|
jeffersonlives posted:The key question for me here is congressional intent/statutory interpretation; I don't think there's a Supreme Court case if RFRA specifically excludes or includes corporations. I don't see this case in a "First Amendment rights" past RFRA way at all, at least not the Hobby Lobby corporate rights side of it (and the Conestoga Wood half of the consolidation that reached more of the constitutional issues that get at Citizens United has huge standing problems because it asserts the constitutional rights of the owners to get there). You're still seeming stuck on the constitutional question. It's not relevant to my point. I'm talking about RFRA rights. I'm saying that, absent an explicit statement in RFRA that it doesn't apply to corporations, this court will say that if an individual has a right under RFRA then a corporation will also have that right as an assembly of individuals. This, as I've said, is the same logic they used in CU - the fact that the underlying right is different between the two isn't relevant to their logic. I don't like the predicted decision, but I think it's a correct prediction of the court's eventual logic. If they hedge at all, it'll be by limiting it to closely held corporations.
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 22:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 18:51 |
|
|
twodot posted:Are you trying to make a legal or moral argument? Your argument is wrong on both counts, but this makes me think you are attempting a moral approach despite many legal references. It's meant to be a legal argument, but I'd be interested to know why you think it's a moral argument? To summarize my argument. A law (as applied to me) violates RFRA if it substantially burdens my free exercise of religion (and doesn't fit within an exception). I claim that doing X is prohibited by my religious beliefs. Therefore, I claim that if the government compels me to do X, the government has substantially burdened my free exercise of religion. The above argument is sound, but only if two things are true. First, X must actually be prohibited by my religious beliefs. I'm willing to grant the validity of my belief here for the sake of argument. Second, I must not routinely voluntarily do X . If I routinely do X voluntarily, then regardless of whether I believe X is wrong, my free exercise of religion already includes doing X. If my free exercise already includes doing X, then my free exercise is not burdened by telling me to do X. I routinely do X without compulsion. Therefore, compelling me to do X cannot substantially burden my exercise of religion, because my free exercise of religion already includes routinely doing X. If I was going to highlight a potential weakness in this argument, I can imagine some situation in which my choosing to do X has religious significance that is burdened when I am compelled to do X. But that only seems to arise in cases where the religious significance lies in the choice between X and not X, not the religious significance of X an not X in and of themselves. I don't think Hobby Lobby has argued that its free exercise is burdened because it has been robbed of the ability to overcome the temptation to cover abortions. Also, I'll concede that this would probably be an argument to be hashed out at the trial court level, since whether I actually practice my claimed religious beliefs is a factual question.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 22:12
|
|
|
Kalman posted:I'm saying that, absent an explicit statement in RFRA that it doesn't apply to corporations, this court will say that if an individual has a right under RFRA then a corporation will also have that right as an assembly of individuals. This, as I've said, is the same logic they used in CU - the fact that the underlying right is different between the two isn't relevant to their logic. Except of course it's relevant because nobody suggests corporations have all legal rights of a person. The Court doesn't even suggest they have all constitutional rights, nor does it suggest that the default state is that the corporation has the right.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 22:13
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:Except of course it's relevant because nobody suggests corporations have all legal rights of a person. The Court doesn't even suggest they have all constitutional rights, nor does it suggest that the default state is that the corporation has the right. Absent anything explicit in the statute saying they don't, where do you expect the court to derive an argument that they shouldn't inherit the rights of the associated individuals forming the corporation from?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 22:15
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:Except of course it's relevant because nobody suggests corporations have all legal rights of a person. The Court doesn't even suggest they have all constitutional rights, nor does it suggest that the default state is that the corporation has the right. This gets back to the question of "pass-through" rights. Volokh: quote:Let us focus on the three examples mentioned in the preceding post, but tied to closely held corporations. Imagine that a newly enacted law requires all markets to sell state lottery tickets. and say that a particular market is owned by a corporation that is wholly owned by members of a United Methodist family, who believe it’s against their religion for any business that they own, directly or indirectly, to sell lottery tickets. Or imagine the same as to a law requiring all markets to sell beer and wine, and owners of a Methodist or a Muslim family corporation object to this because they think selling wine is sinful. Or say that a law requires all gas stations to operate seven days a week, and say that a particular gas station is owned by a corporation owned by members of a Jewish or Seventh-Day Adventist family, who believe that it is wrong for any business that they own to operate on the Sabbath. quote:1. quote:2. quote:3. We can now return to the text of the RFRA. RFRA speaks generally of the rights of “persons,” and the Dictionary Act provides that, “unless the context indicates otherwise,” the word “person” “include[s] corporations … as well as individuals.” The context of RFRA — religious freedom — does indicate that the underlying rights being protected must be the rights of human beings, who can actually feel religious obligations. Obviously I highly disagree with the practical implications of this, but it's a straightforward combination of corporate law and the RFRA. The real problem is that the RFRA is a poorly-written bill that has far-reaching implications and that the PPACA did not exempt itself from it. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 22:29 on Dec 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 22:24
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Absent anything explicit in the statute saying they don't, where do you expect the court to derive an argument that they shouldn't inherit the rights of the associated individuals forming the corporation from? I'd argue that the government isn't taking rights. Instead, individuals are voluntarily relinquishing them to get some tax- and liability-advantaged state. I have a right to spend my money to support a church. But, I can't spend my IRA's money to support a church. I accepted restrictions when I put cash into a special account. I realize that the same argument could apply to Citizens United. I think they'll draw a line based on a group's purpose. Citizens United (the lobbying group) was an association created so people could combine their resources and advance a particular political view. A law saying, "people can spend individual money to promote a political video, but they can't coordinate and do it" creates a real burden on free-speech. In contrast Hobby Lobby is a for-profit corporation. It was chartered to create a legal separation between the Green's personal assets, and those assets that would be used to conduct business. The burden would be a lot less. (But this might be wishful thinking. I think it's unfortunate that Citizens applied to for-profit corporation. I can see removing restrictions on unions/lobbying groups. But corporations aren't really there to promote a political stance. If shareholders want to spend corporate money on lobbying, they should withdraw it, pay the tax, and then direct it to an appropriate lobbying group)
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 22:30
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Absent anything explicit in the statute saying they don't, where do you expect the court to derive an argument that they shouldn't inherit the rights of the associated individuals forming the corporation from? Well that's the interesting statutory interpretation question, isn't it? The 3rd Circuit rationale was basically "lol of course they didn't include corporations, that would be a loving ridiculous outcome" (and given the Chief Justice's vote in the other mandate case, don't underestimate this as a rationale in an ACA case where cleaner drafting presents no problems), the Western District of Oklahoma pointed out a lateral reference to standing in RFRA that makes no sense if corporations are included, the 6th Circuit just flat said that for-profits and their owners couldn't have standing for these kinds of RFRA claims, and the 9th Circuit actually ruled for Hobby Lobby but using a statutory interpretation model to get there through the Dictionary Act instead of just going "welp this is the default." Paul MaudDib posted:This gets back to the question of "pass-through" rights. Volokh: I'd be very careful of accepting Professor Volokh's RFRA roadmap (which is largely couched in hypotheticals) as a substantive prediction of the Supreme Court's holding here. He's not really arguing what you think he's arguing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 22:34
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:I'd be very careful of accepting Professor Volokh's RFRA roadmap (which is largely couched in hypotheticals) as a substantive prediction of the Supreme Court's holding here. He's not really arguing what you think he's arguing. Can you explain why he's not arguing what I think he's arguing, and give a counterargument or link a place I can find one? Again, I just can't see this court going anti-religion and anti-corporation. Which of the conservatives would swing against corporate power and religions and avoid taking a stab at a black Democratic president's signature achievement, and why? Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 22:48 on Dec 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 22:40
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Can you explain why he's not arguing what I think he's arguing, and give a counterargument or link a place I can find one? Professor Volokh is not arguing what he expects the outcome of this case to be. He is giving a walkthrough, as a libertarian law professor, aimed at the masses, of what his idea of the general issues of this case are - a series which he has not yet concluded and certainly does not reach the conclusion as of yet that this is in any way "straightforward." But this is very much someone who is kind of out there on some of this stuff (I mean, he's a loving law professor) throwing out hypos to illustrate how he thinks it should go, not how it will. Paul MaudDib posted:Again, I just can't see this court going anti-religion and anti-corporation. Which of the conservatives would swing against corporate power and religions and avoid loving over a black Democratic president's signature achievement, and why? Because they really don't always vote like this as if everything's a pop culture case, c.f. Chief Justice Roberts's plurality opinion in National Federation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 22:54
|
|
|
And you're going to have to find the Fifth Justice who's going to rule against Hobby Lobby; Kennedy hasn't joined the pro-choice side since Casey and Roberts has a murky history on abortion access in the lower rings too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 00:37
|
|
|
TinTower posted:And you're going to have to find the Fifth Justice who's going to rule against Hobby Lobby; Kennedy hasn't joined the pro-choice side since Casey and Roberts has a murky history on abortion access in the lower rings too. This isn't an abortion case at all. It's not even a little bit about abortion in the facts that don't really mean a whole lot except to the extent that the religious right attempts to conflate contraception and abortion, it's only about contraception coverage.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 04:53
|
|
|
Not My Leg posted:I claim that doing X is prohibited by my religious beliefs. Therefore, I claim that if the government compels me to do X, the government has substantially burdened my free exercise of religion.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 08:53
|
|
|
twodot posted:Morally, I understand why you might require your second test. What legal basis do you have for making the second requirement? A "substantial burden" to your religious rights is required. If you're being asked to do something you do all the time, clearly it's not a substantial burden.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 14:57
|
|
|
I don't think they'd rule in favor of a company that doesn't want any health care for their employees because the owners believe in healing prayer only. I don't think they're gonna rule in favor of Hobby Lobby's cert that women that work for them no matter the issue cannot get birth control. It's pure ignorance from a medical stand point that a 50 year old woman that is infertile but needs BC because of some issue should be denied it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 16:38
|
|
|
Korak posted:I don't think they'd rule in favor of a company that doesn't want any health care for their employees because the owners believe in healing prayer only. I don't think they're gonna rule in favor of Hobby Lobby's cert that women that work for them no matter the issue cannot get birth control. It's pure ignorance from a medical stand point that a 50 year old woman that is infertile but needs BC because of some issue should be denied it. It's easy to draw a distinction between the two: the RFRA allows a substantial burden on religious exercise if it's a "compelling governmental interest" and the "least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest". It is very easy to write a decision on the basis that health care is a compelling governmental interest, but contraceptive care specifically is not if that's how you want to rule.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 16:42
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:It's easy to draw a distinction between the two: the RFRA allows a substantial burden on religious exercise if it's a "compelling governmental interest" and the "least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest". It is very easy to write a decision on the basis that health care is a compelling governmental interest, but contraceptive care specifically is not if that's how you want to rule. Would the systemic costs (fiscal and social) of unplanned/unwanted pregnancies be sufficient? It sucks that the court can go "but just this one time" so that they can sleep easy knowing that allowing bosses to wield theocratic tyranny over their powerless employees is a one-off on paper as it becomes de facto precedent anyway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 18:47
|
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:Would the systemic costs (fiscal and social) of unplanned/unwanted pregnancies be sufficient? There's plenty of legitimate ways to say this is a compelling governmental interest. I'm not saying the position I outlined is correct or that it is what will happen. What I'm saying is that Korak's argument - which I read as essentially saying "they can't rule for Hobby Lobby here because they'd have to make a ruling that would be completely insane as applied here" is wrong, because there's an easy way they can draw a line between the two. You cannot rely on them upholding the contraception mandate with the theory that striking it down would let any religious group object to any medical procedure being covered: the law gives them the wiggle room to draw distinctions that pass the laugh test.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 19:10
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:This isn't an abortion case at all. It's not even a little bit about abortion in the facts that don't really mean a whole lot except to the extent that the religious right attempts to conflate contraception and abortion, it's only about contraception coverage. That's exactly why it is an abortion case. At the very least, it's a proxy war.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 20:57
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:A "substantial burden" to your religious rights is required. If you're being asked to do something you do all the time, clearly it's not a substantial burden.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 21:13
|
|
|
twodot posted:What's the legal basis for this? The standard of "something you do all the time" doesn't seem coherent to me, and generally, I don't see why being a lovely (or in this case, hypothetically unaware of science) Christian should allow the government to substantially burden sincere beliefs. Like I said, part of "substantial burden". The RFRA carves out exemptions for individuals, it doesn't overturn laws because they substantially burden one person's exercise of religion. You're assuming that substantial burden in the bolded part: I'm saying this is something that is evidence something is not a substantial burden (or the belief is not sincere). So if you go to court and tell them that it substantially burdens your exercise of religion for the government to compel you to do X, it is a reasonable inference that if you do X routinely then doing X does not, in fact, substantially burden your exercise of religion. To make a parallel to a similar sort of situation - if you say you're immune to the draft because you're a conscientious objector to the use of violence in all forms, if the government then provides evidence you get into brawls on a routine basis and have injured several people, that's a strong argument your supposed objection to the use of violence in all forms is bullshit. Likewise, if you go into court and tell them that paying for contraception is a substantial burden on your exercise of religion and a receipt showing you paying for birth control pills for yourself/your wife/whoever falls out of your pocket, that also strongly suggests your professed substantial burden is bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 21:23
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Likewise, if you go into court and tell them that paying for contraception is a substantial burden on your exercise of religion and a receipt showing you paying for birth control pills for yourself/your wife/whoever falls out of your pocket, that also strongly suggests your professed substantial burden is bullshit. To carry this a little further since people were asking about it above. This is why the science doesn't matter that much. You can have a sincere belief in something stupid, and believe it would be a burden to your religious activity. But yeah, being a lovely Christian matters. Substantial burden requires that you prove you are going to be forced to DO SOMETHING or NOT DO SOMETHING in such a way that this burdens your ability to practice your religion as you sincerely believe it to obligate you. The forcing has to be such that it goes against a belief you hold. I can't improve on evilweasel's examples but I can add that there's some significance in the burden being put on you. There's no burden in being forced to do something you do all the time - so being a lapsed <whatever you are> to the extent you normally ignore the prohibition you are trying to assert for protection, that matters here. Note this is different from someone who, a while back, had a spiritual change of heart and joined a convent/converted/whatever as long as you could show it's a burden to their contigious belief NOW and they're consistent in their current belief. It'd be up to the court what the timeframe would be, but you need to be able to produce a coherent narrative of "this is loving with my ability to practice my religion and I would totally not do this thing if left to my own devices". So inquiry into the advisability or scientific accuracy of their belief probably won't work as an argument before the actual court - but inquiry into their consistent adherence to the belief infringed would, sure. You can't grab the belief like a shield when it's convenient if there's proof you ignored it last week. This is like the one place where a test of the logical consistency of your complaint and your beliefs comes up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 21:38
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Like I said, part of "substantial burden". The RFRA carves out exemptions for individuals, it doesn't overturn laws because they substantially burden one person's exercise of religion. You're assuming that substantial burden in the bolded part: I'm saying this is something that is evidence something is not a substantial burden (or the belief is not sincere). Hobby Lobby is a craft store, not a medical research organization. It's not reasonable to expect them to know the detailed risks of every possible procedure before they're allowed to object to procedures with which they are aware of the scientific debate about the associated risks. I'd wager most people who aren't experts don't know that and it's a ridiculous standard to insist that a person have specialized knowledge in multiple fields in order to sincerely hold a belief. All Hobby Lobby has to say is "We didn't know that, we'll add that too, thanks." Congratulations, even less healthcare for women unless you get the judge to rule that amniocentesis is a compelling state interest so that's required. And in that case Hobby Lobby still wins with regard to the procedures they are suing over. The arguments that the other circuits used to deny the suit are better arguments. I don't know why this one matters to you so much, because even if it prevailed against Hobby Lobby it would set a precedent that other employers who excluded treatments you're talking about could still get exemptions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 21:51
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The arguments that the other circuits used to deny the suit are better arguments. I don't know why this one matters to you so much, because even if it prevailed against Hobby Lobby it would set a precedent that other employers who excluded treatments you're talking about could still get exemptions. I am making this argument because twodot is suggesting it's not a valid one. I have no idea where you got "this is the only argument that matters to me" from this discussion, it is the argument I'm discussing because it is the one someone is objecting to.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 22:02
|
|
|
The pope could come out and say "Hobby Lobby covering contraceptives doesn't make the owner a bad Christian" and it wouldn't matter to the people fighting to deny coverage.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 01:08
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:The pope could come out and say "Hobby Lobby covering contraceptives doesn't make the owner a bad Christian" and it wouldn't matter to the people fighting to deny coverage. The Greens aren't catholic so yeah it'd have no effect.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 01:29
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Like I said, part of "substantial burden". The RFRA carves out exemptions for individuals, it doesn't overturn laws because they substantially burden one person's exercise of religion. You're assuming that substantial burden in the bolded part: I'm saying this is something that is evidence something is not a substantial burden (or the belief is not sincere). I believe in a lot of cases, the corporations previously covered abortions without thinking about it, and the 'no abortion' policies are relatively new. Doesn't this mean that it's not an undue burden for those companies, since they shouldered that burden before?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 04:57
|
|
|
I just wanted to pop in and say this was one of the funniest and most informative OPs I've ever seen. Thanks for putting it together, The Warszawa! I had no idea how badass Ginsberg was/is. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 05:00
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I am making this argument because twodot is suggesting it's not a valid one. I have no idea where you got "this is the only argument that matters to me" from this discussion, it is the argument I'm discussing because it is the one someone is objecting to. Whoops sorry, I just assumed that what I was quoting was by the original poster of that argument, didn't notice you had jumped in on the merits. Still, the argument doesn't seem to accomplish anything even if it were accepted, since Hobby Lobby can plausibly claim ignorance since they're not experts in a specialized field and thus it doesn't impact their sincere belief. And the courts have been reluctant to wade in on the scientific issues, content to simply note that there is at least some controversy over the claims in scientific circles, which is enough to keep them from throwing out the suit for being totally ridiculous (like they might if they claimed that, say, vasectomies caused abortions).
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 05:07
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:I believe in a lot of cases, the corporations previously covered abortions without thinking about it, and the 'no abortion' policies are relatively new. Doesn't this mean that it's not an undue burden for those companies, since they shouldered that burden before? Thing is if they hadn't really examined their policy before they can convincingly claim ignorance of the effects of the health coverage they previously offered. You'd need to be able to make a convincing argument that they were at least properly aware of contraception being covered. Draw a parallel to say a new story coming out about Nike routinely using child slave labour to make it's running shoes. Would you call everyone that decided to start boycotting Nike hypocrites just trying to draw attention to themselves since they were perfectly fine buying those trainers before? After all the effect is the same and if they didn't spend time investigating the production processes involved in their clothing choices it must show that it's not something that troubles their conscience. Now of course I don't think that offering contraceptives as part of a general health plan does place an undue burden on Hobby Lobby as a corporation. It's still their individual employees' option to actually avail themselves of it. Although I wonder if you could draw an analogy to a summer camp run by buddhists that was required by law to provide meat options to guests/employees in their cafeterias? Does that cover similar legal grounds (assuming some similar legal question) especially if meals were part of an employees compensation? Obviously the impact on the employees would probably be less.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 07:45
|
|
|
MrNemo posted:Thing is if they hadn't really examined their policy before they can convincingly claim ignorance of the effects of the health coverage they previously offered. You'd need to be able to make a convincing argument that they were at least properly aware of contraception being covered. My argument is that they were incurious about it, though. quote:Draw a parallel to say a new story coming out about Nike routinely using child slave labour to make it's running shoes. Would you call everyone that decided to start boycotting Nike hypocrites just trying to draw attention to themselves since they were perfectly fine buying those trainers before? After all the effect is the same and if they didn't spend time investigating the production processes involved in their clothing choices it must show that it's not something that troubles their conscience. They'd be hypocrites if they were actually employing child labor themselves. I think that there's a difference between an individual consumer trying to track down the origins of a ton of different purchases and a company claiming it didn't really read through the whole insurance contract that carefully.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 14:27
|
|
|
SCOTUS granted cert and will review the Federal Circuit's CLS case relating to patent subject matter eligibility. Very exciting.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 19:16
|
|
|
gvibes posted:SCOTUS granted cert and will review the Federal Circuit's CLS case relating to patent subject matter eligibility. Very exciting. About time. CLS was an en banc abortion.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 19:40
|
|
|
I'm sort of hoping for a highly narrow ruling on CLS in absence of some middle road that calls bullshit on some of the more groan-inducing software/design patents. Software patents have a place, but the status quo is a drat plague on innovation lest someone independently design an intuitive UI element in an app and get atomized by the big fish because once you put an obvious and prior action on a touchscreen it loses all relevance and relation to physical mechanisms.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 20:24
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:My argument is that they were incurious about it, though. It's worth remembering that Hobby Lobby self insures, they do not offer a commercially insured plan. So it's not just a matter of Hobby Lobby not knowing what the insurer covers, Hobby Lobby is itself the insurer, and if it is going to use religious criteria to determine what treatments to cover it should have a duty to conduct a reasonable investigation into what treatments violate the religious criteria. Basically, I think a party should have a duty to conduct reasonable investigation into whether it is engaged in acts that it considers contrary to its religion before it can claim that being compelled to do those acts constitutes a substantial burden. I would argue that X is not a substantial burden on your free exercise if you don't take reasonable steps to determine whether you are routinely doing X. To be clear though, a duty to conduct a reasonable investigation is different than a duty to be all knowing about a field that requires substantial expertise. You should reasonably know that a pill called "The Abortion Pill: Causes Abortions 100% of the Time" actually causes abortions. It's unreasonable to require you to know the likelihood of causing an abortion for every medical treatment ever. Also, I don't think this is the best argument, or even necessarily a good argument. I only stepped in to defend it because people were suggesting it has no validity at all. I disagree.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 21:02
|
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:I'm sort of hoping for a highly narrow ruling on CLS in absence of some middle road that calls bullshit on some of the more groan-inducing software/design patents. Software patents have a place, but the status quo is a drat plague on innovation lest someone independently design an intuitive UI element in an app and get atomized by the big fish because once you put an obvious and prior action on a touchscreen it loses all relevance and relation to physical mechanisms. The Supreme Court punted in Bilski to begin with (it's a conclusion without any reasoning whatsoever), which didn't help matters much.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 21:10
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:The Supreme Court punted in Bilski to begin with (it's a conclusion without any reasoning whatsoever), which didn't help matters much. Well, that's loving wonderful. There's probably going to be a future case to distinguish output from operation and design, but at least this case could clearly separate the software from the hardware as a distinct device/tool/'machine' as long as it was specific enough to require significant detail to be considered a tool by which the general purpose computer is made to operate and remain operating within the parameters of the software. That way the bullshit abstraction some software patents use to basically patent all ways to achieve a certain output (I.e. like patenting the chemical process by which iron and carbon become steel instead of, say, the Bessemer process) are possibly invalidated while specific aspects within software (such as an encryption process or a compression algorithm) remain intact and can define a patent.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 22:32
|
|
|
Really, they should just apply 112-6 algorithm disclosure requirements to all software patents that claim implementation of a function via a general purpose computer. That'd do most of the necessary work.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 00:55
|
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:Software patents have a place I disagree that patents of any kind have any place. Yeah, I know. It's probably untenable, and I'm most likely going to be shown via unintended consequences why this is a dumb opinion. But Edison himself was a notorious patent troll and abuser of the system, and I don't really think they've gotten much better since.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 07:44
|
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:Well, that's loving wonderful. Do the Supremes have anywhere close to the degree of technical expertise they would need to write a decision that would accomplish this?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 08:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 18:51 |
|
|
Knowing some people who have been hosed over because big business was able to ignore their patents and drop more cash than they could ever afford in court, I agree that the patent system is broken. But in the face of financial coercion, I don't think the right answer is to let the free market work it out. Instead we need a way to effectively enforce patent law in such a way that it doesn't favor the insanely powerful and wealthy against everyone else. It's basically "The problems with Capitalism" and the answer isn't "Let's get rid of regulation to make things better!"
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 08:14
|
|