is obviously going to have all kinds of legal issues building on sovereign soil that obviously doesn't belong to them and isn't subject to things like eminent domain laws.
  They also cause all kinds of legal issues with effective use of that sovereign soil.
  However, I was really referring to more personal issues, like police selectively enforcing the law against them just as they do against other brown people, only moreso. There is institutionally entrenched racism against them which is fostered and encouraged by police leadership.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
8. Re:Protecting the Native Way of Life ... by dasunt · 2018-07-26 02:35 · Score: 2
  
  Many states in the U.S have allowed the natives to skirt around various laws for god knows how many years as sort of repayment for what their ancestors did to them.
  Um, no. That's not how it works at all.
  The legal reasoning is that for a state like mine, during it's early history (frequently before statehood), the federal government obtained title to the land by entering into treaties with various existing nations. The treaties (to oversimplify) had the clauses that the nations would give up one section of land, and in exchange, the government would recognize the right to the remaining land they had. This has been interpreted as meaning the nations never gave up their right to internal-self rule, and thus, when there's a casino or cigarettes, it's not because they are flouting state law, but because state law doesn't apply. In effect, the various nations ended up as domestic dependent nations, where the federal government handles their external affairs, and the nations handle their own internal affairs.
9. Re:Protecting the Native Way of Life ... by PPH · 2018-07-26 02:42 · Score: 1
  
  Shhh! I like buying that Indian gasoline.
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
10. Re:Protecting the Native Way of Life ... by Jaime2 · 2018-07-26 02:58 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, but in Niagara Falls, NY the state gave a part of downtown to the Senecas because is was procedurally easier than legalizing gambling in NY. That's "skirting around various laws".
11. Re:Protecting the Native Way of Life ... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-26 03:00 · Score: 0
  
  Many states in the U.S have allowed the natives to skirt around various laws for god knows how many years as sort of repayment for what their ancestors did to them.
  
  Not really. It's more about not being part of certain state laws because the federal government has given tribal lands some different status. Tribal land is sort of halfway between a state, and being part of a state. Tribes absolutely can't violate federal laws, just like states can't. They're also not subject to certain taxes, like gas taxes. They do have to pay state income tax, however. It's a bit of a mix. But I wouldn't say it's from some weird guilt. It's more to do with how the US came to be, and how Indian land was treated historically as a separate territory. There's a whole federal department called "Department of Indian affairs" to deal with this sort of stuff.
  I will agree that among some there's a general attitude that anything to do with Indians has this massive amount of guilt thrown into the conversation. With certain people you bring up anything that the Indians do/believe and you're immediately a villain if you suggest there's anything wrong with it, anything you disagree with, or anything but "the indians are good, and the white man is bad", etc.
  
  The most shocking thing about that case was how dismissive the members of the tribe were to the distress of the people screwed over by the company, how they didn't see anything wrong with what the company did and how after the company's justified demise they were in the process of building up a similar enterprise themselves.
  
  Of course not. The tribe benefited from this relationship. That's just human nature. If you could get your house declared some special status, and some rich joker came along and gave you millions for just running his ugly scheme that screwed people out of money, you might be tempted to just say "hey, nothing wrong here!". You're likely more ethical than that, but the point is a LOT of people aren't, and will just do whatever gets them the most money.
12. Re:Protecting the Native Way of Life ... by terrycarlino · 2018-07-26 03:04 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  The is a deeper legal framework at play here. Certain, not all, Native American nations are legal entities in their own right. They have sovereignty under U.S. law, typically recognized under treaties that were signed between these nations and the United States Federal government.
  In this way they are more or less equivalent to the States themselves in their legal rights. So the States are not "allowing" Native Americans the skirt state laws, the members of particular Nations are not subject to them, particularly on lands owned by the tribes which are technically not within the boundaries of the states, but are sovereign nations. That's what "sovereign" means, power not legally curtailed by a higher political entity. They are, however bound by such Federal laws as are either articulated by treaty or accepted by both political entities.
  Hence the federal court's authority to say their sovereign does not apply in this case.
13. Re:Protecting the Native Way of Life ... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-26 03:35 · Score: 0
  
  I lol'ed at that nameless executive's suicide.
  https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/gtawiki/images/b/b3/Grumpy_Cat-Good.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20130929182255
14. Re:Protecting the Native Way of Life ... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-26 04:20 · Score: 0
  
  Many states in the U.S have allowed the natives to skirt around various laws for god knows how many years as sort of repayment for what their ancestors did to them. To a foreigner like myself it seems to be pretty absurd, but to some people the idea of having the natives subject to the same laws as everyone else is somehow repressive.
  
  Repayment? It was a treaty. Since when was honoring a treaty considered foolish.
15. Re:Protecting the Native Way of Life ... by The+Cynical+Critic · 2018-07-26 04:44 · Score: 1
  
  The worst you could come up with was some people preventing them from hosting a big public event over traffic concerns? Considering the infrastructure, or rather lack thereof, on tribal land that I've seen that doesn't even sound particularly unreasonable as I imagine infrastructure outside of tribal land is probably a lot better.
  
  I'm also kind of unconvinced of your blanket statements about the police in general being racist against all of them. Having seen what a really bad, and incidentally predominately black, neighborhood in america looks like and how people say the police focusing their resources on the places with the most crime being racist because the places with the most crime tending not to be predominately white suburban neighborhoods I'm also unconvinced of your statements about the police in general being racist against black people. Despite popular sentiment, media reports really are nothing even approaching the whole truth when the media is only interested in anything when things go horribly wrong.
  
  When I first heard of racial profiling it sounded absolutely horrid and then a few years later I spoke to a former Chicago policeman who explained what's actually behind it. He explained that if he pulled over a car full of black men, with nothing untoward about them and clearly going to or coming from work, he's pretty much guaranteed to find at least one of the following things: The driver driving without or with a suspended license, one of the occupants having an outstanding arrest warrant, an unlicensed firearm or a non-insignificant quantity of drugs. When the effectiveness of police is measured by the amount of crime they prosecute, the current state of things and just basic game theory dictates that racial profiling will be the inevitable end result even when there is no racial motive whatsoever.
  
  --
  "Why should I want to make anything up? Life's bad enough as it is without wanting to invent any more of it."
16. Re:Protecting the Native Way of Life ... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-26 04:55 · Score: 0
  
  Lots of claims. Zero evidence.
17. Re:Protecting the Native Way of Life ... by Gavagai80 · 2018-07-26 04:59 · Score: 1
  
  It has nothing to do with repaying anything. It has to do with the rule of law and established treaties and established court decisions. You can't tear up a treaty and abolish reservation autonomy just because you'd like to. Well okay you can and the US did a lot of that to reduce the former treaties to the current forms, but doing so has chilling effects on the willingness of anyone else to trust your word in the future.
  
  --
  This space intentionally left blank
18. Re:Protecting the Native Way of Life ... by swb · 2018-07-26 05:20 · Score: 1
  
  It's still kind of half-assed, though, because they're not full states. Natives vote in statewide elections, are represented in congress by the representatives of their states and so on.
  I don't think there was ever any original intent to make them sovereign peers of the states. I think that result is a combination of bad faith treaties (offers made that were never expected to be delivered or enforced) and modern-era litigation enforcement of those treaties.
  It boils down to natives getting what they were promised in the treaties, but it winds up being a big contradictory mess, with some kind of retrograde sovereignty that winds up being ripe for abuses, either by non-natives against natives, by natives against natives, some collusive version of non-native and natives against "the rules" (like this patent situation), and even occasionally by natives against non-natives.
  I worked with a guy who had worked for a major native casino vendor. He said they literally required cash payment every two weeks from the tribe due to the legal ambiguity of being able to collect against the tribe due to sovereignty issues. I had a tribal member rear-end my car. She had no insurance, and moved back onto the reservation. My insurance carrier told me I was SoL because of her tribal status. She was untouchable legally.
  It's made worse because the sovereign rights come through different treaties and aren't uniform. I don't know how you get there, but really there ought to be some kind of reckoning that normalizes tribal sovereignty through some rational process vs. a shitload of court cases.
19. Re:Protecting the Native Way of Life ... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-26 05:42 · Score: 1
  
  Another often ignored point is that life in NA tribes usually isn't that great and that sovereign immunity is often used by the tribe to treat some of its members in ways that the US federal or state government wouldn't get away with in the same situation. Most NA tribe members would be better off if the tribes would no longer have any official status. As it stands, the current legal situation doesn't benefit tribe members, but the tribe and that usually means those few within the tribe that hold the most clout.
20. Re:Protecting the Native Way of Life ... by Aighearach · 2018-07-26 07:02 · Score: 1
  
  There is a reason that Nice, CA is named after a city in France; it isn't part of a Native American reservation! That's why to hold an event there, you have to be able to comply with local land use rules.
21. Re: Protecting the Native Way of Life ... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-26 07:51 · Score: 0
  
  You live in a fucking bubble. Rich white man, you aren't welcome here.
22. Re:Protecting the Native Way of Life ... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-26 07:58 · Score: 0
  
  The financial scams have gotten pretty bad; I don't know about the action you're talking about but there's a bunch still out there. They run payday loan operations over the internet, to evade state laws prohibiting such businesses, and laws regarding usury, as the interest rates make even normal payday lenders blush. Then, they try to avoid accepting full repayment to drag it out. So instead of the base repayment (already obnoxious-- around $650 repayment on a 2-week $400 loan), total repayment on base loan is generally better expressed in multiples; at least triple. How well they can enforce collections though is an open question.
23. Re:Protecting the Native Way of Life ... by dasunt · 2018-07-26 09:47 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think there was ever any original intent to make them sovereign peers of the states. I think that result is a combination of bad faith treaties (offers made that were never expected to be delivered or enforced) and modern-era litigation enforcement of those treaties.
  You are probably correct, but AFAIK (and I'm not a lawyer), judges don't buy into the idea that a treaty is invalid because the US had no intent of honoring it.
  Nor, I would argue, should the courts decide that the government gets an out because they intended to defraud the people they enter agreements with. That's a bad precedent.
24. Re:Protecting the Native Way of Life ... by drinkypoo · 2018-07-26 11:22 · Score: 1
  
  The worst you could come up with was some people preventing them from hosting a big public event over traffic concerns?
  That's not the worst thing in my comment, but it is telling as to how little sovreignty they actually have.
  
  Considering the infrastructure, or rather lack thereof, on tribal land that I've seen that doesn't even sound particularly unreasonable as I imagine infrastructure outside of tribal land is probably a lot better.
  
  The rancheria in question is one of the better-developed ones, and they have more infrastructure than does the prior, long-running home of the festival. So no, you have no idea what you're on about, and you're speaking from a position of prejudice. Typical racist shit.
  
  I'm also kind of unconvinced of your blanket statements about the police in general being racist against all of them.
  So? That's just you speaking from your position of prejudice again.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
25. Re:Protecting the Native Way of Life ... by swb · 2018-07-26 11:51 · Score: 1
  
  No, I think the courts have done the right thing -- the treaties were signed with the terms they had, and they should be honored.
  That being said, the policy outcomes aren't great. The concept of sovereignty is dubious beyond the states and it seems really muddled to start talking about a legal entity that is somehow parallel to state level sovereignty but without the clarity and legal force of constitutional statehood.
  I think it's a surprising and short sighted deficit in the Constitution itself that the relationship and status of native tribes wasn't spelled out. I'm sure it has a lot to do with the weird limbo of overseas territories like Puerto Rico, too. There should have been some mechanism spelled out for dealing with the acquisition of territories with established nations or a least defining what it means to be a sovereign entity totally within the boundaries of state.
  For what it's worth, the local University sometimes makes sovereign immunity claims since their charter pre-dates the granting of statehood status.
26. Re:Protecting the Native Way of Life ... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-26 12:13 · Score: 0
  
  It was a treaty under duress. Not signing meant getting killed. But really, we know you just wanted to racist. FOAD.
27. Re:Protecting the Native Way of Life ... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-26 20:44 · Score: 0
  
  In this way they are more or less equivalent to the States themselves in their legal rights. So the States are not "allowing" Native Americans the skirt state laws, the members of particular Nations are not subject to them, particularly on lands owned by the tribes which are technically not within the boundaries of the states, but are sovereign nations. That's what "sovereign" means, power not legally curtailed by a higher political entity. They are, however bound by such Federal laws as are either articulated by treaty or accepted by both political entities.
  Tangential, but this reminds me of the much-maligned South African homelands or "bantustans".
28. Re:Protecting the Native Way of Life ... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-27 04:08 · Score: 0
  
  The same way black people have all the rights and privileges that white people do, as US citizens?
  How's that working out these days?
dealing in bad medicine with shady shysters by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-25 23:41 · Score: 0

the elders can tell us what happens next.. the tribe remains semi-innocent,, a few misguided (aka the escalade effect) is the tally.. good sports with good spirits prevail..
Mylan, the scrooge of pharma companies by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-25 23:55 · Score: 1

While I'm against tribes abusing their sovereignty to shield scammers and now patent trolls apparently, I'm also rooting for anyone who takes on Mylan. That's the company which charges 400x the cost of producing the EpiPen that's been in production for decades and prevents anyone from creating a generic alternative due to their strictly enforced patent.
1. Re:Mylan, the scrooge of pharma companies by MindStalker · 2018-07-26 00:12 · Score: 1
  
  Its possible they are both evil, but every issue is unique. I'm not sure if their patent held merit, but abusing sovereign immunity to keep a patent is ridiculous.
BeauHD writes incomprehensible summary again by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-26 00:26 · Score: 0

BeauHD writing an incomprehensible summary again?
Slashdot has gone past actual dupe stories and is now running metadupes!
Yeah, at least it wasn't a BeauHD "Russia! Russia! Russia!" metadupe.
1. Re:BeauHD writes incomprehensible summary again by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-26 01:56 · Score: 0
  
  BeauHD and msmash are just Perl scripts. Leave them alone.
DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY! by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-26 00:37 · Score: 0

"It's been revoked!" blam blam
Profit motives by sjbe · 2018-07-26 00:37 · Score: 3, Insightful

the drug companies were trying to find a way to be exempt from law
And this surprises you somehow? Sounds like business as usual to me.

I find it appalling the length companies will go to undermine the rule of law.

It should be appalling. Yet we have an entire major political party which spends considerable energy towards eliminating regulations that prohibit companies from doing just that.

The US culture of profit at any cost and loss of morality is disheartening.
US culture is hardly alone in an over enthusiasm for profits and damn the consequences. And not everyone in the US is on board with profit at any cost. Just enough people to make it a real problem. That said, a profit motive is a useful thing, provided it is adequately constrained with rules to keep things reasonably fair and in the public interest. It's only a problem when we start pretending that free markets and profit motives will actually solve the problems caused by failed free markets and unchecked profit motives.
1. Re: Profit motives by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-26 07:41 · Score: 0
  
  Learn to read. Jesus Christ man. You trolls don't even try no more. Who said anything about being above the law?
  Nobody but you. Because the person you are replying to didn't say that. Maybe a couple post up, but try to stay on topic.
2. Re:Profit motives by The+Snazster · 2018-07-26 09:05 · Score: 1
  
  Hardly alone is right. You want corrupt? Take a look. Google "corruption_perceptions_index_2016" from the good folks at Transparency International. Just because the US is the most visible country on Earth means people in glass houses feel like they can throw stones.
As if One US Dollar is not part of this tribe. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-26 00:49 · Score: 0

"God bless America"
was invented by false and unknown prophet.
"America must bless Jesus, son of God and Mary"
is invented by me.
Firewater comes through again. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-26 01:05 · Score: 0

Impeach. Rosenstean. Now.
Oblig by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-26 01:48 · Score: 0

FORCED OUT - Brave and mighty
STOLEN LAND - They can't fight it
HOLD ON - To pride and tradition
Even though they know how much their lives are really missin'
WE'RE DISSIN' THEM ...
On reservations
A hopeless situation
Aww, did I hurt your snowflake feelings, mod? by drinkypoo · 2018-07-26 02:04 · Score: 1

Natives* are targeted for abuse nationwide. Well, in the parts of the nation our government didn't genocide them the fuck out of, anyway. I may be a little bit biased because I've actually known natives, worked with them, hung out with them... biased towards treating them as humans, that is. And our government doesn't do that. It gives them a paltry amount of money, but it doesn't make up for anything. It's basically a payment to justify past, present, and future abuse.
* OK, no such thing really... Remember the Clovis People, or something. But it's the generally accepted term. I don't give a shit who was where first, but about how people are treated.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
1. Re: Aww, did I hurt your snowflake feelings, mod? by c6gunner · 2018-07-26 03:41 · Score: 1
  
  I may be a little bit biased because I've actually known natives, worked with them, hung out with them... biased towards treating them as humans, that is.
  
  No, you're biased against western culture, which means that you can't pass up an opportunity to make up nonsense which paints it in a negative light.
  Over in the world, Indians have the same rights and privileges as all other citizens, and often enjoy special privileges above and beyond those granted to everyone else. Whatever bullshit mistreatment you're imagining is entirely of your own making.
And the winners/losers are... by zarmanto · 2018-07-26 02:25 · Score: 1

I think it's pretty obvious what really happened here: The original patent holders were openly suckered by the tribes. Let's look briefly at the events preceding this point in the story:
Allergan had some patents which they were using in Eastern Texas to assert some potentially highly lucrative claims. The winds turned, patent protections were weakened nationwide, and it became clear that their patents were about to be invalidated. They paid millions to a tribe to "shelter" those patents behind their sovereign immunity privileges. Also note that this wasn't an isolated incident: other patent holders followed a similar pattern, with other tribes.
So, what were the tribes responsibilities, in these business deals? Well... for all practical purposes, their responsibilities were little more than paying a lawyer, which was easily affordable after their new windfall. Other than that, they could simply sit back, buy a few expensive bottles of wine to celebrate, and start dreaming up cool ways to spend the rest of their cash. Sounds like it was an amazing deal from their point of view, even if the patents had been invalidated immediately.
Personally, I think the tribes knew exactly what they were doing; they had no expectations of their windfall remaining in play, long-term. In theory, perhaps they could "lose" a privilege supposedly associated with their sovereign immunity -- which is apparently what we're reading about now -- but they clearly weren't taking advantage of that privilege, anyway. And the risk of entirely losing sovereign immunity was practically nonexistent, since that would involve an act of Congress. So basically, they had everything to gain and nothing to lose.
In short: Allergan (and others) got suckered out of millions... because, in attempting to protect their own snake oil, they ended up falling for someone elses snake oil. (Somehow, I just can't find it in me to feel sorry for them.)
1. Re:And the winners/losers are... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-26 02:36 · Score: 0
  
  The original patent holders were openly suckered by the tribes.
  Now, about all that land we traded for various hunting and fishing rights. When it turns out that the Native Americans never had clear title to it. Or even had a concept of land title ....
2. Re:And the winners/losers are... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-26 03:38 · Score: 0
  
  what? no. the patent holder took a long-shot risk for a big payoff. happens all the time in litigation. people write appeal briefs for en banc review which cost $100,000 which are almost certain to fail, etc.
  allergan didn't get suckered out of anything.
3. Re: And the winners/losers are... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-26 04:12 · Score: 0
  
  There was an ars article on this a few years ago. I think the tribes entire benefit in this rested on it working. By attempting this the tribe, and all tribes may well lose something in the process. The more strictly their sovereignty is defined and tested, and the more they teat the patience of the judicial, the more at risk they are in the future for further encroachments and limitations I would imagine.
How about: Sovereign? No patents for you. by mysidia · 2018-07-26 02:27 · Score: 1

Or rather: The transfer ought to automatically invalidate the patents. You can have all the patents covering the jurisdiction of your own little piece of reservation land, but the US does not allow other countries or sovereign entities to grant themselves patent rights over American persons on American soil.
hail the conquerors by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-26 02:51 · Score: 0

the same white privileged bastards that raped this land, and killed its people.
I could never follow the logic of this by morethanapapercert · 2018-07-26 02:56 · Score: 3, Interesting

I have some fraction of First Nations ancestry from both parents, so I have always been sympathetic about native issues. And while I'm glad to see some bands trying to diversify from tobacco and casinos, I never understood the logic of the sovereign claim.
Yes, the various bands were promised, by treaty (the highest law in the land as I understand it) and by later court verdicts, that they would be sovereign on their own land. But this has always been an empty promise. Any time it turned out they were sitting on land that turned out to be valuable, it just got taken away. Despite being sovereign nations in their own right, their young men were (and still are) subject to the draft. Despite being sovereign, federal law enforcement agencies have had a piss poor track record of respecting that and engaging in proper cooperation with any reservation police. In short, America (and Canada) have only allowed the native peoples a limited form of autonomy NOT sovereignty and always ignored even that when convenient.
With that kind of track record in place, I don't see how the St Regis Mohawk ever thought it might work. Mind you, that first 13.75 million was certainly welcome.
There's another angle by which this would have failed as well. Lets suppose, for the sake of argument, that the sovereign claims were upheld (ignoring the fact that questions of sovereignty are only properly address by Congress, not a lower Federal court). You would end up with a situation analogous to one company using a patent granted in the US while another company is paying for the license rights to a very similar US patent owned by the government of Canada so they can market a competing drug in the US. And if I read the summary right, it is on this basis that the judge ruled that a patent review can proceed. Regardless of who owns the patents, they are still patents issued by the US government for products being sold in the US.
Cynically of me, I don't think anybody involved expected this tactic to really work. They just thought it would long enough to make some money for them.

--
I need a wheelchair van for my son. Help me get the word out. https://www.gofundme.com/wheelchair-van-for-jj
1. Re:I could never follow the logic of this by AvitarX · 2018-07-26 04:04 · Score: 1
  
  If they thought it would succeed they likely would have asked for more.
  Basically, the drug company was taking a long shot (300% return a year for the life of the patent), the tribe had literally nothing to lose (they got 13 million, plus left over profits after 50 if thwy succeeded).
  I don't know how long the patent I good for, but 250 million over five years is a huge return on 13 million if it succeeded.
  
  --
  Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
2. Re:I could never follow the logic of this by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-26 04:45 · Score: 0
  
  One of Canada's latest First Nations / Indigenous People and whatever it is that they will be called next is to work with the government on why so many native women go missing. One of missing stories from a few years back involved one lady having been raped by her uncle and frozen in a snowbank to keep people from finding her.
  I think they should start looking at home and how to fix their own problems, be it substance abuse or sex worker and even events like the previous. This latest Canadian Government will end up costing the taxpayer more money to eventually hand out larger guild payments. One of the biggest milking cows here is the residential school many of them were forced to suffer and big surprise Catholic related. Anytime a new handout is demanded they bring up the horrors of ages gone by forced by said schools.
  I am born here and as such native to this land, why do I not get the same treatment. Reverse discrimination is being enforced.
  Next check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oka_Crisis, the basis that started it was foolish but ended up with a well blockaded first nations militia and military was brought in. If it was non Indigenous people doing the same that standoff would not have lasted 78 days.
  The time has come to move them into the real world like everyone else born here. Divide up the land among the families and you are now Canadian. If not, provide us a passport at border crossings into our country subject to the same inspections and rules applied to all national visitors.
3. Re:I could never follow the logic of this by eskayp · 2018-07-26 09:52 · Score: 1
  
  However, the logic of why drugs are so expensive in the USA is easy to follow from this post.
  Just write off $15M/year as the "research costs" that big pharma uses to justify overpriced meds.
  That, and the $279.5M pharma spent in 2017 lobbying to "access" our lawmakers.
  
  --
  I didn't desert Windows; Windows deserted me: BSOD
4. Re:I could never follow the logic of this by 1ucius · 2018-07-26 09:59 · Score: 1
  
  >$15M/year as the "research costs" ... and the $279.5M pharma spent in 2017 lobbying to "access" our lawmakers.
  It's a cheap reply and I hate to say it, but... cite please. Even something within an order of magnitude of that research/lobby expense ratio.
5. Re:I could never follow the logic of this by eskayp · 2018-07-26 10:21 · Score: 1
  
  Citation:
  Wikipedia, "pharmaceutical lobbying" - do the math.
  Open Secrets, same topic for year 2017.
  
  --
  I didn't desert Windows; Windows deserted me: BSOD
6. Re:I could never follow the logic of this by 1ucius · 2018-07-30 10:15 · Score: 1
  
  Challenge accepted:
  OpenSecrets: $150 million/yr in lobbying expenses in 2018
  The best I quickly could find for R&D is $160 billion In 2016.
  Conclusion, you're off by more than 4 orders of magnitude. That's might be the worst 'guestimate' of all time.
This is why pop music sucks by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-26 03:11 · Score: 0

This works in 17/8 time signature. Sucks if its supposed to be a rap/dance/edm/trance/disco/pop thing.
1. Re:This is why pop music sucks by Sir_Eptishous · 2018-07-26 03:30 · Score: 1
  
  "War Dance!!!"
  
  --
  We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
GrokLaw by McLae · 2018-07-26 04:28 · Score: 1

Now is the time we need Groklaw, to make sense of cases like this.
I still miss the clarity that Pam brought to the Law intersecting technology.
I learned enough from Groklaw to understand the outline of what this case means, but the fine points....
First, we seal all the lawyers in an airtight room by WillAffleckUW · 2018-07-26 04:59 · Score: 1

I have a solution.
First, we seal all the lawyers in an airtight room.

--
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Poor people at each other's throats by rsilvergun · 2018-07-26 06:40 · Score: 1

I have Native American friends so I've frequented reservations. They're like southern trailer parks but without the pizaz. We didn't just stick them on reservations, we stuck the reservations on the crummiest land in the country. When you're that dirt poor you're too busy trying to survive to worry about others. It's a classic technique of any ruling class: keep everyone on the verge of disaster so they won't band together to help each other out.

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
1. Re:Poor people at each other's throats by dfenstrate · 2018-07-26 13:46 · Score: 1
  
  I have Native American friends so I've frequented reservations. They're like southern trailer parks but without the pizaz. We didn't just stick them on reservations, we stuck the reservations on the crummiest land in the country. When you're that dirt poor you're too busy trying to survive to worry about others. It's a classic technique of any ruling class: keep everyone on the verge of disaster so they won't band together to help each other out.
  Well.... can they leave? Why shouldn't they if it sucks so bad?
  
  --
  Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
2. Re:Poor people at each other's throats by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-27 04:17 · Score: 0
  
  Sure, they can leave. They just need the cash to get a bus ticket and put down the deposit on an apartment somewhere while they look for a job in the new city. Let's say it would cost $2000 to cover that transition.
  Guess what's in short supply on the reservation? You got it, cash.
I agree! by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-26 11:42 · Score: 0

Trying to say otherwise is actually a form of racism.
Truth are also LIES
Weakness is POWER
War is PEACE
Freedom is SLAVERY
Ignorance is STRENGTH
I couldn't agree more, comrade.
U dum gut eetan by trow by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-26 11:58 · Score: 0

Learn to read AND think, jackhole. You posters don't even try any more.
SJBE said "Do just that". Do you know how language pointers work? "Do just that" = "undermine the rule of law" that SJBE was responding to. Now I'm not the troll you responded to, I'm a troll-hunting troll, and what you did, dumbass, was fall for circular logic. OP Troll didn't attempt to refute SJBE, he twisted it around as a good thing and then tried to flip who's the victim and agressor.
U dum. U kant fite trows. U git eetan. U stop.