|
Discendo Vox posted:Employees of the company aren't going to tell you that they do this. And if it's a server architect, they probably have no idea what the executive-level approach to these things is. If this were someone from Lexis working on server architecture, he's probably thinking of LexisNexus, which, together with WestlawNext, represents the relatively new "cadillac" version oftheir database system- more bells and whistles, much more expensive. These represent the first improvements or innovations in the databases essentially since their conception, and they were created almost entirely in response to each other and the slow emergence of nonprofit, free to use databases. Well yeah, but that's all motive, which I specifically said I didn't trust because of my experience with the subject. Is there any evidence for lobbying or is the motive the only reason it's believed Lexis and Westlaw lobby against a public database?
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 20:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 05:25 |
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Maybe I'm missing something, but if this was upheld... or if things are, from what I'm understanding you're saying, already the case, that the government can manage its employees in ways that violate their contractual rights, doesn't that mean the government couldn't fire employees for saying stupid poo poo on the job since it would be a violation of the first? I don't quite follow what you're saying/asking, so let me know if I'm missing the mark. It's best to look at constitutional challenges as compartmentalized issues. Just as a single statute might be subject to multiple constitutional challenges, and each constitutional challenge would be resolved separately and independently of one another, a government entity's ability to restrict the constitutional rights of its employees must be resolved with respect to each constitutional right separately and independently of one another. I'm not well versed on public employee First Amendment law. I do know that public employees have some degree of diminished First Amendment rights under the theory that a government, as an employer, has greater interests in controlling the speech of its employees than with respect to the general population. So, for the sake of argument, let's assume (as I believe is the case based on my very limited involvement with the issue) that a government employer can prohibit a government official from saying something on the job without violating the employee's First Amendment rights. That's a matter to be determined by First Amendment law, and has absolutely no bearing on the alternate issue of whether the government employer's other policy affecting the government official's Second Amendment rights will pass constitutional muster. So, bringing it back to the complaint filed by the LEOs. If a court were to hold that the agreement did violate the LEO's 2A rights, that ruling has no effect on what other policies and actions the government employer can take that might appear to infringe upon the LEO's other, non-2A rights (say, for example, whether the employer could fire a LEO for saying something stupid while on the job).
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 20:53
|
|
|
Cheekio posted:Well yeah, but that's all motive, which I specifically said I didn't trust because of my experience with the subject. Is there any evidence for lobbying or is the motive the only reason it's believed Lexis and Westlaw lobby against a public database? There's nothing for them to lobby against. There haven't been any efforts to create a meaningful public competitior.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 20:59
|
|
|
Okay, more in-line with self-defense law, then, does this mean that a government employee charged with taking care of mentally ill patients could kill one, if he felt his life was in danger (and it's hella-easy to feel like that as someone dealing with individuals that aren't all-there), and that they wouldn't be able to discipline him or remove him from his position for doing so? It just seems like there are a number of government jobs where resolving things in a manner where no one dies is part and parcel of the job requirements, even if killing people would be justifiable for a non-professional stuck in the same situation, and it seems weird that you wouldn't even be able to lose your job over it. Of course, this is hypothetical, they haven't won the case on 2nd amendment grounds yet, and it's clear by the policies of numerous government organizations that they certainly believe they have the right to enforce policies controlling their employees applications of violence in self-defense.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 21:00
|
|
|
If the LEOs in this case were to win on their 2A claim, then what you're asking -- how much precedential value does this case have on future cases that implicate a government employer's restrictions of a government employee's 2A rights? -- depends on a variety of factors, including: (1) the legal reasoning upholding the 2A claim, (2) the factual similarities between the LEO's circumstances and whatever circumstances give rise to the subsequent case, and (3) whether the final legal opinion in this case is binding (either hitting SCOTUS or being resolved by a Court of Appeals whose geographic scope covers the place where the subsequent case arises) or merely persuasive (being resolved by a Court of Appeals whose geographic scope does not cover the place in which the subsequent case arises, or is issued in an unpublished Court of Appeals opinion, or is not appealed and results in only the district court opinion). At this point in time, there's just too much not known to speculate as to if/how this case could more generally affect government employer's policies that limit their employee's 2A rights.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 21:18
|
|
|
Federal circuit reversed x2 today. Also, Bond v. United States came out today. Came to the Court as a Treaty Powers case, left the Court as a statutory interpretation case. Came to this bit: quote:Any parent would be guilty of a serious federal offense—possession of a chemical weapon—when, exasperated by the children’s repeated failure to clean the goldfish tank, he considers poisoning the fish with a few drops of vinegar. Realized Roberts is a monster.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 15:33
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:Federal circuit reversed x2 today. Considers is the key word there but yes almost any other example would have been better. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 15:42
|
|
|
SCOTUS declined to hear the appeal of James Risen, the reporter who was threatened with jail time because he wouldn't testify against his source who leaked him classified information that he later published. The Federal Appeals court ruling went against him. The DoJ claims that they will not prosecute Risen for not complying with the court.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 16:35
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:SCOTUS declined to hear the appeal of James Risen, the reporter who was threatened with jail time because he wouldn't testify against his source who leaked him classified information that he later published. The Federal Appeals court ruling went against him. Really it'll be up to congress to give reporters privilege, and uh, yeah....
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 16:41
|
|
|
Oh, good, another "we don't like your standard Fed Cir but we aren't going to actually give you a standard so you can safely ignore our ruling and pretend you listened" patent opinion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 16:48
|
|
|
Limelight doesn't make sense on the "a client sending and a server sending" patents where two people infringe together I guess?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 16:58
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Limelight doesn't make sense on the "a client sending and a server sending" patents where two people infringe together I guess? Makes perfect sense - those claims are unenforceable except where a single entity controls both client and server. Sloppy drafting leads to claims you can't enforce (see ChefAmerica). My sympathy is not with the patent attorney there. E: but my original post was in reference to Biosig, which clarifies the indefiniteness standard not even a little bit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 17:20
|
|
|
Kalman posted:E: but my original post was in reference to Biosig, which clarifies the indefiniteness standard not even a little bit. Come on, it clarifies it at least slightly. Now we know definitively that the standard is not "insoluably ambiguous". Therefore, the universe of possible indefiniteness standards has been reduced by at least one. Just like with Benson, Flook, Diehr, Bilski, Mayo, and soon, I expect, in Alice Corp, eventually we'll have disqualified all of the incorrect standards for method/process subject matter eligibility until the only one left will be the correct one. It's no fun if they just give you the answer from the beginning. It's the logical extension of the socratic method - they'll keep asking the Federal Circuit questions until they arrive at the answer themselves. The en banc decision in CLS Bank was essentially the student having a breakdown, admitting to the professor they have no clue and haven't done the reading, and asking for the punishment to stop. NJ Deac fucked around with this message at 22:10 on Jun 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 22:03
|
|
|
NJ Deac posted:Come on, it clarifies it at least slightly. Now we know definitively that the standard is not "insoluably ambiguous". Therefore, the universe of possible indefiniteness standards has been reduced by at least one. It will be interesting to see what comes out of Biosig in the lower courts. Potentially any patent defendant can now hang a plaintiff in claim construction with "in the alternative, since we have an expert saying [disputed term] means X and plaintiff has an expert saying [disputed term] means Y, the claim must be invalid as not 'reasonably certain'!"
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 22:10
|
|
|
ulmont posted:It will be interesting to see what comes out of Biosig in the lower courts. Potentially any patent defendant can now hang a plaintiff in claim construction with "in the alternative, since we have an expert saying [disputed term] means X and plaintiff has an expert saying [disputed term] means Y, the claim must be invalid as not 'reasonably certain'!" At which point the Federal Circuit will apply the exact same inquiry they've been applying, call it "reasonable certainty," and uphold the patent as definite.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 23:03
|
|
|
I haven't been following this dispute, but is the thread really just encountering the majestic beast known as legal reasonableness?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 23:51
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I haven't been following this dispute, but is the thread really just encountering the majestic beast known as legal reasonableness? Haha, no, this is a patent law specific beast which bears no relationship to legal reasonableness (because there are things that aren't reasonable to that beast, while the patent law equivalent has never met a patent it didn't wish to adopt as its newest legitimate child.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 23:53
|
|
|
Kalman posted:At which point the Federal Circuit will apply the exact same inquiry they've been applying, call it "reasonable certainty," and uphold the patent as definite. Judging by KSR, there will be at least a few opinions that give a nod to Bilsog before the Federal Circuit goes back to what it was doing before.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 23:55
|
|
|
I just have to laugh at the idea that "and patents are “not addressed to lawyers, or even to the public generally,” but to those skilled in the relevant art", seeing how at least in my field (computer stuff), the claims are generally completely incomprehensible to a person with normal technical-only training. I wonder if the Justices are aware of that?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 00:02
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:I just have to laugh at the idea that "and patents are “not addressed to
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 00:50
|
|
|
The practice of broadening the remit is a bit more refined than just obfuscation, although don't get me wrong it's really reprehensible.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 01:41
|
|
|
ulmont posted:Judging by KSR, there will be at least a few opinions that give a nod to Bilsog before the Federal Circuit goes back to what it was doing before. Pretty much. My bet is that the Federal Circuit finds the biosig patent "curably ambiguous" or some such under a new standard. Then, back to the supremes to see if they guessed right. Regarding KSR, it is nice to dust off those templates.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 14:21
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:I just have to laugh at the idea that "and patents are “not addressed to ShadowHawk posted:And perhaps more relevantly, claims are deliberately obfuscated so as to make the patent vaguer and thus able to threaten more things. Terms are wholly manufactured and deliberately changed from what normal practitioners use so as to create more nebulous claims that could then be argued as applying to completely unrelated concepts in front of a jury in a favorable forum. I've never seen an acknowledgement of that fact in a court ruling though. Shouldn't this just make a patent ambiguous, in that a person skilled in the relevant art wouldn't know what the hell is going on? (I know nothing about patents or the patent process, and the Federal Circuit is a strange beast that I've only heard tale of.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 15:16
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:Shouldn't this just make a patent ambiguous, in that a person skilled in the relevant art wouldn't know what the hell is going on? If so, wouldn't that be a question of fact for the jury? In such a case, the threat will probably be successful most of the time, especially if the license costs less than the litigation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 16:56
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:If so, wouldn't that be a question of fact for the jury? In such a case, the threat will probably be successful most of the time, especially if the license costs less than the litigation. Huge amounts of money wasted paying bogus license fees on bullshit patents because it'd be even more heinous to waste man-millenia deciding whether they're valid on a case-by-case basis is system working as intended, I guess?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 18:24
|
|
|
Dying for Madison's patent profits
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 02:14
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:I'm interested in messing with a lot of things, and the whole stat pack is interesting but not complete. I'm currently writing a script to try to parse opinion PDFs and docket pages Update: parsing PDFs is ugly work. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 19:28
|
|
|
For some reason I've been reading a lot about my least favorite Supreme Court Justice: Alito. I thought I'd share a sampling of what I've been perusing, which I think paints an insightful portrait of who he is as a person and Justice. Because why not. (1) "Justice Alito's vote will be key in 3 cases challenging Obama's power", LA Times article that is a middle-of-the-road piece discussing Alito's jurisprudential views and his bit of theater in the national spotlight. Key quote: quote:"The quality of his work is excellent. He is not a wiseguy. He's doesn't demean those who disagree with him. And you don't get pompous sloganeering from him," Fried said. "But I'm sorry that on the agenda items, he's been quite predictable. There's a real sense of an agenda with this court, and he's been part of that." (2) Sam Alito: A Civil Man, The American Spectator article that is super pro-Alito, that gets into a lot about his personal life/views, and even has nice things to say about his jurisprudence. Key quote: quote:Here, I cannot help but think, are hints of what sounds suspiciously like common sense. Is the law really incapable of distinguishing between videos of illegal animal cruelty and of, say, a father and son deer hunting? Is yelling anti-gay epithets at the grief-stricken families of non-homosexual veterans really protected by the First Amendment? These are questions that ordinary Americans understand, and many people’s answers would, one suspects, tend to line up with Alito’s. Common sense is not the touchstone with which constitutional metal is assayed. But it helps. (3) "Splenetic Justice: Justice Samuel Alito's Role on the Roberts Court", The Nation article that is super anti-Alito, that talks about why Alito is indeed the worst Justice on the Court from a progressive/liberal point of view. Key quote: quote:This Roberts Court has pretty clearly plotted the direction it wants to take the country—backwards, by viciously undoing almost all of the progressive policy gains of the 20th century. Alito, who, at 63 years old, will likely still be on the bench long after Scalia and Thomas are gone, figures to be key in that effort. That’s why it’s imperative his radical ideological agenda gets a full airing in the press now. So that when the next Republican president points to him as a model for a future nomination to the Court, the public really understands what they’d be getting—something much, much worse than just an rear end in a top hat. I will say that I've come across some Alito opinions recently, and was pleased to find them examples of good writing. I know Roberts is The Great Writer Of Our Age, but his Bond opinion was a bit more unrestrained than normal. As if Kagan's writing style is rubbing off on him. Alito's stuff was not nearly as showy and "flourishy." So Alito does have that going for him.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 00:05
|
|
|
Alito absolutely demeans those he disagrees with, though - maybe not in his opinions, but everywhere else.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 01:53
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Alito absolutely demeans those he disagrees with, though - maybe not in his opinions, but everywhere else. That's part of why he has the nickname "Scalito." He's as much a dick as Scalia is.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 14:54
|
|
|
A database tracking the surreptitious changes to SCOTUS opinions is now available.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 18:30
|
|
|
How about a discussion about the just released Pom decision that Lanham act actions are permissible against deceptive food labeling? It has the potential to really shake up the food labeling industry which has been quite active in deceiving customers while hiding behind "it meets FDA requirements!" I expect "blueberries" will become less ubiquitous in the future.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 19:01
|
|
|
ufarn posted:A database tracking the surreptitious changes to SCOTUS opinions is now available. Good. SCOTUS should have been doing this on their own, but at least someone is tracking it now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 19:25
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:How about a discussion about the just released Pom decision that Lanham act actions are permissible against deceptive food labeling? It has the potential to really shake up the food labeling industry which has been quite active in deceiving customers while hiding behind "it meets FDA requirements!" Grab some popcorn, this going to result in some interesting lawsuits.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 19:30
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Grab some popcorn, this going to result in some interesting lawsuits. Awe, this means the strawberry oatmeal I occasionally eat for breakfast will go away since it clearly states in the ingredients list that it contains no strawberries, just apples and artificial flavors.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 19:42
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Grab some popcorn, this going to result in some interesting lawsuits. Wouldn't the ruling logically extend to qualified health claims? It would be a bloodbath if overextending a study to imply health benefits or just applying a flawed one might have a competitor sue.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 20:03
|
|
|
I haven't read the decision yet, but if Pom prevailed, it's going to be a Very Bad Thing. The company is known for their own deceptive and overly broad health effect claims; these most recent suits have been specifically over applying flavor labeling in a way the FDA hadn't intended- which is, again, a Bad Thing. They'll be using it to prevent anyone else from marketing juice blends or artificial flavored products in a way that will really badly disturb food labeling law. If it has the effect of cleaving FDA and FTC positions on these practices, that's even worse.
Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 20:56 on Jun 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 20:52
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I haven't read the decision yet, but if Pom prevailed, it's going to be a Very Bad Thing. The company is known for their own deceptive and overly broad marketing practices, these most recent suits have been specifically over applying flavor labeling in a way the FDA hadn't intended- which is, again, a Bad Thing. They'll be using it to prevent anyone else from marketing juice blends or artificial flavored products in a way that will really badly disturb food labeling law. POM won, here's the opinion of the unanimous court: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Vmn9asN-8AE
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 20:56
|
|
|
duz posted:Awe, this means the strawberry oatmeal I occasionally eat for breakfast will go away since it clearly states in the ingredients list that it contains no strawberries, just apples and artificial flavors. Couldn't they just relabel it as now with real strawberry-like taste?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 21:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 05:25 |
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I haven't read the decision yet, but if Pom prevailed, it's going to be a Very Bad Thing. The company is known for their own deceptive and overly broad health effect claims; these most recent suits have been specifically over applying flavor labeling in a way the FDA hadn't intended- which is, again, a Bad Thing. They'll be using it to prevent anyone else from marketing juice blends or artificial flavored products in a way that will really badly disturb food labeling law. If it has the effect of cleaving FDA and FTC positions on these practices, that's even worse. Well, it's bad in that it makes the standards confusing but why is it bad for consumers? It would seem that the logical defense to these suits would be to actually label your products honestly -- i.e., don't sell grape juice with blueberry flavoring as "blueberry juice," even if technically allowed to by FDA rules. If you're going to sell blueberry juice make it with real blueberries?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 21:21
|
|
