|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:What is "undue hardship"? Seems fairly vague to me. More or less, does it create an unreasonable burden or expense for you to accommodate. Wearing a headscarf is going to be hard to justify not accommodating, on the other hand not drawing depictions of people or animals is going to be pretty easy to justify not accommodating in your caricature business. Obviously most things are going to fall in between those two, but it's generally a question of if accommodating a religious practice is really going to hurt you, or are you just being an rear end.
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 01:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 16:49 |
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:Hmmm, those both sound really vague. It seems like "undue hardship" could mean almost anything you wanted it to. Anything can mean almost anything if you want it to, that's a pointless statement. You're never going to write a good law for a subject like this that doesn't require the judges to use discretion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 02:01
|
|
|
I know this is a minefield of internet autist libertarianism I'm entering here, but is there any legitimate reason computer software is patented rather than copyrighted beyond more money for software companies?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 02:05
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:I know this is a minefield of internet autist libertarianism I'm entering here, but is there any legitimate reason computer software is patented rather than copyrighted beyond more money for software companies? Computer software is copyrighted.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 02:07
|
|
|
Okay, never mind. I'm dumb
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 02:28
|
|
|
In (pretty rare) cases you can get a patent on software as well, but it's the exception rather than the rule. Every computer program you make is automatically copyrighted, but it's a relatively high burden to get a patent and you have to affirmatively apply for it. There have definitely been lovely software patents issued, but there have been a lot of lovely patents in general issued and it's more a need for general reform of the patent system than a perticular issue with software patents (except for the large number of "obvious as hell poo poo, but with the internet" that snuck through the PTO a while ago. As the above discussions over what, exactly, counts as patentable, drawing the line is really hard and a big debate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 02:34
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:Hmmm, those both sound really vague. It seems like "undue hardship" could mean almost anything you wanted it to. It's almost like there's a loving court and a shitload of precedent for that court to draw on when deciding whether a given hardship is undue.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 02:47
|
|
|
And if a judge strays too far from society there's the check/balance of electing a different judge! 
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 05:26
|
|
|
fosborb posted:And if a judge strays too far from society there's the check/balance of electing a different judge! No, that's what the appellate process is for. Judicial elections are dumb. WORMS.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 12:12
|
|
|
Ugh, when is Burwell v. King coming out? I want to know if I have to give back my Obamacare money or not.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 17:42
|
|
|
That may be the last decision they issue, even before Obergfell.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:That may be the last decision they issue, even before Obergfell. That sounds ominous.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 22:10
|
|
|
I would expect Obergfell on the 24th and King on the 29th. I highly doubt they'll do both on the same day.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 00:12
|
|
|
CommanderApaul posted:I would expect Obergfell on the 24th and King on the 29th. I highly doubt they'll do both on the same day. I'm hoping for Obergfell on the 24th, because if it goes how everyone expects there will be one hell of a Pride weekend to celebrate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 00:20
|
|
|
King before Obergfell. 29th and 30th, respectively.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 02:07
|
|
|
Obergefell, then King on the same day. For maximum emotional roller coaster 
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 05:15
|
|
|
Gay marriage bonanza followed immediately by gutting Obamacare (preferably on the same day) would be the highest level troll possible, so that's my bet on what will happen.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 05:19
|
|
|
Are we up for a 'tick' (upholding constitutionality of the no-coverage penalty) or 'tock' (Shitizens) this time?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 05:29
|
|
|
They're not really going to gut Obamacare right? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 05:34
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:They're not really going to gut Obamacare right? What does your heart tell you
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 05:40
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:What does your heart tell you That the Republicans want to keep the Senate, are scared of a massive backlash against them if the subsidies go away, and would rather been seen trying to fight Obamacare without actually doing any damage to it or themselves.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 05:41
|
|
|
So do the conservative judges communicate with conservative elected officials? Or are the justices just tuning on the political pulse by themselves?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 05:43
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:So do the conservative judges communicate with conservative elected officials? Or are the justices just tuning on the political pulse by themselves? Everybody attends the same parties and clubs...
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 05:45
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:That the Republicans want to keep the Senate, are scared of a massive backlash against them if the subsidies go away, and would rather been seen trying to fight Obamacare without actually doing any damage to it or themselves. Having the court kill subsidies gives them plausible deniability and an opening to be the ones who 'fix the mess.'
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 05:46
|
|
|
I don't see the Supreme Court unmaking Obamacare in the fires of Mt. Roberts doing much damage to the Republican party in future elections. That would require the general public to understand how the Supreme Court works, how politically motivated it is, and just generally have a memory longer than a few weeks. Also the Democrats would have to be good at messaging. None of those things are true.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 05:49
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Having the court kill subsidies gives them plausible deniability and an opening to be the ones who 'fix the mess.' I'm not sure Roberts would be willing to take one for the team. I don't know, I could see them pulling all of that after the election, but not before.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 05:50
|
|
|
Wasn't the court taking up the King case in the first place seen as Roberts having changed his mind (again) and thus the fifth vote needed to take out Obamacare having manifested?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 05:51
|
|
|
Yeah they could rewrite the bill as they pleased and dare Obama to veto it. "We tried to fix the bill but the president won't let us". Well theoretically they could if they don't repeat the debt ceiling circus of being unable to agree on a single bill within their own party, and having to go to the Democrats for help
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 05:53
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yeah they could rewrite the bill as they pleased and dare Obama to veto it. "We tried to fix the bill but the president won't let us".
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 05:55
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:That the Republicans want to keep the Senate, are scared of a massive backlash against them if the subsidies go away, and would rather been seen trying to fight Obamacare without actually doing any damage to it or themselves. If the ACA is gutted we're going to have a year and a half of most media outlets parroting the GOP's line of "LOOKING HOW loving TERRIBLE OBAMACARE IS" and that'll be used to bludgeon the Democrats. The amount of damage the GOP did to Democrats over the ACA site's rollout will be a loving joke compared to the attack stuff they have lined up if/when the ACA is gutted. The GOP is better at this underhanded poo poo than the Dems are at countering it and both sides know this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 07:36
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Are we up for a 'tick' (upholding constitutionality of the no-coverage penalty) or 'tock' (Shitizens) this time? Both. We get a tick with gay marriage, a tock with killing Obamacare. scaevola posted:I can't see such a thing get past cloture in the Senate, though, so no president-shaming. But they CAN and WILL Democrat-shame. See the previous post for the game-plan.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 07:45
|
|
|
So, I'd like to jump back to the API copyrightability in the Oracle vs Google case. One thing I noticed the other day is that there already seems to be someone else arguing for it (or something much more similar) in the GPL. The GPL is generally understood to apply to derivative works, where a project that uses any gpled code must also be gpled or they are in violation of the GPL. This even occurs when a project merely dynamically links to a GPL library (hence the need for the LGPL). So, when a program dynamically links against a library, it doesn't copy the library's code into itself but rather makes a reference to the code within itself that the OS can see, and then load the library into memory and map the pages from said memory into the program's memory space. There's only two ways I can think of where this process would make the program a require the program in question to be gpl:
Is there another way the gpl could force a program that links to gpl libraries to itself be gpl? If there isn't, option A is clearly preferable, since B would have the same effect as A (even though it may not be the same in spirit) while being MUCH more onerous.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 08:04
|
|
|
The GPL is a virus.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 12:13
|
|
|
Goddamn I thought we were past patent chat.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 13:11
|
|
|
Condiv posted:So, I'd like to jump back to the API copyrightability in the Oracle vs Google case. One thing I noticed the other day is that there already seems to be someone else arguing for it (or something much more similar) in the GPL. The GPL is generally understood to apply to derivative works, where a project that uses any gpled code must also be gpled or they are in violation of the GPL. This even occurs when a project merely dynamically links to a GPL library (hence the need for the LGPL). So, when a program dynamically links against a library, it doesn't copy the library's code into itself but rather makes a reference to the code within itself that the OS can see, and then load the library into memory and map the pages from said memory into the program's memory space. There's only two ways I can think of where this process would make the program a require the program in question to be gpl: B is part of the standard reason - transient copies are still copies. The other reason is that incorporation of a work into your own work, even transformed, is a derivative of that work, so incorporation of the GPL library creates a derivative work of the GPL library, which is also an act of infringement.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 13:43
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:The GPL is a virus.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 13:48
|
|
|
Condiv posted:Is there another way the gpl could force a program that links to gpl libraries to itself be gpl? If there isn't, option A is clearly preferable, since B would have the same effect as A (even though it may not be the same in spirit) while being MUCH more onerous. It's still actually utilizing the libraries, I think the API case is a different issue entirely The closest analogy that I can think of to your hypothetical is probably the Duke Nukem maps case There's no copy being made, but the use of the protected material/libraries to create/enable a new work is what's protected
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 13:50
|
|
|
Deceptive Thinker posted:It's still actually utilizing the libraries, I think the API case is a different issue entirely So then I'm mystified as to why people are so angry about APIs possibly being copyrightable, this stuff is already making it impossible to interface with a copyrighted library or system you haven't been given license to use.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 14:01
|
|
|
Condiv posted:So then I'm mystified as to why people are so angry about APIs possibly being copyrightable, this stuff is already making it impossible to interface with a copyrighted library or system you haven't been given license to use. Instead of creating a link from Program A to Library B through API X, they are trying to replace Library B with Library C but still use the same API X The question is whether that interface pipeline is copyrightable
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 14:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 16:49 |
|
|
Condiv posted:So then I'm mystified as to why people are so angry about APIs possibly being copyrightable, this stuff is already making it impossible to interface with a copyrighted library or system you haven't been given license to use. You can[1] still freely interface with another implementation of the same API that's not GNU-licensed. Aforementioned android for example has its own libc, which is compatible enough to use some of the software that's normally used with GNU libc. Edit: Open-source people care about this a great deal since APIs are often created by commercial vendors (think Microsoft, or Apple), and they want to prevent the vendor from being able to 'lock in' a market via a legally-granted monopoly on the API. Linux is also basically an independent implementation of UNIX APIs. [1] Under Google's interpretation of the law, that is. OddObserver fucked around with this message at 14:12 on Jun 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 14:09
|
|
