"It's flamebait because it's written in an angry tone and is 'baiting' people to start a flame war."
It wasn't meant in an angry tone. This is exactly a question, raised 1.5 years ago in my law school Health Law class, somebody else posed to a PhD Bio-ethicist. He avoided answering the question, and I thought somebody here could pose an answer. Whenever somebody's right of autonomy is stripped and the person reduced to property status, we call it slavery. (Voluntary renunciation of autonomy would be indentured servitude.) Arguably, the embryo is a person (or would be left to his one devices). Destroying the embryo to create stem cells is not voluntary, and it reduces the embryo to mere property. Thus, how is it not slavery?
The great question is "when does life begin?" The bio-ethicist argued after 21 days, and he based his argument on our decision point for when somebody is dead (e.g. brain activity, not "mostly dead/all dead"). My question to him was "what happens if we harvested all embryos before day 21?" (An obvious ad absurdium argument, but it underscores the distinction between establishing "life at 21" verse "death at no-brain function.) He ended up conceding that the 21 days was arbitrary.
As for baiting someone into a flamewar: by that definition, half of/. is flamebait. I merely asserted my view that harvesting embryos for stem cells is morally wrong and could be compared to slavery. If whomever modded me down for flamebait agreed with my view and thought it was too heated; then I would be more willing to agree with the assessment. However, as is normally the case, mods are used to censor opposing opinions. As this is normal, I have to assume that was the motive here. I assumed I would be down-modded because somebody wouldn't like my POV; but that doesn't mean I shouldn't express my view.
"Embryonic stemm (sic) cells however can change into anything, without any modification. They are much easier to work with, and as of a couple of years ago they were the only option."
However, left to his own devices in his native environment, a human embryo will develop into an autonomous human. You are taking a life and converting it into property without giving that life a chance to decide.How does harvesting an embryo not equate to slavery? We Americans fought a war over this 150 years ago, and I find it amazing that, by changing the perception of "when life begins," some Americans think it's okay. I would have less problem with embryonic stem cells _if_ the embryo were not destroyed.
The promise of adult stem cells has yet to be fully explored, and I'm glad research is bearing fruit and receiving media attention. As you say, embryonic cells are potentially easier to deal with. Managing slaves is easier than working with a union; but which is more moral?
"[Carriers] primarily for show and wars of aggression against far weaker enemies."
Carriers are the crown jewel of a fleet comprising various AA and A-ship vessels. Carriers command roughly one million square miles when fully operational. I've heard that a single carrier aircraft constitute a larger air force than all but the larger nations. We have more than one carrier. They are not for show. The U.S. does not engage in aggressive wars---that's for the likes of Hitler. U.S. != Nazi Germany || Soviet Union.
You don't bring a knife to a knife fight, you bring a shotgun.
"He did infringe Viacom's copyright - they own everything surrounding his clip that was a part of that program."
It appears Viacom derived that segment of the show from his original material. When borrowing material from another work, the organization of and content of the new work should not substantially rely on the original work. Here, it appears Viacom showed his entire clip and provided mild commentary. Thus, the 'nugget' of their content was in fact his content. That means they infringed on him and they themselves do not have valid rights to that material. Arguably, that means their content is his content.
However, to enforce copyright, the author has to register the work within a certain timeframe and zealously defend his rights. The fact that he took Viacom material and presented it suggests that he was not zealous in defending his copyright. So, he may have lost the chance to sue Viacom and prevail.
"Who would get to go after that legally? Would it be me, Google (or whoever), both, whoever managed to shoot for it first...?"
Interesting question. Both would likely have a cause of action as both have the right, but once one engages, joinder could prevent the other (after a while).
"The second key phrase is 'you grant Google a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license...' Note the words 'non-exclusive'. That means that Google does not own your content. You own it. They just have the right to use it anywhere in the world for free. The remaining legalese covers their butts for the current methods that might be used to display or distribute the content, and any future methods they might use."
That clause creates an express non-exclusive transfer of copyright. Essentially, this is a clone of the original author's copyright. That is, you the author can do whatever you want with your work product, and the transferee can likewise do whatever he wants to do with your work product (publish, distribute, license to third-party, derive, etc.). Neither of you can prevent the other person from licensing, deriving, etc. of the same work product. They don't even have to cite the original author (there was a nice case were architect B received plans for a shopping mall via this transfer, removed the name of architect A from the plans, published the plans as its own, and prevailed in court).
This is an interesting area of copyright law that I wrote a paper on in law school. It is sort of like what happens when a contractor works for an individual but there is no express transfer of copyright. It is not a work-for-hire, but because of the compensation the contractor cannot withhold rights from the individual. In those cases, it is generally managed by quasi-contract principles. It also falls under state law because Congress managed to exclude it from the Copyright law (sec. 104, IIRC).
Here, however, we have an express creation of a non-exclusive copyright transfer. This also occurs in Hasbro's open gaming license. The problem is that the transfer allows economies of scale to triumph (i.e., the little guy loses because Goliath can out-produce him). I'm sure Google put this in place to avoid future copyright litigation, but it also interferes with you writing the Great American Novel using Google's public space then complaining when Google publishes the novel with its own name.
Beyond prior art, there are other sound defenses. First, let's take laches. Laches says that a patent holder can't sit back and wait for a patent infringer to build up a business with the patent and then stomp him. As soon as the violation occurs and the patent holder is aware of the violation, he must act. Waiting a few weeks (or 5 years) can trigger a valid laches defense.
Second, prior art requires, er, prior art. Others have cited to scores of major tools (Listserv being one) that satisfy that. However, there is another defense: obviousness. IIRC, SCOTUS just lowered the standard for obviousness this past Term. The fact that there are so many tools from the time of the patent (1998 is when it was filed, and IIRC, its effective date) that are similar to the patent's claims indicates that a practitioner of the art from 1998 would know how to write an automated, multiple-response email responder. If so, then it's obvious.
1) Your confidential data being shared with the server as you use its online tool. 2) Business secrets being shared with another company (i.e. their web-based tool) invalidate any trade secret lawsuit. 3) Network outage.
I can't think of any compelling reason to rely on a single external point-of-failure. I'd rather be my own failure, thank you.
Okay, this deeply concerns me. We have already lost two shuttles due to accidents, and now NASA is inviting a third. Astronauts will get bored in space and will undoubtably engage in horse play. One of them will invariably remember the light saber and procure it from its handy storage bin. Once he has it in hand, he will likely activate it and start swinging it about---like we all do with a toy light saber. Except, this is _Luke's_ light saber; so it's real. I expect that he'll probably cut some critical component or cut through the shuttle's hull.
"If one is caught with a small ammount(sic) of an illegal substance, they can be charged and convicted of dealing, even if they have never dealt."
At least in the U.S., the "small amount" that qualifies one to be a dealer is proscribed by statute. It's not exactly "legal precedent," which implies common (judge-made) law. Having read a few of those statutes leads me to conclude that you consider a cup of sugar a "small amount" to put into your coffee.
And, this is where trial attorneys come in and file a class action lawsuit against Comcast. The long-term result is a defined cap, perhaps one month's free service from each subscriber cut off, and millions in attorney's fees. It's the American way.
I would be willing to pay more if I could pick which channels made the money. I don't like knowing that a bit of my money goes to support a channel whose values I despise.
Also, ala carte does not necessarily mean that there be _no_ bundling. It gives users a choice to be bundled or not. You cable companies can continue to offer a "basic tier" at the lower price and let people decide if they want to pay the same amount for four channels instead of 40. It also ensures a certain number of subscribers still bundle. However, outrageous prices for ala carte would have to be prohibited to prevent cable companies from forcing bundling down subscribers throats.
Hell, the only reason I have cable TV is because I have cable broadband and have to pay the same amount regardless of whether I have the TV coverage or not. So, I chose the 'value' choice of getting something instead of nothing. Assume basic cable costs $20/month. Assume it costs $20/month for broadband. I don't like having to pay $40/month without TV, but I would be willing to pay $30/month without TV. The pricing now feels like coercion. Why not DSL? Because I don't have a landline, and my 'hood has switched to SiO, where telephony is shoved down my throat.
As you're explaining all this anyway, would you mind explaining _why_ its the same with/without TV for broadband?
"Except in this case, they're 'protecting' the presidency from uncomfortable questions and counterpositions."
You may be right about that. However, we don't know what's in the redacted prose. I gather from what is available that the Service does not engage in that activity, with it being left up to "volunteers," which are obviously political operators.
My lament is that the time has passed where a President can walk down the sidewalk alone. I've seen a photo of Theodore Roosevelt churning down the sidewalk, and read stories of him over-tipping a trolley usher who helped him off the trolley. The nature of our society has forced Presidents to be isolated.
"You gotta wonder...if an open admission that this administration is actively working to squelch the First Amendment rights of American citizens wasn't redacted, what was?"
What the Court said could be redacted, most likely to ensure operations of the Secret Service that safeguard the President are keep off/.
You should remember that in cases like this, the Secret Service exerts a great deal of influence. Their job is to protect the President and First Family (and political candidates in the right context). They are zealous in that endeavor. How they operate should be protected as a national secret to protect the Office of the President (not necessarily the man himself).
What you should ask yourself is this: since this is an "open" President, what about other recent Presidents (e.g. Clinton, Reagan, etc.)? You assume malice, when you could just be reading the way things have been done for a generation. Presidents complain (after they leave office) that they are increasingly isolated from "the real world" by their security detail and staff. This isn't a Bush-only issue.
"The purpose of the game is to argue about the rules, not 'play' them."
You may think you're kidding. My last two RPG groups spawned a couple of lawyers and we spent a great deal of time arguing the rules (I was DM). And, my days playing AD&D 2e is one of the reasons I used to justify my obtaining a JD as well.
"This suggests that throughout humans and their ancestors have been moderately polygynous."
"Suggests" is a weasel word. Polygamy requires there be fare fewer men to be stable. This is shown by that odd Mormon community where polygamy is common place. Teen boys are run off so the men can marry their schoolmates. We also see this in lions.
Birthrates is a better indicated of "natural" polygamy. When a species has a lot more females born than males, then polygamy is more likely. Of course, this does not take into account attrition.
This exploit was forseen over 30 years ago by Obi-wan Kenobi:
"What's wrong?" asked Luke.
"It's as if millions of OpenBSD coders suddenly cried out in terror, and were suddenly silenced. I fear something dreadful has happened. You'd best disable sudo."
"Since when do federal laws that have lower standards override higher standards at the state level?"
Reading the bill, it appears to apply to federal issues, not state issues.[1] So in this case, federal laws "override" which it involves federal issues. If this were a matter of field preemption, then Congress can do whatever it wants. Get sued in state court, Herr Blogger, and this bill seems to offer no support. You'll need the state law.
[1]: "In any proceeding or in connection with any issue arising under Federal law" Sect. 2(a) [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.21 02:]
I'm only reiterating what I learned last Fall in law school, that a general rule of thumb fiction is not prior art, I am not a patent attorney. But I am likely better qualified than half the people who comment on/. about patent law. Prior art must be enabling, "[a]nother requirement for [a] document to qualify as prior art is that it is enabling." [http://www.iusmentis.com/patents/priorart/] What I was trying to say, and was wonderously modded down for is that generally fiction is not sufficient to qualify as prior art. However, "[t]hat does not mean that fiction cannot be used as prior art at all. If the fiction describes the invention in sufficient detail, it counts as prior art just like a technical publication would."
Generally, fiction is not written in sufficient detail. Thus, most science fiction would not qualify. Otherwise, the patent for bluetooth headsets would be invalidated because of Star Trek TNG.
"What the hell's the point of a Jury verdict if the Judge can just throw it out?"
Juries aren't always right. The ambition of a jury is that there are twelve people who can come to a reasonable decision. This does not always happen, and a judge should be able to "veto" certain jury decisions. For example, a judge cannot veto a not guilty verdict by the jury toward a criminal defendant. I believe a judge also cannot impose liability when a jury has found a civil defendant not liable. However, when a jury finds guilt in either case, the judge can overturn the decision if the jury verdict is a gross miscarriage of justice.
I have to say any huge verdict levied on a software patent defendant is extreme as, IMO, software applications are mathematical formulae applied to business, and nobody would patent a mathematical formula without a business application. This is the great error of SCOTUS on this---you're not supposed to patent formulas, and they reasoned that you can patent formulas with business applications. My point is, what part of 'no' didn't they get. But, this was a liberal SCOTUS back then...
"...then re-sell it to the new bidder and pocket the whole $100,000? That's a quick profit..."
The headache of forcing the original sale. Remember, the seller breached, which would require the first buyer to go to court. FWIW, the sort of deal I described is one of the remedies courts have in situations like this. It's not like I came up with this on my own, I learned about it in law school.
What the seller could have done is offered the original buyer a portion of the difference between the original price and the higher price. That is, the original price was 150K and the new price was 250K, so offer the original buyer 10K. The seller makes $90K more than he had before, and the seller is compensated for the loss of the purchase. Heck, even if the buyer got $50K, the the seller would still have netted $50K more than with the original sale.
Slashdot Mirror
"It's flamebait because it's written in an angry tone and is 'baiting' people to start a flame war."
/. is flamebait. I merely asserted my view that harvesting embryos for stem cells is morally wrong and could be compared to slavery. If whomever modded me down for flamebait agreed with my view and thought it was too heated; then I would be more willing to agree with the assessment. However, as is normally the case, mods are used to censor opposing opinions. As this is normal, I have to assume that was the motive here. I assumed I would be down-modded because somebody wouldn't like my POV; but that doesn't mean I shouldn't express my view.
It wasn't meant in an angry tone. This is exactly a question, raised 1.5 years ago in my law school Health Law class, somebody else posed to a PhD Bio-ethicist. He avoided answering the question, and I thought somebody here could pose an answer. Whenever somebody's right of autonomy is stripped and the person reduced to property status, we call it slavery. (Voluntary renunciation of autonomy would be indentured servitude.) Arguably, the embryo is a person (or would be left to his one devices). Destroying the embryo to create stem cells is not voluntary, and it reduces the embryo to mere property. Thus, how is it not slavery?
The great question is "when does life begin?" The bio-ethicist argued after 21 days, and he based his argument on our decision point for when somebody is dead (e.g. brain activity, not "mostly dead/all dead"). My question to him was "what happens if we harvested all embryos before day 21?" (An obvious ad absurdium argument, but it underscores the distinction between establishing "life at 21" verse "death at no-brain function.) He ended up conceding that the 21 days was arbitrary.
As for baiting someone into a flamewar: by that definition, half of
"Embryonic stemm (sic) cells however can change into anything, without any modification. They are much easier to work with, and as of a couple of years ago they were the only option."
However, left to his own devices in his native environment, a human embryo will develop into an autonomous human. You are taking a life and converting it into property without giving that life a chance to decide.How does harvesting an embryo not equate to slavery? We Americans fought a war over this 150 years ago, and I find it amazing that, by changing the perception of "when life begins," some Americans think it's okay. I would have less problem with embryonic stem cells _if_ the embryo were not destroyed.
The promise of adult stem cells has yet to be fully explored, and I'm glad research is bearing fruit and receiving media attention. As you say, embryonic cells are potentially easier to deal with. Managing slaves is easier than working with a union; but which is more moral?
"[Carriers] primarily for show and wars of aggression against far weaker enemies."
Carriers are the crown jewel of a fleet comprising various AA and A-ship vessels. Carriers command roughly one million square miles when fully operational. I've heard that a single carrier aircraft constitute a larger air force than all but the larger nations. We have more than one carrier. They are not for show. The U.S. does not engage in aggressive wars---that's for the likes of Hitler. U.S. != Nazi Germany || Soviet Union.
You don't bring a knife to a knife fight, you bring a shotgun.
I for one welcome our Naval overlords.
"He did infringe Viacom's copyright - they own everything surrounding his clip that was a part of that program."
It appears Viacom derived that segment of the show from his original material. When borrowing material from another work, the organization of and content of the new work should not substantially rely on the original work. Here, it appears Viacom showed his entire clip and provided mild commentary. Thus, the 'nugget' of their content was in fact his content. That means they infringed on him and they themselves do not have valid rights to that material. Arguably, that means their content is his content.
However, to enforce copyright, the author has to register the work within a certain timeframe and zealously defend his rights. The fact that he took Viacom material and presented it suggests that he was not zealous in defending his copyright. So, he may have lost the chance to sue Viacom and prevail.
"Who would get to go after that legally? Would it be me, Google (or whoever), both, whoever managed to shoot for it first...?"
Interesting question. Both would likely have a cause of action as both have the right, but once one engages, joinder could prevent the other (after a while).
Next time I have a call I want to end, I'll third-person dial in this clock.
"The second key phrase is 'you grant Google a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license...' Note the words 'non-exclusive'. That means that Google does not own your content. You own it. They just have the right to use it anywhere in the world for free. The remaining legalese covers their butts for the current methods that might be used to display or distribute the content, and any future methods they might use."
That clause creates an express non-exclusive transfer of copyright. Essentially, this is a clone of the original author's copyright. That is, you the author can do whatever you want with your work product, and the transferee can likewise do whatever he wants to do with your work product (publish, distribute, license to third-party, derive, etc.). Neither of you can prevent the other person from licensing, deriving, etc. of the same work product. They don't even have to cite the original author (there was a nice case were architect B received plans for a shopping mall via this transfer, removed the name of architect A from the plans, published the plans as its own, and prevailed in court).
This is an interesting area of copyright law that I wrote a paper on in law school. It is sort of like what happens when a contractor works for an individual but there is no express transfer of copyright. It is not a work-for-hire, but because of the compensation the contractor cannot withhold rights from the individual. In those cases, it is generally managed by quasi-contract principles. It also falls under state law because Congress managed to exclude it from the Copyright law (sec. 104, IIRC).
Here, however, we have an express creation of a non-exclusive copyright transfer. This also occurs in Hasbro's open gaming license. The problem is that the transfer allows economies of scale to triumph (i.e., the little guy loses because Goliath can out-produce him). I'm sure Google put this in place to avoid future copyright litigation, but it also interferes with you writing the Great American Novel using Google's public space then complaining when Google publishes the novel with its own name.
Beyond prior art, there are other sound defenses. First, let's take laches. Laches says that a patent holder can't sit back and wait for a patent infringer to build up a business with the patent and then stomp him. As soon as the violation occurs and the patent holder is aware of the violation, he must act. Waiting a few weeks (or 5 years) can trigger a valid laches defense.
Second, prior art requires, er, prior art. Others have cited to scores of major tools (Listserv being one) that satisfy that. However, there is another defense: obviousness. IIRC, SCOTUS just lowered the standard for obviousness this past Term. The fact that there are so many tools from the time of the patent (1998 is when it was filed, and IIRC, its effective date) that are similar to the patent's claims indicates that a practitioner of the art from 1998 would know how to write an automated, multiple-response email responder. If so, then it's obvious.
1) Your confidential data being shared with the server as you use its online tool.
2) Business secrets being shared with another company (i.e. their web-based tool) invalidate any trade secret lawsuit.
3) Network outage.
I can't think of any compelling reason to rely on a single external point-of-failure. I'd rather be my own failure, thank you.
Okay, this deeply concerns me. We have already lost two shuttles due to accidents, and now NASA is inviting a third. Astronauts will get bored in space and will undoubtably engage in horse play. One of them will invariably remember the light saber and procure it from its handy storage bin. Once he has it in hand, he will likely activate it and start swinging it about---like we all do with a toy light saber. Except, this is _Luke's_ light saber; so it's real. I expect that he'll probably cut some critical component or cut through the shuttle's hull.
What were they thinking?
"If one is caught with a small ammount(sic) of an illegal substance, they can be charged and convicted of dealing, even if they have never dealt."
At least in the U.S., the "small amount" that qualifies one to be a dealer is proscribed by statute. It's not exactly "legal precedent," which implies common (judge-made) law. Having read a few of those statutes leads me to conclude that you consider a cup of sugar a "small amount" to put into your coffee.
And, this is where trial attorneys come in and file a class action lawsuit against Comcast. The long-term result is a defined cap, perhaps one month's free service from each subscriber cut off, and millions in attorney's fees. It's the American way.
I would be willing to pay more if I could pick which channels made the money. I don't like knowing that a bit of my money goes to support a channel whose values I despise.
Also, ala carte does not necessarily mean that there be _no_ bundling. It gives users a choice to be bundled or not. You cable companies can continue to offer a "basic tier" at the lower price and let people decide if they want to pay the same amount for four channels instead of 40. It also ensures a certain number of subscribers still bundle. However, outrageous prices for ala carte would have to be prohibited to prevent cable companies from forcing bundling down subscribers throats.
Hell, the only reason I have cable TV is because I have cable broadband and have to pay the same amount regardless of whether I have the TV coverage or not. So, I chose the 'value' choice of getting something instead of nothing. Assume basic cable costs $20/month. Assume it costs $20/month for broadband. I don't like having to pay $40/month without TV, but I would be willing to pay $30/month without TV. The pricing now feels like coercion. Why not DSL? Because I don't have a landline, and my 'hood has switched to SiO, where telephony is shoved down my throat.
As you're explaining all this anyway, would you mind explaining _why_ its the same with/without TV for broadband?
"Except in this case, they're 'protecting' the presidency from uncomfortable questions and counterpositions."
You may be right about that. However, we don't know what's in the redacted prose. I gather from what is available that the Service does not engage in that activity, with it being left up to "volunteers," which are obviously political operators.
My lament is that the time has passed where a President can walk down the sidewalk alone. I've seen a photo of Theodore Roosevelt churning down the sidewalk, and read stories of him over-tipping a trolley usher who helped him off the trolley. The nature of our society has forced Presidents to be isolated.
"You gotta wonder...if an open admission that this administration is actively working to squelch the First Amendment rights of American citizens wasn't redacted, what was?"
/.
What the Court said could be redacted, most likely to ensure operations of the Secret Service that safeguard the President are keep off
You should remember that in cases like this, the Secret Service exerts a great deal of influence. Their job is to protect the President and First Family (and political candidates in the right context). They are zealous in that endeavor. How they operate should be protected as a national secret to protect the Office of the President (not necessarily the man himself).
What you should ask yourself is this: since this is an "open" President, what about other recent Presidents (e.g. Clinton, Reagan, etc.)? You assume malice, when you could just be reading the way things have been done for a generation. Presidents complain (after they leave office) that they are increasingly isolated from "the real world" by their security detail and staff. This isn't a Bush-only issue.
"The purpose of the game is to argue about the rules, not 'play' them."
You may think you're kidding. My last two RPG groups spawned a couple of lawyers and we spent a great deal of time arguing the rules (I was DM). And, my days playing AD&D 2e is one of the reasons I used to justify my obtaining a JD as well.
SCO v. World: Why I decided to go to law school.
"This suggests that throughout humans and their ancestors have been moderately polygynous."
"Suggests" is a weasel word. Polygamy requires there be fare fewer men to be stable. This is shown by that odd Mormon community where polygamy is common place. Teen boys are run off so the men can marry their schoolmates. We also see this in lions.
Birthrates is a better indicated of "natural" polygamy. When a species has a lot more females born than males, then polygamy is more likely. Of course, this does not take into account attrition.
This exploit was forseen over 30 years ago by Obi-wan Kenobi:
"What's wrong?" asked Luke.
"It's as if millions of OpenBSD coders suddenly cried out in terror, and were suddenly silenced. I fear something dreadful has happened. You'd best disable sudo."
"Since when do federal laws that have lower standards override higher standards at the state level?"
1 02:]
Reading the bill, it appears to apply to federal issues, not state issues.[1] So in this case, federal laws "override" which it involves federal issues. If this were a matter of field preemption, then Congress can do whatever it wants. Get sued in state court, Herr Blogger, and this bill seems to offer no support. You'll need the state law.
[1]: "In any proceeding or in connection with any issue arising under Federal law" Sect. 2(a) [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.2
I'm only reiterating what I learned last Fall in law school, that a general rule of thumb fiction is not prior art, I am not a patent attorney. But I am likely better qualified than half the people who comment on /. about patent law. Prior art must be enabling, "[a]nother requirement for [a] document to qualify as prior art is that it is enabling." [http://www.iusmentis.com/patents/priorart/] What I was trying to say, and was wonderously modded down for is that generally fiction is not sufficient to qualify as prior art. However, "[t]hat does not mean that fiction cannot be used as prior art at all. If the fiction describes the invention in sufficient detail, it counts as prior art just like a technical publication would."
Generally, fiction is not written in sufficient detail. Thus, most science fiction would not qualify. Otherwise, the patent for bluetooth headsets would be invalidated because of Star Trek TNG.
I know you're being cheeky, but "Fiction != Prior Art" as it relates to patent law.
"What the hell's the point of a Jury verdict if the Judge can just throw it out?"
Juries aren't always right. The ambition of a jury is that there are twelve people who can come to a reasonable decision. This does not always happen, and a judge should be able to "veto" certain jury decisions. For example, a judge cannot veto a not guilty verdict by the jury toward a criminal defendant. I believe a judge also cannot impose liability when a jury has found a civil defendant not liable. However, when a jury finds guilt in either case, the judge can overturn the decision if the jury verdict is a gross miscarriage of justice.
I have to say any huge verdict levied on a software patent defendant is extreme as, IMO, software applications are mathematical formulae applied to business, and nobody would patent a mathematical formula without a business application. This is the great error of SCOTUS on this---you're not supposed to patent formulas, and they reasoned that you can patent formulas with business applications. My point is, what part of 'no' didn't they get. But, this was a liberal SCOTUS back then...
"...then re-sell it to the new bidder and pocket the whole $100,000? That's a quick profit..."
The headache of forcing the original sale. Remember, the seller breached, which would require the first buyer to go to court. FWIW, the sort of deal I described is one of the remedies courts have in situations like this. It's not like I came up with this on my own, I learned about it in law school.
What the seller could have done is offered the original buyer a portion of the difference between the original price and the higher price. That is, the original price was 150K and the new price was 250K, so offer the original buyer 10K. The seller makes $90K more than he had before, and the seller is compensated for the loss of the purchase. Heck, even if the buyer got $50K, the the seller would still have netted $50K more than with the original sale.