|
Healthcare round 3, anyone? https://twitter.com/AP_Politics/status/730801243451490304
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 17:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 15:58 |
|
|
Slate Action posted:Healthcare round 3, anyone? This time, will be DIFFERENT! ....It's not different at all!
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
Slate Action posted:Healthcare round 3, anyone? This is certainly an attention getting headline from the AP with absolutely no story or information otherwise. Good job AP.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 18:02
|
|
|
Courtesy of the USPOL thread, a little more info:Reuters posted:A U.S. judge on Thursday ruled in favor of congressional Republicans who challenged the Obama administration's implementation of President Barack Obama's healthcare law.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 18:03
|
|
|
Slate Action posted:Courtesy of the USPOL thread, a little more info: oh,  Ok that's gonna get flipped on it's head pretty quick. I'd like to read the full opinion because it seems pretty silly.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 18:05
|
|
|
Here is the opinion. I'm thumbing through it now. The general gist is that congress did not appropriate any funds to pay insurers under section 1402. That's the only part that's being challenged, and I figure that even if it did hold up insurance agencies would push through legislation to get it fixed because it's coming out of their pockets. https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2014cv1967-73
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 18:16
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:I agree with you about copyright burdens being unfixed by statute and potentially movable. I don't feel, though, that a trademark case that bears zero analogous facts is enough to shift the burden to oracle. KP represents a trademark issue that can't really occur in a copyright situation. the holding wasn't fact-specific but applies to any trademark infringement case: the markholder must disprove fair use
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 18:24
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:the holding wasn't fact-specific but applies to any trademark infringement case: the markholder must disprove fair use I'm sorry I don't have the gumption to argue about this today. I think it's a giant stretch to apply KP to the google case but I just don't care anymore. On the subject of that ACA case, I'm pretty sure this will get overturned on appeal and won't even make it to the SCOTUS.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Here is the opinion. I'm thumbing through it now. The general gist is that congress did not appropriate any funds to pay insurers under section 1402. That's the only part that's being challenged, and I figure that even if it did hold up insurance agencies would push through legislation to get it fixed because it's coming out of their pockets. If the insurance companies have to raise premiums because they're not being reimbursed directly under 1402, won't the subsidies (which are explicitly permanently appropriated) also increase to make up the difference? This seems just like a quibble over which pot of money gets used, not whether they'll get paid at all.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 18:32
|
|
|
Munkeymon posted:I just want to say I agree completely with all of that Same. Edit: especially on how it'll take congress to unfuck this. God, I wish our politics would be boring for a while. Blue Footed Booby fucked around with this message at 18:47 on May 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 18:42
|
|
|
saintonan posted:If the insurance companies have to raise premiums because they're not being reimbursed directly under 1402, won't the subsidies (which are explicitly permanently appropriated) also increase to make up the difference? This seems just like a quibble over which pot of money gets used, not whether they'll get paid at all. Yes, but they can only raise premium rates in the future, so they would be lose out on the 2014, 2015, and 2016 payments. Even then, the insurance companies would break even but there would be winners and losers among individual members. Also, apparently the insurance companies may be able to sue the government under the Tucker Act to recover the unfunded subsidy.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 18:58
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:On the subject of that ACA case, I'm pretty sure this will get overturned on appeal and won't even make it to the SCOTUS. SCOTUSblog is less sure about that, but also says that the fate of ACA is more dependent on A.) the result of the birth control mandate case and B.) the result of the Presidential election.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
Slate Action posted:Healthcare round 3, anyone? Please stop posting SCOTUS related stuff in the SCOTUS thread, you're interrupting the latest derail.  But really, this will get overturned on appeal and hopefully it's Garland writing for the majority if his confirmation ends up being ignored through the rest of the year and Clinton appoints someone else. Considering the judge's own argument is basically "well yes Congress did greenlight this program's creation buuuut they didn't give a permanent blank check to pay for it there for payments are Unconstitutional" seems like a pretty tortured argument to make.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 22:30
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Considering the judge's own argument is basically "well yes Congress did greenlight this program's creation buuuut they didn't give a permanent blank check to pay for it there for payments are Unconstitutional" seems like a pretty tortured argument to make. Yea. At worst wouldn't a reasonable ruling be that they're suspended until Congress authorizes payment? Or are the subsidies one of the kinds of 'outflows' that can be actually paid for after the fact?
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 22:43
|
|
|
Communist Zombie posted:Yea. At worst wouldn't a reasonable ruling be that they're suspended until Congress authorizes payment? Or are the subsidies one of the kinds of 'outflows' that can be actually paid for after the fact? Congress won't authorize payment, they are hoping without the payment the insurance market becomes destabilized so they can abolish obamacare. It's not clear to me that even if they win it would matter because it might be too late by then, these payments are supposed to phase out.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 23:41
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Congress won't authorize payment, they are hoping without the payment the insurance market becomes destabilized so they can abolish obamacare. I'm not sure what you mean by phase out, the cost sharing subsidy that congress defunded is supposed to continue each year forever. edit: Also, I wouldn't expect it to destabilize the market. If my understanding of the calculations is correct, it would lead to: "overpriced" Silver plans -> actuarial imbalance between Silver plan and other plans -> higher 36B subsidies for ALL plans -> cheaper individual premiums for plat/gold/bronze plans -> increased government spending esquilax fucked around with this message at 00:04 on May 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 23:46
|
|
|
esquilax posted:I'm not sure what you mean by phase out, the cost sharing subsidy that congress defunded is supposed to continue each year forever. Huh, I seem to be thinking of something completely different. Odd, my mistake.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2016 00:02
|
|
|
There's a good chance it goes down on standing on appeal too, since the courts have generally frowned on legislators suing the executive branch; the usual reasoning is that they don't really have a particularized injury.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2016 04:54
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Considering the judge's own argument is basically "well yes Congress did greenlight this program's creation buuuut they didn't give a permanent blank check to pay for it there for payments are Unconstitutional" seems like a pretty tortured argument to make. Bush appointee, tortured argument - hah, good one.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2016 06:34
|
|
|
blackmongoose posted:There's a good chance it goes down on standing on appeal too, since the courts have generally frowned on legislators suing the executive branch; the usual reasoning is that they don't really have a particularized injury. Butthurt is an injury and the only cure for it is repealing ACA. To keep it in place would be to deny medical care for a pre-existing condition.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2016 18:14
|
|
|
blackmongoose posted:There's a good chance it goes down on standing on appeal too, since the courts have generally frowned on legislators suing the executive branch; the usual reasoning is that they don't really have a particularized injury. Also, it goes to the DC circuit which is heavily liberal, and then to the Supreme Court to uphold the DC Circuit 4-4.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2016 18:16
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Also, it goes to the DC circuit which is heavily liberal, and then to the Supreme Court to uphold the DC Circuit 4-4. Thank god for the one time Reid grew a spine
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Also, it goes to the DC circuit which is heavily liberal, and then to the Supreme Court to uphold the DC Circuit 4-4. Scalia is dead. He was the in the minority on PPACA rulings. If this goes to SCOTUS it'll come back with a 5-3 against the house.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2016 18:24
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Scalia is dead. He was the in the minority on PPACA rulings. If this goes to SCOTUS it'll come back with a 5-3 against the house. This would be infinitely better. Seeing Roberts rule in favor of the ACA yet again will just further drive the right wing in to a frothy rage while having him suddenly go against it for a 4-4 ruling would hugely embolden the GOP.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
Scalia once again helping further the cause of LGBTQ (more T and Q in this case anyway). The Late Honorable Antonin Scalia posted:[N]othing in Title VII necessarily bars a claim of discrimination ‘because of … sex’ merely because the plaintiff and the defendant … are of the same sex. [M]ale-on-male sexual harassment in the workplace was assuredly not the principal evil Congress was concerned with when it enacted Title VII. But statutory prohibitions often go beyond the principal evil to cover reasonably comparable evils.  http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/a-scalia-decision-sets-the-precedent-for-why-hb2-is-illegal/481569/
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2016 19:38
|
|
|
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/05/suns-jonathan-schwartz-at-trial-java-was-free-android-had-no-licensing-problem/ Oracle's lawyers sound like total shitheads. Also, out of curiosity, what would it take to overturn the nonsensical ruling that APIs are copyrightable?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
tekz posted:http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/05/suns-jonathan-schwartz-at-trial-java-was-free-android-had-no-licensing-problem/ quote:Also, out of curiosity, what would it take to overturn the nonsensical ruling that APIs are copyrightable?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:It's literally their job to give their side the best representation possible, and discrediting the opposition's witnesses is part of that. The issue they are trying to discredit is the fact that Sun's own CEO has said there was nothing they could bring against Google for using the Java API And that Oracle's acquisition of Sun scared away customers.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2016 20:04
|
|
tekz posted:http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/05/suns-jonathan-schwartz-at-trial-java-was-free-android-had-no-licensing-problem/ Not the ruling, try again, find better sources of information. We've been discussing this for an extended period in the past few pages; Kalman's posts may be useful in this regard. Tech and advocacy sites are not a good source of information on IP legal issues. Kalman posted:Right. You can copy the underlying facts in Java's libraries - you just can't copy the overall structure and sequence and organization of the libraries. That's what the ruling was.
|
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Not the ruling, try again, find better sources of information. We've been discussing this for an extended period in the past few pages; Kalman's posts may be useful in this regard. Tech and advocacy sites are not a good source of information on IP legal issues. The federal circuit's opinion says that, in addition to the organization of the 37 APIs, that the "7000 lines of declaring code" (paraphrased; also equated to "headers" in the opinion) are also copyrighted. https://www.eff.org/files/2014/11/10/oracle_v_google_13-1021.opinion.5-7-2014.1.pdf
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2016 20:20
|
|
|
ulmont posted:The federal circuit's opinion says that, in addition to the organization of the 37 APIs, that the "7000 lines of declaring code" (paraphrased; also equated to "headers" in the opinion) are also copyrighted. Yes. As a whole. Not individually.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2016 21:28
|
|
|
Each header file is also copyrighted. If the API itself is not copyright able then all Google needs to do is have different comments.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2016 21:34
|
|
ulmont posted:The federal circuit's opinion says that, in addition to the organization of the 37 APIs, that the "7000 lines of declaring code" (paraphrased; also equated to "headers" in the opinion) are also copyrighted. The EFF link is not filling me with confidence regarding how you're interpreting the decision.
|
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 00:15
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The EFF link is not filling me with confidence regarding how you're interpreting the decision. quote:Because we conclude that the declaring code and the structure, sequence, and organization of the API packages are entitled to copyright protection, we reverse the district court’s copyrightability determination Not that much to interpret, but appreciate the ad hom. quote:Every package consists of two types of source code— what the parties call (1) declaring code; and (2) implementing code. Declaring code is the expression that identifies the prewritten function and is sometimes referred to as the “declaration” or “header.” As the district court explained, the “main point is that this header line of code introduces the method body and specifies very precisely the inputs, name and other functionality.” Id. at 979-80. The expressions used by the programmer from the declaring code command the computer to execute the associated implementing code, which gives the computer the step-by-step instructions for carrying out the declared function. Some more context above. ulmont fucked around with this message at 00:46 on May 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 00:42
|
|
|
Jealous Cow posted:Scalia once again helping further the cause of LGBTQ (more T and Q in this case anyway). Would it be hilarious or sad if in 100 years, through repeated quoting of Scalia for at leats partial ironic effect, the general opinion of Antonin Scalia is that he was a progressive voice for change in the waning days of discrimination based on sexual orientation and identity? Gyges fucked around with this message at 01:38 on May 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 01:35
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Would it be hilarious or sad if in 100 years, through repeated quoting of Scalia for at leats partial ironic effect, the general opinion of Antonin Scalia is that he was a progressive voice for change in the waning days of discrimination based on sexual orientation and identity? One can dream. Maybe we can get a statue of him with a plaque saying how he was a leader of LGBTQ rights. Then we could build a power plant over his grave to capture all the free energy from his spinning corpse.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 02:27
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Would it be hilarious or sad if in 100 years, through repeated quoting of Scalia for at leats partial ironic effect, the general opinion of Antonin Scalia is that he was a progressive voice for change in the waning days of discrimination based on sexual orientation and identity? Based on how Colbert rehabilitated Nixon's image, it'll only take 30 years.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 03:35
|
|
ulmont posted:Not that much to interpret, but appreciate the ad hom. Congrats! You're still interpreting the decision's application of copyright wrong. See Kalman's post and, again, the previous ten or so pages of the thread. vvvv Just act as if I posted this again for each of your posts, ok? Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 04:45 on May 15, 2016 |
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 04:27
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Congrats! You're still interpreting the decision's application of copyright wrong. See Kalman's post and, again, the previous ten or so pages of the thread. Have you read the opinion? Did you see the part where the court rejects Google's attempt to apply the short phrases doctrine to defeat the copyright ability of the declaring code? The declaring code is explicitly noted to be copyright able separately from the arrangement of the APIs.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 04:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 15:58 |
|
|
ulmont posted:Have you read the opinion? Did you see the part where the court rejects Google's attempt to apply the short phrases doctrine to defeat the copyright ability of the declaring code? The declaring code is explicitly noted to be copyright able separately from the arrangement of the APIs. I have read the opinion. "By dissecting the individual lines of declaring code at issue into short phrases, the district court further failed to recognize that an original combination of elements can be copyrightable." It's explicitly about the declaring code in the context of the entire API and the only way to arrive at the assumption otherwise is to have failed to read 90% of the short phrases analysis in the Federal circuit opinion. Like when the Fed Cir explicitly says "because Oracle 'exercised creativity in the selection and arrangement of the method declarations when it created the API packages and wrote the relevant declaring code, they contain protectable expression that is entitled to copyright protection." The short phrases in the declaring code are copyrightable because they are part of the overall structure.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 04:53
|
|