Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 30th Sep 2012 22:01 UTC
Legal "No institution is more responsible for the recent explosion of patent litigation in the software industry, the rise of patent trolls, and the proliferation of patent thickets than the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The patent court's thirtieth birthday this week is a good time to ask whether it was a mistake to give the nation's most patent-friendly appeals court such broad authority over the patent system." Interesting.
Order by: Score:
Comment by some1
by some1 on Sun 30th Sep 2012 23:55 UTC
some1
Member since:
2010-10-05

Sounds very much like this http://patentabsurdity.com/

Reply Score: 5

RE: Comment by some1
by Alfman on Mon 1st Oct 2012 03:05 UTC in reply to "Comment by some1"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

Can't +1, but that video is very informative. Great link.

Reply Score: 2

Not rogue
by kwan_e on Mon 1st Oct 2012 08:16 UTC
kwan_e
Member since:
2007-02-18

Rogue implies rebellion, independence, guerillas, Luke Skywalker, X Wings...

No, the appeals court were very much in lock step with the interests of established big businesses. They may as well have built their own that's-no-moon with a two metre wide weak spot.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Not rogue
by Radio on Mon 1st Oct 2012 11:18 UTC in reply to "Not rogue"
Radio Member since:
2009-06-20

Star Wars is not a dictionary.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Not rogue
by kwan_e on Mon 1st Oct 2012 12:10 UTC in reply to "RE: Not rogue"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

Star Wars is not a dictionary.


It's a thesaurus. Look that up in a dictionary sometime.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Not rogue
by Radio on Mon 1st Oct 2012 14:36 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Not rogue"
Radio Member since:
2009-06-20

I'll just leave it there.
http://goo.gl/WFXLY

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Not rogue
by kwan_e on Tue 2nd Oct 2012 00:06 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Not rogue"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

I'll just leave it there.
http://goo.gl/WFXLY


I wish the Republicans would just leave her there.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Not rogue
by tchristney on Mon 1st Oct 2012 16:31 UTC in reply to "Not rogue"
tchristney Member since:
2005-09-21

When I read the article, I came away with the understanding that rogue in this context is referring to the fact that the Federal Circuit Court's opinions are in variance with the Supreme Court and other appeal courts, not based on a variance with business interests. They basically undermined precedent set by the Supreme Court, hence the rogue label.

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: Not rogue
by kwan_e on Mon 1st Oct 2012 23:44 UTC in reply to "RE: Not rogue"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

When I read the article, I came away with the understanding that rogue in this context is referring to the fact that the Federal Circuit Court's opinions are in variance with the Supreme Court and other appeal courts, not based on a variance with business interests. They basically undermined precedent set by the Supreme Court, hence the rogue label.


The Ultra-Supreme Court of Business Interests is a much higher power than the regular Supreme Court, don't you know? Some say it's even powered by God.

Reply Score: 3

Rogue!
by Carewolf on Mon 1st Oct 2012 16:56 UTC in reply to "Not rogue"
Carewolf Member since:
2005-09-08

They are systematically ignoring supreme court decision and established law (the US law used to be very clear that abstract ideas and thus software could not be patented, and this had been tested in the supreme court before this lower court unilaterally decided it was legal, no written law was ever changed).

So they are indeed rogue..

Edited 2012-10-01 17:02 UTC

Reply Score: 7

RE: Rogue!
by kwan_e on Mon 1st Oct 2012 23:38 UTC in reply to "Rogue!"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

They are systematically ignoring supreme court decision and established law (the US law used to be very clear that abstract ideas and thus software could not be patented, and this had been tested in the supreme court before this lower court unilaterally decided it was legal, no written law was ever changed).

So they are indeed rogue..


Don't you see, that only proves the Supreme Court is itself rogue and full of activist judges and wanting to destroy the American way of life!*

* The American Way of Life - buttsex with a corporation for no compensation and no rights.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Not rogue
by TemporalBeing on Mon 1st Oct 2012 17:23 UTC in reply to "Not rogue"
TemporalBeing Member since:
2007-08-22

Rogue implies rebellion, independence, guerillas, Luke Skywalker, X Wings...

No, the appeals court were very much in lock step with the interests of established big businesses. They may as well have built their own that's-no-moon with a two metre wide weak spot.


It is rogue in that it is suppose to follow the precedents set by SCOTUS, and they have even blatantly ignored SCOTUS - including one of their own calling out the rest of the judges on doing so.

If they don't follow the law - written, unwritten (e.g. common law), and judicial precedent - then they in fact rogue.

Reply Score: 4