7 ms·

Court Rules That EFF's Stupid Patent of the Month Post Is Protected Speech

163 points by DiabloD3 9y ago

Overtonwindow 9y ago
After its thorough analysis, the court declared “(1) that the Australian Injunction is repugnant to the United States Constitution and the laws of California and the Unites States.. Wow, now that's a judicial smack down.
- bdonlan 9y ago
  This is a term of art, defined in the relevant statute: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/4104 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/4104 > Any United States person against whom a foreign judgment is entered on the basis of the content of any writing, utterance, or other speech by that person that has been published, may bring an action in district court, under section 2201(a), for a declaration that the foreign judgment is repugnant to the Constitution or laws of the United States.
kazinator 9y ago
I suspect that the court in fact found the patent to be stupid (not merely "protected opinion"), but stopped short of writing that into the verdict. The EFF substantiate their "stupid" accusation with reason; it's not just schoolyard name-calling.
bartart 9y ago
This is good for the EFF in the short term, but what if the Australian court finds that the EFF is ignoring its order and so must pay fines? Perhaps in response to US court saying "the Australian court lacked jurisdiction over EFF", the Australian court will say that the US court has no jurisdiction in Australia. The Australian court could conceivably force the EFF to change how its site is shown to people in Australia. Then after realizing that people in Australia can still access the US version of the EFF's site, force the EFF to change its site in all countries. This sort of problem could become more common, such as the case that Google lost where the Canadian Supreme Court ruled that Google had to remove results in violation of Canadian law from all Google results worldwide.
- gpvos 9y ago
  Unless the EFF site is hosted in Australia, such a ruling cannot have any effect. A court could force Australian ISPs to block eff.org though. Interesting things could also happen if the EFF used an Australian DNS provider, but that is quite unlikely.
  - foobarbazetc 9y ago
    It gets blocked at the ISP level. Nothing to do with DNS providers.
- JoshTriplett 9y ago
  > the Australian court will say that the US court has no jurisdiction in Australia One would hope that'd be a given and go without saying. > The Australian court could conceivably force the EFF to change how its site is shown to people in Australia Not without jurisdiction over the EFF they can't. > Then after realizing that people in Australia can still access the US version of the EFF's site, force the EFF to change its site in all countries. Not without jurisdiction over the EFF they can't.
  - bartart 9y ago
    It just seems like the US court decided that the Australian court had no jurisdiction over the EFF. But does the Australian court agree with the US court's ruling? It may or it may not. Evidently the Australian court at one point believed it had jurisdiction because it took up the case in the first place and issued a ruling. To me just as an observer it seems that the Australian court gets to decide what is under its jurisdiction.
    - benchaney 9y ago
      > it seems that the Australian court gets to decide what is under its jurisdiction. Nope
    - int_19h 9y ago
      To have jurisdiction over something, you need to have enforcement power there. The Australian court can make any claims they like, fine EFF, even charge its officers with contempt of court - but I don't see how this could possibly be enforced.
gpvos 9y ago
But can EFF officials still travel to Australia now?
- foobarbazetc 9y ago
  It’s a civil case and it’s against the organization, so yes?
- icbm504 9y ago
  If they are fined or in contempt of court ... I would recommend consulting with an Australian lawyer and then the Australian embassy before boarding a plane to Australia.
hamandcheese 9y ago
I’m certainly not familiar with Australian politics or law, but is it not surprising that the Australian court would grant the injunction in the first place?
- CPAhem 9y ago
  Australia has some of the most draconian anti-libel laws in the English-speaking world. A judge recently sent a blogger to jail for 4 months for "libel" even though the truth of the matter was not disputed. A book on Chinese bribing of Australian politicians has been withdrawn after defamation threats from these politicians. This was largely unreported in the Australian press, only in the New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/20/world/australia/china-australia-book-influence.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/20/world/australia/china-aus...
  - em3rgent0rdr 9y ago
    Could you point me to a source about the defamation threats that hampered this story from being published in Australia.
  - jlawer 9y ago
    Was on the front page of abc's news site... not sure how unreported that was : http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-13/academic-claims-hes-been-silenced-by-chinese-government/9142694 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-13/academic-claims-hes-be...
CPAhem 9y ago
The company in question GEMSA Pty Ltd of Australia got a patent on "Storage cabinets" on a computer. Pretty much a patent on folders or directories. Now they are suing everyone. According to the EFF: "As far as we can tell, GEMSA seems to think that anyone with a website that links to hosted content infringes its patent" https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/06/stupid-patent-month-storage-cabinets-computer https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/06/stupid-patent-month-st...
- bufferoverflow 9y ago
  How does this not get immediately dismissed by prior art?
  - Tuna-Fish 9y ago
    In order for it to be dismissed as prior art, it has to make it all the way to court. The business model of patent trolls like GEMSA is that they get a bunch of obviously overbroad and spurious patents, and then they sue a lot of companies for them, offering to settle for less than the cost of defense. If a company actually puts up a legal defense, they drop the lawsuit.
    - jandrese 9y ago
      I'm a little surprised that the courts don't get cranky at the firm that files hundreds of cases and then retracts pretty much all of them. It seems like red flag behavior that should be investigated. Is there just a lack of oversight on legal firms? It seems to take exceptionally egregious behavior before anybody steps in.
      - arcbyte 9y ago
        In some states for some actions there is a rule that disallows retracting a suit after an answer is filed. Might be useful for patents in federal law. That's for Congress to take up.
dogweather 9y ago
It's hard to even call that a legal system, when a court can find "stupid" to be a statement of fact.
em3rgent0rdr 9y ago
Good but unsuprising. A much more newsworthy story would be if a US Court ruled otherwise.
livarot 9y ago
> any foreign order censoring EFF would be unenforceable in the United States under the First Amendment and the Securing the Protection of Our Enduring and Established Constitutional Heritage Act (SPEECH Act). This way of naming laws is incredibly childish.
- appleflaxen 9y ago
  on its face it's pretty stupid: acronyms that are so contrived (or worse, misleading) that you have to shake your head when you hear them. but there is at least a little bit of value to having a brief, specific name to use when referring to it that somehow relates to the topic at hand.
- Analemma_ 9y ago
  Speak for yourself, I like it. I mean, the whole reason the SPEECH Act exists is to be a “fuck you” to countries like the UK with plaintiff-friendly libel laws trying to get those judgements enforced in the US, so the immature name is kind of fitting.

163 points by DiabloD3 9y ago

After its thorough analysis, the court declared “(1) that the Australian Injunction is repugnant to the United States Constitution and the laws of California and the Unites States.. Wow, now that's a judicial smack down.

bdonlan 9y ago
This is a term of art, defined in the relevant statute: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/4104 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/4104 > Any United States person against whom a foreign judgment is entered on the basis of the content of any writing, utterance, or other speech by that person that has been published, may bring an action in district court, under section 2201(a), for a declaration that the foreign judgment is repugnant to the Constitution or laws of the United States.

kazinator 9y ago

I suspect that the court in fact found the patent to be stupid (not merely "protected opinion"), but stopped short of writing that into the verdict. The EFF substantiate their "stupid" accusation with reason; it's not just schoolyard name-calling.

bartart 9y ago

This is good for the EFF in the short term, but what if the Australian court finds that the EFF is ignoring its order and so must pay fines? Perhaps in response to US court saying "the Australian court lacked jurisdiction over EFF", the Australian court will say that the US court has no jurisdiction in Australia. The Australian court could conceivably force the EFF to change how its site is shown to people in Australia. Then after realizing that people in Australia can still access the US version of the EFF's site, force the EFF to change its site in all countries. This sort of problem could become more common, such as the case that Google lost where the Canadian Supreme Court ruled that Google had to remove results in violation of Canadian law from all Google results worldwide.

gpvos 9y ago
Unless the EFF site is hosted in Australia, such a ruling cannot have any effect. A court could force Australian ISPs to block eff.org though. Interesting things could also happen if the EFF used an Australian DNS provider, but that is quite unlikely.
- foobarbazetc 9y ago
  It gets blocked at the ISP level. Nothing to do with DNS providers.
JoshTriplett 9y ago
> the Australian court will say that the US court has no jurisdiction in Australia One would hope that'd be a given and go without saying. > The Australian court could conceivably force the EFF to change how its site is shown to people in Australia Not without jurisdiction over the EFF they can't. > Then after realizing that people in Australia can still access the US version of the EFF's site, force the EFF to change its site in all countries. Not without jurisdiction over the EFF they can't.
- bartart 9y ago
  It just seems like the US court decided that the Australian court had no jurisdiction over the EFF. But does the Australian court agree with the US court's ruling? It may or it may not. Evidently the Australian court at one point believed it had jurisdiction because it took up the case in the first place and issued a ruling. To me just as an observer it seems that the Australian court gets to decide what is under its jurisdiction.
  - benchaney 9y ago
    > it seems that the Australian court gets to decide what is under its jurisdiction. Nope
  - int_19h 9y ago
    To have jurisdiction over something, you need to have enforcement power there. The Australian court can make any claims they like, fine EFF, even charge its officers with contempt of court - but I don't see how this could possibly be enforced.

gpvos 9y ago

But can EFF officials still travel to Australia now?

foobarbazetc 9y ago
It’s a civil case and it’s against the organization, so yes?
icbm504 9y ago
If they are fined or in contempt of court ... I would recommend consulting with an Australian lawyer and then the Australian embassy before boarding a plane to Australia.

hamandcheese 9y ago

I’m certainly not familiar with Australian politics or law, but is it not surprising that the Australian court would grant the injunction in the first place?

CPAhem 9y ago
Australia has some of the most draconian anti-libel laws in the English-speaking world. A judge recently sent a blogger to jail for 4 months for "libel" even though the truth of the matter was not disputed. A book on Chinese bribing of Australian politicians has been withdrawn after defamation threats from these politicians. This was largely unreported in the Australian press, only in the New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/20/world/australia/china-australia-book-influence.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/20/world/australia/china-aus...
- em3rgent0rdr 9y ago
  Could you point me to a source about the defamation threats that hampered this story from being published in Australia.
- jlawer 9y ago
  Was on the front page of abc's news site... not sure how unreported that was : http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-13/academic-claims-hes-been-silenced-by-chinese-government/9142694 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-13/academic-claims-hes-be...

CPAhem 9y ago

The company in question GEMSA Pty Ltd of Australia got a patent on "Storage cabinets" on a computer. Pretty much a patent on folders or directories. Now they are suing everyone. According to the EFF: "As far as we can tell, GEMSA seems to think that anyone with a website that links to hosted content infringes its patent" https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/06/stupid-patent-month-storage-cabinets-computer https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/06/stupid-patent-month-st...

bufferoverflow 9y ago
How does this not get immediately dismissed by prior art?
- Tuna-Fish 9y ago
  In order for it to be dismissed as prior art, it has to make it all the way to court. The business model of patent trolls like GEMSA is that they get a bunch of obviously overbroad and spurious patents, and then they sue a lot of companies for them, offering to settle for less than the cost of defense. If a company actually puts up a legal defense, they drop the lawsuit.
  - jandrese 9y ago
    I'm a little surprised that the courts don't get cranky at the firm that files hundreds of cases and then retracts pretty much all of them. It seems like red flag behavior that should be investigated. Is there just a lack of oversight on legal firms? It seems to take exceptionally egregious behavior before anybody steps in.
    - arcbyte 9y ago
      In some states for some actions there is a rule that disallows retracting a suit after an answer is filed. Might be useful for patents in federal law. That's for Congress to take up.

dogweather 9y ago

It's hard to even call that a legal system, when a court can find "stupid" to be a statement of fact.

em3rgent0rdr 9y ago

Good but unsuprising. A much more newsworthy story would be if a US Court ruled otherwise.

livarot 9y ago

> any foreign order censoring EFF would be unenforceable in the United States under the First Amendment and the Securing the Protection of Our Enduring and Established Constitutional Heritage Act (SPEECH Act). This way of naming laws is incredibly childish.

appleflaxen 9y ago
on its face it's pretty stupid: acronyms that are so contrived (or worse, misleading) that you have to shake your head when you hear them. but there is at least a little bit of value to having a brief, specific name to use when referring to it that somehow relates to the topic at hand.
Analemma_ 9y ago
Speak for yourself, I like it. I mean, the whole reason the SPEECH Act exists is to be a “fuck you” to countries like the UK with plaintiff-friendly libel laws trying to get those judgements enforced in the US, so the immature name is kind of fitting.