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) 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.