|
evilweasel posted:The issue is that this isn't actually a constitutional case. The Supreme Court has already held that the 1st Amendment gives you very few rights to challenge a generally applicable law on the basis that as applied to you it violates your 1st Amendment rights. The test case was a peyote ban: the drug wasn't banned to interfere in Native American religious ceremonies and was just a general drug ban, they argued that it violated their religious freedom to ban a drug they needed for their religion, and lost. The issue I have with the Circuit Court's reasoning is, of course, that even assuming that a closely-held company blah blah blah owners' rights under RFRA, I don't think they met the substantial burden required. Like, yeah, sure, it's burdensome, but it's surely not substantial due to the numerous ways the owners can still express their religious disapproval of whatever.
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2013 00:32
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 09:45 |
|
|
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
|
|
|
Chuu posted:You could find literally tens of thousands of practitioners that could testify that the current level of disclosure in patents forces undue experimentation; which hopefully would lead them to the right place. The claims have to be both enabled and sufficiently described. Which is to say, the specification has to describe the invention with sufficient particularity to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice it. In patent software, the situation generally is that ideas are trivial to implement once described: the issue is coming up with the idea in the first place. Patents protect ideas not implementations, so software patents really are working as intended.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2013 13:04
|
|
|
StarMagician posted:Do the Supremes have anywhere close to the degree of technical expertise they would need to write a decision that would accomplish this? No
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2013 13:05
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Not to mention, patents actually aren't supposed to protect ideas, they're supposed to protect implementations. That's why when someone claims something functionally (by saying what a component does, rather than what it is) we limit them to the structures disclosed in the specification. Patents are supposed to protect ideas, but they can also protect implementations. It's the difference between functional claiming on the first hand and means-plus-function claiming on the other: a means-plus-function claim does require a disclosed algorithm; functional claiming does not. The difference is also in what's patentable: carrying out a known process by novel means is fairly simple to claim as means-plus-function with corresponding disclosure, but the claims only cover the disclosure and its structural equivalents.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2013 19:45
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Make the use of private lawyers illegal in patent law. Probably an unconstitutional deprivation of due process.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2013 02:07
|
|
|
http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3592957 Shut up about patents
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2013 00:04
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:How did they defend that? They can only border search at borders and international airports http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6933260753627774699 WhiskeyJuvenile fucked around with this message at 01:15 on Jan 2, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2014 00:38
|
|
|
Administrative law should be taught in high school.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2014 13:45
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2K-8FJ114kU
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2014 16:24
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Doug Laycock at UVA is representing him now, but Holt was pro se through the trial and appellate courts. And lost 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2014 03:42
|
|
|
twodot posted:I don't think the judge said their facts were wrong He totally did
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2014 13:33
|
|
|
What about Kosher pizza places?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2014 18:10
|
|
|
esquilax posted:The tax advantages come because the benefit of the health insurance is not taxable to the employee. It costs the employer the same to give the employee a $10,000 health plan or a $10,000 bump in salary, but the $10,000 bump in salary would only provide ~$5,000 or $6,000 of benefit to the employee because they have to pay taxes on it. Probably also benefits the employer, because they're not paying their share of taxes on it either, I don't think?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2014 18:26
|
|
|
esquilax posted:No issues with the rest of your post but the bolded portion is a poor interpretation that I hear a lot. They can't prevent employees from using "their compensation" on Plan B or any other contraceptive methods, or even an actual abortion. What they are doing is making sure it is not included in the health plan that they offer to the employee. If a company didn't cover Viagra or nose jobs under their health plan, you wouldn't say they are telling their employees how their compensation could be used, would you? Yes?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2014 19:36
|
|
|
esquilax posted:Implicit in that statement is a moral judgement No there isn't
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
quote:Former lobbyist Jack Abramoff disagrees with the Supreme Court's April 2 ruling on campaign finance limits, which knocked down the limit donors can give to a political candidate. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/17/jack-abramoff-supreme-court-campaign-finance_n_5169510.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000013&ir=Politics
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2014 16:48
|
|
|
Sotomayor is easily the best justice in the history of the country already, so Obama done good.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2014 12:21
|
|
|
If they pull another Bilski, no wonder the Federal Circuit does is own thing
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2014 12:54
|
|
|
Also the Federal Circuit has a reputation for basically doing whatever the hell it wants and ignoring the Supreme Court.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2014 13:42
|
|
|
the future Sotomayor court will be tits
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2014 04:43
|
|
|
you're forgetting when she gets reappointed by mecha-Clinton in neo-DC in 2033
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2014 04:44
|
|
|
AmiYumi posted:Yes. And? It's not like ignoring/sleeping through them makes for better jurisprudence. It certainly doesn't make for worse.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2014 19:27
|
|
|
Kalman posted:What, like the U.S. Reports, which are the authoritative final version and are a public publication of SCOTUS decisions? Well, we do live in the 21st century, and the Supreme Court is more than welcome to, as head of the federal court system, establish its own electronic publication system bypassing the private reporters.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2014 04:15
|
|
|
Qualified immunity could be withdrawn by the state, because it exists as an extension of state immunity, which is waivable.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2014 21:33
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Dying for Madison's patent profits
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2014 02:14
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
gently caress it I already rejected my first application under Alice Corp because I really don't have good art and our 101 guidance is still shot and this really shouldn't be patented even though it's the 4th continuation reciting basically the same invention as three issued patents but the law finally caught up.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2014 01:14
|
|
|
Kalman posted:It'll depend on the specifics of the patent, really - algorithm patents were already (theoretically) not allowed, but patents that use an algorithm to do some function (e.g., public key cryptography to exchange secured email) were and likely still will be fine. It was pretty much a status quo decision. Preempting every practical application of an abstract idea
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2014 12:11
|
|
|
Yeah the patent office doesn't look fondly on no-reference 103 rejections. I know; I've tried.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2014 14:15
|
|
|
I've failed sig twice because of poo poo like that so welp
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2014 14:44
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:After some googling it appears that I was tricked by the marriage equality thread when Whisky Juvenile posting that without citing it and then didn't look closely when I found the source 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2014 03:39
|
|
|
Magres posted:So just how bullshit is the ACA ruling? Like it sounds like a whole lot of bullshit, but someone in the USPol thread was saying that laws are normally drafted to read 'the state or federal government' and that this shouldn't have been possible but was because of a drafting issue Totally bullshit. It's a specious reading of the law that makes no sense given the statute as a whole, and you have to actually want ACA to fail in order to reach the conclusion that they did.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2014 16:58
|
|
|
Kalman posted:It should have been drafted more clearly. Of course, laws have drafting errors frequently and courts often correct for them. The point I was making in the other thread is that "State", in federal laws, typically does not mean the federal government. That said, the reading they took was contrary to the way you would normally interpret that provision for other reasons (eg language in other parts of the bill, logic) so it's an incorrect reading of the PPACA. Agreed; I think the 4th Circuit concurrence is correct: the statute means that federal exchanges get the subsidies. However, even if that's wrong, the statute's at best ambiguous, and Chevron deference applies, which means that the IRS's determination that federal exchanges get the subsidies also wins the day. I don't see any way to get to the "this statute unambiguously says that only state exchanges get subsidized."
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2014 18:03
|
|
|
esquilax posted:Section 1311 says how the individual states can establish an exchange, section 1321 talks about how the federal government can establish an exchange in a state if the state does not. special snowflakes edition: it doesn't matter whether the other side's argument isn't ridiculous, because the fact that it's, in the plaintiff's best light, ambiguous, means that the IRS's interpretation of the statute controls because of Chevron deference quote:(1) "First, always, is the question whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue. If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court as well as the agency must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress."
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2014 18:06
|
|
|
A conviction of murder likely does preclude a lesser conviction under double jeopardy as a lesser included offense but it's good to the extent that if the murder conviction is thrown out, the manslaughter conviction remains.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2014 21:13
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:that's a straw man and you know it. Look, the fact of the matter is, I *am* pro choice. However, arguments that try to suggest abortion is a minor trifle rather that what it is: A medical procedure with significant impact on the woman's body, cheapen the overall cause. You want to win this argument, acknowledge there *is* a state interest in regulating physicians and argue that in the overall balance, these restrictions go too far. and the goals can be achieved through less restrictive means. Tattooing is a medical procedure with significant impact on a woman's body, but you can be drunk
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2014 14:35
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:You're right. The dockets of the circuit courts and supreme court are so light, and there are so few petitions for cert that they just hear every case that comes across their desk. There's no scrutiny at all before a case is granted cert. In fact, it's done by coin flip. The Supreme Court's docket is objectively historically low
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2014 18:08
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 09:45 |
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Incidentally, the AMA recommends against D&C. Incidentally, McAlister was referring to what the AMA calls a D&E, not a D&X. Incidentally, the AMA does not support banning D&X, but leaves it up to the doctor's discretion. Incidentally, the most stringent regulation that could be said to be supported by the AMA statement would be that a doctor performing a D&X in contravention of standards of good medical practice should face some sort of liability. Incidentally, gently caress you.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2014 17:04
|
|