decoration decoration

When you want to know more...
For layout only
Site Map
About Groklaw
Legal Research
ApplevSamsung p.2
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Gordon v MS
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
MS Litigations
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
OOXML Appeals
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v Novell
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Unix Books


Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.

You won't find me on Facebook


Donate Paypal

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

I think that you are too pessimistic | 354 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
My Takeaway From This Report
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 24 2012 @ 11:35 PM EST
> allow the Supreme Court to resolve the discrepancies
> according to recognized principals of law.

And take how long to reinvent the wheel? Yes, the CAFC are largely
to blame for the present situation, but the expectations they have
raised won't disappear with them.

It's not popular on our side to suggest that RMS is part of the problem,
but Eben Moglen talks lawyerspeak, was trained as one of "them",
and could take the fight to their level.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

My Takeaway From This Report
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 25 2012 @ 12:28 AM EST
The problem with leaving it up to the Supreme Court is the same in nature as the
problem with leaving it up to the USPTO.

The problem with leaving it up to the USPTO: This would be fine except for the
fact that the laws which govern their research, and acceptance of a patent are
too vague, leaving them with more than enough room to animate the monster that
we, as a country, are crumbling under today. The USPTO cannot add to the laws.
It is not in their capacity. But it's worse than that. They can't even govern
themselves with common sense (as is the obvious case during these last 20 years
or so)

The problem with leaving it up to the US Supreme Court: Again, this would be
fine except for the fact that the laws which define the area of copyright and
patent law are too vague. The only difference here being, that they have
precedent in addition to the vague laws (and not to mention a vague idea of
copyright and patent law expressed by the Constitution itself). What is the
Supreme Court supposed to do with that? They can't create law. It is not in
their capacity as a judiciary, and it is not in their power. An attempt of the
judiciary to create law on the behalf of legislature would itself be
unconstitutional. Such is the separation and balance of power.

Only legislature can create law. The difficulty is getting them to look past
the money they're getting from these companies and see the destruction that this
monster is causing to America as a whole (that is, if they even care about the
country at all anymore).

While I agree that the Supreme Court ought to be able to provide some temporary
relief to the situation with the laws (as they are right now, keeping in spirit
to the constitution), it is ultimately up to the legislature to do their jobs so
that this beast is put to sleep forever and will no longer threaten us a

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

I think that you are too pessimistic
Authored by: Tkilgore on Sunday, November 25 2012 @ 01:28 AM EST
> First.

> RMS as usual by his idiosyncratic demands alienated a large portion of the
audience and an even larger audience was denied exposure to his powerful

Are you sure about that? RMS is a notoriously unreasonable man. He has been
unreasonable for 30 years and his voice is still heard. It is also true that he
did not sacrifice his principles for a bit more publicity. Who knows? He may be
right. Do note that he was the lead-off speaker for the whole conference.

> Second.

> The lawyers lined up against the programers.

On the positive side, the lawyers and the programmers sat in the same room
together, and the lawyers had to hear the cheering for the words of RMS. Perhaps
you are right, that the lawyers did not want to hear what he said and did not
want to hear that cheering. If that is the simple truth and there is no other
complexity involved, then why was there a conference, and why were both lawyers
and programmers invited, and then why did the lawyers come? Just to ignore the
programmers? No other reason? Yes there was, and it is obvious. Think about it.

> Third.

> Since the whole world recognizes that the current system is broken relative
software the solutions that involve Congress are problematic.

Not sure where you are going with this one. I don't see that there are any
"solutions that involve Congress" going on at the moment. Congress
seems not to be involved at all.

> Fourth

> Since Congress in unlikely to act decisively.

True, there has been a lot of that going around.

> From my perspective the only likely Congressional action is to return
jurisdiction over patents to the various districts.

> That would result in splits between the districts ans allow the Supreme
Court to
resolve the discrepancies according to recognized principals of law.

Such an outcome would hardly be Congressional inaction.

(and BTW, principals -> principles)

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )