Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Terrible decision, regardless of patent feeling (Score 1) 96

I never said that, and responded to your other post explaining that I never said that. If you want to insist I did say it, please copy-paste from my post.

OK, if you say so. That makes about 90% of your original post completely irrelevant to any point you were trying to make. You could have just said "Congress passed the latest law that applied to this in 1952, and this appears to be at odds with how I interpret it", but instead you wrote some enormous history of how SCOTUS totally misunderstood Congress's intent in 1885 and Congress stepped in and rewrote the law, even though that has nothing whatsoever to do with the case in hand.

My insults to them were an explanation of why they voted 8-0 and issued an opinion that only had 5 substantive pages and punted the creation of any test to the Federal Circuit: they really don't care much about patent law. This was to address your contention that, because they're "deeply divided" on Constitutional issues around, say, privacy or the federal-state divide, it's highly unusual for them ever to agree on something (that happens to entirely unrelated to those issues).

You're implying that this isn't normal. SCOTUS doesn't usually write long essays on all the possible things it wants to overturn, and nearly never prescribes how a lower court should resolve them. This is a fairly standard case of a trial participant appealing a ruling over a technical error, and SCOTUS agreeing with them, explaining why, and telling the lower court to rethink.

And it doesn't take more than five pages to explain "You're doing it wrong, you should be basing profits on the articles of manufacture, like the law says you should, rather than the entire finished product."

Comment Re:Terrible decision, regardless of patent feeling (Score 1) 96

. I said they're disregarding the explicit language of a long-standing statute and previous Congress-slap of the court, and replacing it with "you want a test? Go make one up."

Absolutely untrue, and after you made a big song and dance about how they're somehow reversing Congress's wishes, it's hard for me to take seriously the notion you were never arguing that.

Flip over a carpet sometime. You'll see a standard mat that the fibers are woven into that is the same, regardless of design. That mat is a substantial part of the carpet, literally holding it together.

Nobody's arguing any different. If there's a practical way to separate the components of a carpet into articles of manufacture (and they must be items you'd make separately) in such a way that only one part violates the patent, then only that one part violates the patent, and the damages can be assessed. That's entirely within the keeping of the 1952 act, which explicitly codifies the "Article of manufacture" language.

but it's not necessary to redefine article of manufacture.

Sotomayor isn't redefining anything. The term has always had a meaning. Congress's intent is preserved by this ruling. The reason all eight justices agreed that this was the original intent, and original meaning of the term, is because legally it is.

Comment Re:Terrible decision, regardless of patent feeling (Score 3, Insightful) 96

Nope, you're just wrong about what they did. I explained here, but to summarize:

Your claim: they went back to 1885 and changed the profitability criteria to "incremental value added by patent."

What they actually did: they said that the profits due to the infringed upon party need to be those applying to the component that was sold, rather than the whole of the smartphone.

To put it another way: If Samsung makes $200 on profits per a $1000 phone, and would have made $199 in profits if it didn't have rounded corners, and case makes up 5% of the total cost of the phone, then:

In 1885 (we agree): Samsung would pay $1 per phone to Apple.
In your interpretation of the law: Samsung should pay $200 per phone to Apple.
Eight supreme court justices: Samsung should pay something similar to 5% of $200, eg $10 per phone (or a similar formula.)

Your insults to the Supreme Court Justices are noted and hardly do your case credit: they may not know much about technology, but this case wasn't about technologies, it was about the criteria needed to measure compensation. You bet Scalia's fat dead ass they all know the law on that better than anyone else.

Comment Re:Terrible decision, regardless of patent feeling (Score 1) 96

You're misrepresenting the opinion. The opinion is not "Oh, let's go back to the incremental value added by the patented technology as the yardstick for profitability", it's "Let's recognize that this device is made up of separate parts ("articles of manufacture"), and only one part violates the patent. The profits that need to be turned over to Apple are those applying to that component."

What's the difference?

In the carpet's case, 100% of the carpet violates the patent, regardless of whether you compare it to a beige carpet or not. In the phone's case, the phone has a case, a screen, electronics, and so on. Only the case, for example, violates the rounded corners patent.

Reading the opinion, they're not just making up that criterion. The "article of manufacture" concept is long standing in the patent world, and it would certainly mean a complete shake up of patents if patents ceased to apply to components, and only to the whole of a completed product. (Whether that's a good or bad thing I'll leave to the lawyers.)

This hopefully explains why 8 justices who rarely agree on anything outside of which branch of Applebees to have lunch at all agreed with one another this time.

Comment Re:Terrible decision, regardless of patent feeling (Score 2) 96

I'm finding it somewhat improbable that an 8-0 decision would be made on a deeply divided Supreme Court with justices having dramatically different views of the constitution if there's such a compelling case in opposition to the decision they made. Can you put forward a theory that explains why all eight justices rejected this argument?

Comment Re:Fake news? (Score 1) 366

No one is shouting anything. I just don't care to debate someone trying to redefine already poorly-defined, loose categorizations. I'm just happy now that absolutely anything can be described as "strongly right wing".

Perhaps we can all stop taking that nonsense seriously and talk about ideas rather than which box those ideas belong in -- they're all "strongly right wing" and "left wing" and probably also "moderate".

Comment Re:Fake news? (Score 0, Flamebait) 366

Thanks. This is proof that any time anyone says something is left wing, someone will post that it's "strongly right wing". I wasn't sure it would happen with this China post, but you came through. I can now confidently look forward to someday hearing how Che Guevara is strongly right wing.

Comment Re:And is Steve wrong? (Score -1, Flamebait) 366

In other words, "We have this story we're telling about Steve Bannon having impure thoughts about racial minorities. If you believe this story with all your heart, you can easily see how any statement he makes is a product of those impure thoughts. Also, as we all know, having impure thoughts about racial minorities is the worst sin imaginable."

Comment Pants-wetters wanted (Score 3, Interesting) 366

If you're wetting your pants every day because you believe made-up scary stories about future Trump Administration actions, China wants you. They have a special story they want to tell you, and they know that after you hear it, you'll do exactly what they want you to. You're the perfect recruit. Apply now.

Comment Re:Michael Flynn Jr believes it (Score 5, Insightful) 735

Slashdot is a forum where the majority of users are IT professionals, our brains able to deal with some unbelievably complex problem solving that people outside of IT consider a type of magic. Most of us have been hailed as geniuses by our friends and family.

Stray outside of IT related issues however, and the comments here vary widely from occasionally insightful to completely idiotic. You know it. I know it. Everyone here knows it.

And it's not just us. From Thomas Edison to Richard Dawkins, remove them from their field(s) of expertise and they end up being advocates of really shitty ideas.

The point is Carson is intelligent in his field, but that doesn't make him qualified in anything else. I'm not saying it precludes him from being smart in other fields, but it explains why in many areas he's said some really dumb stuff.

Slashdot Top Deals

Hard work never killed anybody, but why take a chance? -- Charlie McCarthy

Working...