|
Just as a note, the HUD and most similar efforts were created under duress- it was either create them, or Congress would make the FDA create them (and sometimes Congress came in and hosed things up anyways). If the FDA does something terrible, even now, it's usually because they've been forced into it (I'm looking at you, DSHEA  ).
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 02:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 12:22 |
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I think Kennedy being fooled by the labeling seems appropriate, and relative amount of juice seems like an extremely significant detail to me. If I buy something labeled "orange juice" I don't expect to get 99% apple with an artificial orange flavoring added. Hell, I'm not sure I'd have a problem with requiring simulated flavoring to be explicitly labeled as such in all cases. This definitely happens. I used to drink a lot of iced tea with lemon juice, and to save money my dad bought a bunch of "Lemon Juice" from a dollar store. I tasted it and instantly knew it wasn't lemon juice. I looked at the ingredients and sure enough it was mostly "artificial lemon flavoring" and "lemon juice" was the last ingredient on the list. If you actually looked carefully the name didn't actually imply it was pure lemon juice, and it did contain some marginal amount of real lemon juice so it was probably perfectly legal. My dad, of course, refused to believe that there was anything wrong with it, just his son being too stuck-up and good for the wholesome products he bought at the dollar store  It's probably still lurking at my parent's house somewhere, next time I'm there I'll check out the precise wording. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 04:44 on Jun 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 04:41
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:Update: parsing PDFs is ugly work. That used to be part of my old job and I've come away with the opinion that PDF is probably the worst format to store data in if you want to read it with a machine. I include Excel 97 in that consideration.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 17:40
|
|
|
Munkeymon posted:That used to be part of my old job and I've come away with the opinion that PDF is probably the worst format to store data in if you want to read it with a machine. I include Excel 97 in that consideration. Luckily I'm using an HTML converter. It gives me tag soup but it's easier than parsing the raw PDF. Still a lot of ugly conversion to get to my screenshot.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 18:06
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:The FDA's amicus brief describes, IIRC, the rule-making process that led to the current labeling requirements, and outlines their position that consumer expectation of flavour should motivate primary labeling. I'd link, but I'm on my phone. I found it pretty interesting, and it hardly seems like "ingredient that dominates flavour but is small fraction of volume" was an unanticipated scenario. Look:  The "HELP NOURISH YOUR BRAIN" claim is above the actual name of the juice, in a larger font. Based on Coke's own bottle, and without engaging a single Pom argument, it looks like consumers buy juice for the health benefits! And if you're buying juice to be healthy, you probably care more about "superfood" blueberries and pomegranates than you do apples. Coke has been trying to deceive consumers, and their only defense of the practice is: "Misleading labels about ingredients do not anger the flavor police." Why is anyone surprised or sad that they lost?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 18:56
|
|
|
"Puffery."
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 19:08
|
|
|
Dave47 posted:If the FDA is supposed to be a one-stop-shop for juice labeling regulations then why should consumer expectations of flavor dominate the process? Why not also consider consumer expectations of nutrient benefits, or of ingredients, or sugar content, or any other factor? Right, so you're probably not familiar with food and drug law. The nourish your brain stuff, like the omega 3 stuff, is a byproduct of the emergence of structure-function claims and the dietary supplement category, which, short version, the FDA is legally barred from doing anything about. It's not puffery, it's DSHEA. Industry got together and got congress to pass a law that created a category of health claims that FDA can't investigate. All the same, attacking the FDA over this, or treating it as relevant to the case in question, isn't particularly accurate or productive. If you're interested in the different categories of health claim on labeling and want to know what to get angry over, This is a good place to start. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 20:35 on Jun 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 20:32
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Right, so you're probably not familiar with food and drug law. The nourish your brain stuff, like the omega 3 stuff, is a byproduct of the emergence of structure-function claims and the dietary supplement category, which, short version, the FDA is legally barred from doing anything about. It's not puffery, it's DSHEA. Industry got together and got congress to pass a law that created a category of health claims that FDA can't investigate. All the same, attacking the FDA over this, or treating it as relevant to the case in question, isn't particularly accurate or productive. If you're interested in the different categories of health claim on labeling and want to know what to get angry over, This is a good place to start. Right. And the question is: Does following those regulations mean that the Lanham act does not apply. The answer is according to the court: No, it does apply, if congress didn't want it to apply then they'd have said so.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 21:30
|
|
|
That's not the element of the label, or the law, or the setting the case in question is dealing with. DSHEA is different legislation, with a much clearer preclusion, than other labeling laws. You're raising an entirely different part of the label.
Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 02:06 on Jun 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 21:56
|
|
|
Dave47 posted:If the FDA is supposed to be a one-stop-shop for juice labeling regulations then why should consumer expectations of flavor dominate the process? Why not also consider consumer expectations of nutrient benefits, or of ingredients, or sugar content, or any other factor? Exactly, I don't get why this is so complicated. It doesn't matter what the FDA's probably constantly-changing regulations say. If you don't want to be sued under Lanham, stop loving lying to your customers. Seriously. I'm one of the few people here who isn't to the left of Joseph Stalin, and yet half of you have found a way to poo poo all over one of the few consumer protection laws I actually support.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 00:13
|
|
|
Don't tell them that Edith Windsor was trying to avoid the estate tax.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 00:15
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:Don't tell them that Edith Windsor was trying to avoid the estate tax. If standing's a bitch, find someone with $200,000 of standing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 00:22
|
|
|
StarMagician posted:Exactly, I don't get why this is so complicated. It doesn't matter what the FDA's probably constantly-changing regulations say. If you don't want to be sued under Lanham, stop loving lying to your customers. How do you feel about the labeling of cotton candy ice cream? What %age of lemon should be in a lemon meringue pie? How should we label salt-and-vinegar chips? Orange Crush? Blueberry Jelly Bellies? The issue here is the blueberry/pomegranate labeling, not other (I think well-regulated) nutritional/medical claims. I don't think it's inherently deceptive to label a product according to how it tastes. If you sold me apple juice with a tiny amount of habańero in it, I'm pretty sure I'd want that prominently indicated on the label. If I care about the nutritional characteristics, there are standardized ways to find them on the packaging — how should I find out what this drink tastes like? What percentage should I read as "tastes like blueberry"?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 00:36
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:How do you feel about the labeling of cotton candy ice cream? What %age of lemon should be in a lemon meringue pie? How should we label salt-and-vinegar chips? Orange Crush? Blueberry Jelly Bellies? How is the public interest is harmed by calling it apple-grape juice with natural pomegranate flavor?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 00:42
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:How do you feel about the labeling of cotton candy ice cream? What %age of lemon should be in a lemon meringue pie? How should we label salt-and-vinegar chips? Orange Crush? Blueberry Jelly Bellies? If the items you listed don't actually contain those things then they need to be labeled as "[whatever]-flavored" and include a little disclaiming stating the product contains no actual [whatever] in it. Or just require something to contain x% or more, and if it has less it has to be labeled 'flavored' with the aforementioned disclaimer. Blueberry Jelly Bellies have (almost) zero blueberry in them? They are now required to be called Blueberry Flavored Jelly Bellies.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 00:43
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:How is the public interest is harmed by calling it apple-grape juice with natural pomegranate flavor? How is it harmed by calling it a pomegranate blueberry flavored blend of five juices?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 00:56
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:If the items you listed don't actually contain those things then they need to be labeled as "[whatever]-flavored" and include a little disclaiming stating the product contains no actual [whatever] in it. This isn't about "don't actually contain", it's about proportion, and whether dominance-of-taste is more or less relevant to consumer expectation than percentage-by-volume.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 01:00
|
|
|
Kalman posted:How is it harmed by calling it a pomegranate blueberry flavored blend of five juices? It's not. It's harmed by calling it Minute Maid Pomegranate Blueberryflavored blend of five juices from concentrate with added ingredients and other natural flavors. Well, to be honest, whether it is or not is an as-of-yet-unresolved jury question. e: also here they clearly are just calling it "Minute Maid Pomegranate Blueberry."
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 01:14
|
|
|
StarMagician posted:Exactly, I don't get why this is so complicated. It doesn't matter what the FDA's probably constantly-changing regulations say. If you don't want to be sued under Lanham, stop loving lying to your customers. Evil Fluffy posted:If the items you listed don't actually contain those things then they need to be labeled as "[whatever]-flavored" and include a little disclaiming stating the product contains no actual [whatever] in it. Subjunctive posted:This isn't about "don't actually contain", it's about proportion, and whether dominance-of-taste is more or less relevant to consumer expectation than percentage-by-volume. KernelSlanders posted:It's not. It's harmed by calling it Minute Maid Pomegranate Blueberryflavored blend of five juices from concentrate with added ingredients and other natural flavors.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 02:11
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:Don't tell them that Edith Windsor was trying to avoid the estate tax. "Any one may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which will best pay the Treasury; there is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes." - Judge Learned Hand, Helvering v. Gregory.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 03:14
|
|
|
ThirdPartyView posted:"Any one may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which will best pay the Treasury; there is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes." - Judge Learned Hand, Helvering v. Gregory. In fact the idea is often quite the opposite. Congress' intent with the PPACA for example would be frustrated by citizens who decided to forego heath insurance so they could pay extra taxes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 04:08
|
|
|
Town of Greece (legislative prayer) was a hotly contested opinion ITT. This is a New Republic article about the Court's most recent denial of cert of an appeal from the 7th Circuit, which had held unconstitutional a public high school graduation that was conducted in a church. The Court's denial is unique in that Scalia and Thomas wrote a dissent, and a fairly fleshed out one at that. The article does a good job at extrapolating from the divide between Greece and this cert denial as to what is likely to pass constitutional muster under the Court's new establishment perspective: adults can permissibly experience some religious "discomfort," but that same discomfort becomes unconstitutional coercion when the audience is minors.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 12:30
|
|
|
StarMagician posted:Exactly, I don't get why this is so complicated. It doesn't matter what the FDA's probably constantly-changing regulations say. If you don't want to be sued under Lanham, stop loving lying to your customers. But I want to legally lie to my customers, yet because of people like you and your support of vague arbitrary laws, a well-intentioned person like myself who only wants to innocently deceive people within the limits of the law could suddenly find that his lies are actually illegal lies through no fault of his own!
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 20:19
|
|
|
Not sure if this is quite the right place for this, but this week the Supreme Court refused to hear Argentina's appeal of a court order forcing them to pay holdout bondholders who didn't exchange for devalued bonds after the country defaulted in 2003 (92% of them did). The order says if they pay anyone who took the new bonds, they also have to pay the holdouts, which would cost about half of Argentina's foreign reserves. The president is also ideologically opposed to paying the holdouts in full, and had a 30 minute speech broadcast nationwide on Tuesday saying that she won't submit to "extortion." No one is sure where this goes now, but they're trying not to enter a technical default if they don't have to (that would let them move the bonds out of US jurisdiction, from what I understand). This is a pretty good overview: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/19/us-argentina-debt-idUSKBN0ET1RK20140619
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 06:24
|
|
|
ScotusBlog has their usual liveblog of decisions today. http://live.scotusblog.com/Event/Live_blog_of_opinions__June_19_2014
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 14:48
|
|
|
gently caress yes, Alice Corp got decided as Patent ineligible. Gonna read this one...
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 15:13
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:gently caress yes, Alice Corp got decided as Patent ineligible. Gonna read this one... Unanimously too. It may also have invalidated all software patents. From the decision: This looks to be the key to Alice: the claims "do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself or effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. An instruction to apply the abstract idea ofintermediated settlement using some unspecified, generic computer is not “enough” to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Id., at ___. Pp. 14–16." axeil fucked around with this message at 15:17 on Jun 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 15:14
|
|
|
quote:Petitioner's claims to a computer system and a computer readable medium fail for substantially the same reasons. Petitioner conceded below that its media claims rise or fall with its method claims. En Banc Response Brief for Defendant-Appellant in No. 11 1301 (CA Fed.) p. 50, n. 3. As to its system claims, petitioner emphasizes that those claims recite "specific hardware"  configured to perform "specific computerized functions." Brief for Petitioner 53.But what petitioner characterizes as specific hardware - a "data processing system" with a "communications controller"  and "data storage unit"  for example, see App. 954,958, 1257 - is purely functional and generic. Nearly every computer will include a "communications controller"  and "data storage unit" capable of performing the basic calculation, storage, and transmission functions required by the method claims. See 717 F. 3d, at 1290 (Lourie, J., concurring). As a result, none of the hardware recited by the system claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers."  Id., at 1291 (quoting Bilski, 561 U. S., at 610–611). Well that's gonna have some serious ripple effects. Edit: one thing that I don't like is the apparent mix of novelty tests and 101 tests. From the characterization of Diehr they indicate that part of the patentability was in a novel inclusion of a specified thermocouple, but from the following it almost reads like if that thermocouple had been widely used as a computer control input, Diehr would fall under this decision: quote:
Shifty Pony fucked around with this message at 15:53 on Jun 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 15:35
|
|
|
axeil posted:Unanimously too. It may also have invalidated all software patents. Assholes in the valley are clinching so hard they're biting through chairs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 15:46
|
|
|
Supreme Court limited the breadth of Garcetti with Lane v. Franks. A good decision.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 16:04
|
|
|
I'm still reading through it, but I get the feeling it's not going to invalidate all software patents, provided you actually come up with a better way of doing something. It does look like it will invalidate all of the (what I consider at least) really bad ones. The patent-the-problem patents, where you describe a problem and say "solve it with a computer."
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 16:04
|
|
|
The giant elephant in the room is the question of if a generic computer programmed a particular way can impart structural novelty to the invention.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 16:12
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:I'm still reading through it, but I get the feeling it's not going to invalidate all software patents, provided you actually come up with a better way of doing something. It does look like it will invalidate all of the (what I consider at least) really bad ones. The patent-the-problem patents, where you describe a problem and say "solve it with a computer." I need to give it another couple of re-reads, but I agree that this decision isn't likely to change the status quo much. Patentees with inventions related to financial services, marketing, and other fields that existed before computers and only survived section 101 challenges based on "implement feature x using a processor" clauses are in trouble, but this is nothing new since Bilski, since passing the machine-or-transformation test hasn't been completely probative for a while. Should be back to business as usual for most of the software/electrical/computer science patent community, at least until we get another round of inconsistent Federal Circuit cases and wind up back in front of SCOTUS in a few years.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 16:18
|
|
|
axeil posted:Unanimously too. It may also have invalidated all software patents. Nah, but it invalidated "unpatentable obvious idea, but with a computer".
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 17:49
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:The giant elephant in the room is the question of if a generic computer programmed a particular way can impart structural novelty to the invention. Yeah, after going through it an example of a software based invention that would pass the new test is noticeably absent. The example from Diehr involved novel hardware so I don't include it. It is clear is that "with a computer" will not save otherwise unpatentable algorithms. What's not clear is what's left after that. It will be interesting to see what comes of the "human activity" controversy that seems evident in the concurrences.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 17:57
|
|
|
Yeah, guys, sorry. This isn't going to affect software patents much, if at all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 18:53
|
|
|
axeil posted:Unanimously too. It may also have invalidated all software patents. This looks a lot like the EPO requirement of a "technical effect," which isn't all that difficult to meet in the context of GUI patents by arguing ease of use.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 20:30
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Nah, but it invalidated "unpatentable obvious idea, but with a computer". Oh okay. So will this end the patent wars between Microsoft/Apple/Google/Samsung/Everyone Else or does nothing much change?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 20:57
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:gently caress yes, Alice Corp got decided as Patent ineligible. Gonna read this one... ahahahaha chaos reigns e: wait, no it doesn't, scotus sucks again WhiskeyJuvenile fucked around with this message at 21:06 on Jun 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 20:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 12:22 |
|
|
axeil posted:Oh okay. This won't impact those cases at all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 21:59
|
|