SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Roy Schestowitz at TechRights reports
Further reinforcing the current trend, software patents' demise in the United States has just been ascertained again.
[...] The latest decision[PDF] [...] from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) is eye-catching, but either it hasn't caught the eye of legal firms or they're just trying to ignore it, so we'll be covering it more than we usually cover such decisions.
[...] The ruling is very important because it serves to demonstrate a loss for patent trolls and for software patents (or patent trolls that use software patents, which is typical). The decision criticises patent trolling as well.
[...] So far, based on our research, only one press article has been published about this decision. It's titled "Here's Why Software Patents Are in Peril After the Intellectual Ventures Ruling".
The end may be in sight for software patents--which have long been highly controversial in the tech industry--in the wake of a remarkable appeals court ruling that described such patents as a "deadweight loss on the nation's economy" and a threat to the First Amendment's free speech protections.
The ruling, issued on Friday [September 30] by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, found that three patents asserted against anti-virus companies Symantec [...] and Trend Micro were invalid because they did not describe a patentable invention. The patents were owned by Intellectual Ventures, which has a notorious reputation in the tech world as a so-called "patent troll", a phrase that describes firms that buy up old patents and wage lawsuits in order to demand payments from productive companies.
Software Patents as a Threat to Free Speech
Friday's ruling is also significant because Judge [Haldane Robert] Mayer eschews the insider baseball language that typically dominates patent law, and addresses patents in the broader context of technology and government monopolies.
Pointing out that intellectual property monopolies can limit free speech, Mayer notes that copyright law has built-in First Amendment protections such as "fair use" and that patent law must include similar safeguards. He suggests that the safeguard comes in the form of a part of the Patent Act, known as "Section 101", which says some things--including abstract ideas--simply can't be patented in the first place.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @02:18PM
> only one press article has been published about this decision.
ABC: No story
CBS: No story
NBC: No story
CNN: No story
Funny how all the networks crying about how Donald Trump cannot possibly be trusted are doing a great job proving why they themselves are unworthy of trust. This is a treasonous level of deceit.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Arik on Tuesday October 04 2016, @02:34PM
This shit doesn't happen by accident. And on occasion the mask has come down. One case recently I think it was Chris Matthews interviewing one of the main people in the Sanders campaign, flat out admitted (with no apparent awareness this was even objectionable) that the press consciously worked against him. But for the most part people still seem to cruise along naïvely expecting that 'the news' they hear is at least roughly even handed and accurate.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Tuesday October 04 2016, @06:26PM
One case recently I think it was Chris Matthews interviewing one of the main people in the Sanders campaign, flat out admitted (with no apparent awareness this was even objectionable) that the press consciously worked against him.
Is this [youtube.com] the clip you're talking about? If so, I think it's incorrect to say that Matthews admitted that the press consciously worked against Sanders. He said they were going to make predictions about superdelegates going to Clinton, but did not indicate an anti-Sanders intent behind that. I do believe that the media generally has a pro-Clinton bias, and if there is a different Hardball clip where Matthews admits to that I'd love to see it.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Tuesday October 04 2016, @08:42PM
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Tuesday October 04 2016, @09:44PM
I think you need to listen to it again. He's saying flat out they will call the race for Hillary before polls close and that this will discourage people from voting and he's perfectly fine with that.
But that is not malice. The media corporations have obvious dystopian economic incentives to break news early. This means they report false events sometimes, like "DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN." An institution can recognise the negative effects of its business practices, such as reporting false events or hurting voter turnout, without admitting that those effects were the reason they made the decisions they did. Taking actions that have the side effect of hurting the Sanders campaign is not the same as consciously working against them. MSNBC could be a non-partial, self interested party while still making all of the admissions Mathews made. I don't think they are, but that's beside the point.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Tuesday October 04 2016, @10:01PM
I don't see that it makes any difference what their motivation is here, or why you would.
Suppose I punch you in the face. You are understandably upset, you want to know why I did that. I say 'oh don't worry, I know I punched you in the face, I know that hurt, I knew when I did it that it was going to hurt you, but that's not why I did it. I had another reason. So it's all cool right?' How impressed would you be with that?
Yet when it's our elections themselves that are being openly rigged, well, that's ok, just as long as they don't admit openly that they did it to help their friend take power, no, no, totally different motivation, oh well, that's ok then.
What?
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Tuesday October 04 2016, @10:37PM
I don't see that it makes any difference what their motivation is here, or why you would.
Maybe you construct models of news organizations for different reasons than I do, or with different assumptions. I believe that MSNBC is consciously trying to pull the election towards Clinton, but I don't know that. There could be a bunch of internal rationalization about profit motives and a center-left audience base going on. A data point of Matthews admitting intention would be another indication to me that the former possibility is more likely. That information, I slightly care about.
Yet when it's our elections themselves that are being openly rigged,
I'm not sure if "rigged" is the right word to discuss the alleged wrongdoing, even if done with malice. Providing biased media coverage is not the same a rigging an election. Which isn't to say that the elections aren't rigged. Oh hey, I think I see the last tip of the topic disappearing over the horizon.
well, that's ok, just as long as they don't admit openly that they did it to help their friend take power, no, no, totally different motivation, oh well, that's ok then.
Not necessarily ok, but definitely different. I suspect we could both agree that there are some cases where early reporting of news that might be wrong and might have negative consequences would still be desirable. At the beginning of this thread I was legitimately wondering if you were talking about a different clip, I googled it because I wanted to see Matthews slip up. If he hasn't actually admitted those things, yes, it's different. Not ok, just different.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by DannyB on Tuesday October 04 2016, @02:57PM
Remember when no major news outlet covered SOPA? It was being widely discussed online. It was an existential threat to the freedom of the internet. Not a peep. But then some major web sites had black pages for a day, explaining what SOPA was. Suddenly many congress critters in support were distancing themselves from SOPA. It died that day. It suddenly got news coverage that day.
I remember Anderson Cooper on CNN talking about it. And that they had not covered it because their parent company was in favor of SOPA. I almost quit watching CNN, but it was just too addictive.
Then there was Snowden. The totally one sided coverage, as if there couldn't possibly be any other viewpoints than the government's. I realized that the government had control of the media. Not like in Russia or China, but through cooperation. If you don't tell my story, only my story, and the way I want it told, suppressing all other views, then you won't get invited to important press conferences, or embedded in the military to get cool photo and filming of cool military hardware in action to help us sell our wars.
That was what did it. I just quit watching. Never went back. Discovered other sources of news online, and in other countries with different points of view!
Why do we have everyday for the last year and a half stories of nothing but . . .
trump trump Trump TRUMP
and the neverending train wreck of what could he possibly say or do that is even worse than yesterday?
Meanwhile, there is actual news going on in the world. The US and Russia might get into a conflict in Syria any day now. This is right on Israel's northern border. And plenty of other facets to this. And other things going on. But . . . back to your favorite reality tv trailer park presidential campaign with kindergarten "poo poo head" insults, fake smiles, or every day all the time frowns.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @03:02PM
> Meanwhile, there is actual news going on in the world. The US and Russia might get into a conflict in Syria any day now.
> This is right on Israel's northern border. And plenty of other facets to this.
Seen them on PBS Newshour, NPR and Vox. But, as has been said before, "reality has a liberal bias" so no wonder those places have been covering reality.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @05:12PM
Coverage by PBS and NPR is reassuring.
Too often, in order to please their sponsors and potential sponsors, those outlets avoid topics that aren't corporate-friendly.
I expect "Digital Village" on my Pacifica Radio affiliate to cover it.
(Now airing on Wednesday evenings instead of Saturday mornings.)
DV was my introduction to KPFK; with online media as alternatives and changes to the show's format and time slot, it has now outgrown its usefulness to me.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @04:41PM
Its not exactly that the government has control of the media, its that the people who control the government also control the media, using their $billions hoarded over generations to purchase both.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday October 04 2016, @06:38PM
Good point. I was focused on "government access" type of control over the media. aka blackmail. The Snowden coverage I pointed out.
But money / ownership type control is also quite real. The SOPA coverage, or lack of, that I pointed out.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 3, Informative) by q.kontinuum on Tuesday October 04 2016, @04:49PM
How many people besides your colleagues do you know, that would actually care? My wife might listen with polite interest, my dad might show some vague interest, but other than that I'd have to visit some computer club or FSF meetings to find someone with honest interest...
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @05:32PM
Thanks man. So far you are the only one not to be suckered in by my troll post.
Seriously, I didn't even realize I was trolling. I expected people to laugh and get the joke. [soylentnews.org]
God damn soy beaners are so fucking gullible. Its pathetic.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday October 04 2016, @06:13PM
Funny how all the networks crying about how Donald Trump cannot possibly be trusted are doing a great job proving why they themselves are unworthy of trust.
So you're saying we *should* take the news networks at face value? I thought we were talking about being gullible here?
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @07:17PM
I'm saying this story has such little general interest appeal that anyone who thinks lack of coverage by mainstream press is evidence of a conspiracy is a fucking idiot. Soybeans suck at perspective. Its like whatever is right in front of their noses is (a) the god's honest truth and (b) the most important thing in the world.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @07:43PM
thank goodness we've got you here to call us names
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @07:48PM
> thank goodness we've got you here to call us names
When facts and humor don't make a dent, what else is left?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @07:54PM
maybe admit the possibility you're the one who's wrong
or just give up
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @08:51PM
Yeah, I'm wrong ... software patents are totally big news to the people who watch CNN.
Guess you are also one of those fools who thinks his lack of knowledge is proof of conspiracy.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Tuesday October 04 2016, @10:28PM
While what you say is true, it's not really relevant. The news are given special mention in the first amendment because they are supposed to report important news, not because they are supposed to report what people want to hear. The protection of entertainment news is a by-product of not being able to define what is important ahead of time.
OTOH, given the way that the interpretation of the second amendment has been distorted I'm just as glad they didn't try to specify the reasons for protecting free speech.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Thursday October 06 2016, @06:40AM
What are you, communist or something? This is capitalism, news is what people either pay for to hear or other people pay for to propagate! If it neither sells nor is paid propaganda, it's not legitimate news. (Well, and this is why I find "communist" not such a blatant insult. I'd wish for a mix, if there was such a thing as non-corrupt, competent politicians)
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @04:49PM
This kind of thing is why I wish Groklaw was still running...
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday October 04 2016, @06:40PM
Amen to that. But PJ has definitely put in her time and effort. I don't begrudge her getting burned out on it. It's never ending. Only the SCOundrels change.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.