7 ms·

Well, I'm glad SCOTUS seems to be doing something right. So much of their decisions seem to be on the side of entrenched/powered/moneyed interests, whether its

Well, I'm glad SCOTUS seems to be doing something right. So much of their decisions seem to be on the side of entrenched/powered/moneyed interests, whether its the dismantling of the Voting Rights Act and campaign finance reform, or the granting of increasing rights to corporations (like Hobby Lobby).

marcosdumay 12y ago
Whatever they bias is, invalidating software patents is an action that favours entrenched/moneyed interests. It favours them almost as much as it favours small inovative firms and sole professionals.
- briantakita 12y ago
  > invalidating software patents is an action that favours entrenched/moneyed interests Not true. Large firms & patent trolls hold the patents and have the resources to deal with the legal expenses. Small innovative firms & sole professionals tend to not have legal departments, large amounts of capital (& time) to spend on legal "non-innovative" matters, nor do they have patent troves. Invalidating the software patents increases freedom to create & innovate and reduces centralization of power, legal trifling, and bureaucracy.
  - WildUtah 12y ago
    I think it is true. Ending software patents is great for startups, but it's good for Google, Apple, and Microsoft, too. The big companies aren't getting much value for what they spend on the patent system and their valuations depend on growth of the software ecosystem that requires startups. The ones that will lose out when software patents aren't lucrative are the entrepreneurial lawyers who found a loophole in the system and mercilessly exploited it. Several of the "inventors" in the patents in op were patent attorneys with no experience in computer networks and software. They saw a chance to cheat and they took it; no technology was required. Well, Intellectual Ventures will lose out, too. They're large in the sense that they're winning more than the tens of millions that small time trolls do, but not compared to IBM or Amazon.
  - travisp 12y ago
    It's true that large firms and NPEs hold the patents and can better enforce their patents, but "patent trolls" (aka patent license companies that specialize in holding and enforcing patent rights as a business model) can be in some ways a benefit to smaller firms for a couple of reasons: 1) The smaller firms don't have the ability to aggressively defend their patents against larger competitors (and would simply have their invention used by the big players without a patent). Instead, the smaller firm can essentially outsource this to a patent licensing firm that specializes in it (standard division of labor), for example selling the patent while maintaining a license to use it themselves (or any other of a multitude of arrangements that essentially let them fight the big players). 2) If the smaller firm doesn't have the resources to actually introduce and sell their invention in the marketplace, they can sell it to a patent licensing firm that can use the patent within their portfolio to license to the main players in the market. This could arise when, for example, the small company comes up with an important new innovation in smartphones, but the small company lacks the resources to actually create a viable physical product on its own.
    - spacemanmatt 12y ago
      [citation needed]
rayiner 12y ago
Its a conservative Supreme Court that had come down strongly in favor of free expression and religious freedom. E.g. Brown v. EMA, the video game free speech case. Different sides of the same coin. What is insane to me are people who agree with Brown but disagree with Citizens United. A political movie isn't free speech, but Grand Theft Auto is?!
- ghaff 12y ago
  Well, and for that matter, Hobby Lobby. To me, the common thread is that they all come down on the side of greater freedom of expression and freedom to take actions consistent with beliefs. But both the Citizens United and Hobby Lobby decisions are anathema in circles such as many tech communities. I suspect a lot has to do with personal disagreement with the beliefs of the organizations involved even though the discussion often gets reframed. Around catchphrases like "corporate personhood" in the case of Citizens United.
  - danielweber 12y ago
    even though the discussion often gets reframed. Around catchphrases like "corporate personhood" in the case of Citizens United. That's a funny one to listen for: people who think that Citizens United had anything to do with corporate personhood.
    - spacemanmatt 12y ago
      Hobby Lobby was actually about corporate personhood, and it was very recent. Maybe you are conflating things that are only temporally adjacent.
      - danielweber 12y ago
        Since I didn't say anything about Hobby Lobby at all, I don't think I'm the one doing conflating.
    - ghaff 12y ago
      In general, people are probably wrong to do so but "corporate personhood" was widely tossed around in the context of the Citizens United decision: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/07/the-supreme-court-still-thinks-corporations-are-people/259995/ http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/07/the-supr... (Not sure you were saying otherwise.) As a soundbite, it's such a red herring anyway. Of course corporations act like individuals in some ways (and not in others). Corporate entities can enter into contracts that aren't tied to a particular employee. They generally have freedom of speech. But they can't be put into prison (except metaphorically.)

marcosdumay 12y ago

Whatever they bias is, invalidating software patents is an action that favours entrenched/moneyed interests. It favours them almost as much as it favours small inovative firms and sole professionals.

briantakita 12y ago
> invalidating software patents is an action that favours entrenched/moneyed interests Not true. Large firms & patent trolls hold the patents and have the resources to deal with the legal expenses. Small innovative firms & sole professionals tend to not have legal departments, large amounts of capital (& time) to spend on legal "non-innovative" matters, nor do they have patent troves. Invalidating the software patents increases freedom to create & innovate and reduces centralization of power, legal trifling, and bureaucracy.
- WildUtah 12y ago
  I think it is true. Ending software patents is great for startups, but it's good for Google, Apple, and Microsoft, too. The big companies aren't getting much value for what they spend on the patent system and their valuations depend on growth of the software ecosystem that requires startups. The ones that will lose out when software patents aren't lucrative are the entrepreneurial lawyers who found a loophole in the system and mercilessly exploited it. Several of the "inventors" in the patents in op were patent attorneys with no experience in computer networks and software. They saw a chance to cheat and they took it; no technology was required. Well, Intellectual Ventures will lose out, too. They're large in the sense that they're winning more than the tens of millions that small time trolls do, but not compared to IBM or Amazon.
- travisp 12y ago
  It's true that large firms and NPEs hold the patents and can better enforce their patents, but "patent trolls" (aka patent license companies that specialize in holding and enforcing patent rights as a business model) can be in some ways a benefit to smaller firms for a couple of reasons: 1) The smaller firms don't have the ability to aggressively defend their patents against larger competitors (and would simply have their invention used by the big players without a patent). Instead, the smaller firm can essentially outsource this to a patent licensing firm that specializes in it (standard division of labor), for example selling the patent while maintaining a license to use it themselves (or any other of a multitude of arrangements that essentially let them fight the big players). 2) If the smaller firm doesn't have the resources to actually introduce and sell their invention in the marketplace, they can sell it to a patent licensing firm that can use the patent within their portfolio to license to the main players in the market. This could arise when, for example, the small company comes up with an important new innovation in smartphones, but the small company lacks the resources to actually create a viable physical product on its own.
  - spacemanmatt 12y ago
    [citation needed]

rayiner 12y ago

Its a conservative Supreme Court that had come down strongly in favor of free expression and religious freedom. E.g. Brown v. EMA, the video game free speech case. Different sides of the same coin. What is insane to me are people who agree with Brown but disagree with Citizens United. A political movie isn't free speech, but Grand Theft Auto is?!

ghaff 12y ago
Well, and for that matter, Hobby Lobby. To me, the common thread is that they all come down on the side of greater freedom of expression and freedom to take actions consistent with beliefs. But both the Citizens United and Hobby Lobby decisions are anathema in circles such as many tech communities. I suspect a lot has to do with personal disagreement with the beliefs of the organizations involved even though the discussion often gets reframed. Around catchphrases like "corporate personhood" in the case of Citizens United.
- danielweber 12y ago
  even though the discussion often gets reframed. Around catchphrases like "corporate personhood" in the case of Citizens United. That's a funny one to listen for: people who think that Citizens United had anything to do with corporate personhood.
  - spacemanmatt 12y ago
    Hobby Lobby was actually about corporate personhood, and it was very recent. Maybe you are conflating things that are only temporally adjacent.
    - danielweber 12y ago
      Since I didn't say anything about Hobby Lobby at all, I don't think I'm the one doing conflating.
  - ghaff 12y ago
    In general, people are probably wrong to do so but "corporate personhood" was widely tossed around in the context of the Citizens United decision: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/07/the-supreme-court-still-thinks-corporations-are-people/259995/ http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/07/the-supr... (Not sure you were saying otherwise.) As a soundbite, it's such a red herring anyway. Of course corporations act like individuals in some ways (and not in others). Corporate entities can enter into contracts that aren't tied to a particular employee. They generally have freedom of speech. But they can't be put into prison (except metaphorically.)