Getting Into The Supreme Court's Mind On Software Patents...

from the reading-the-tea-leaves dept

With the CAFC's decision on Bilski being appealed to the Supreme Court, it's worth thinking about how the Supreme Court might actually view the question of software and business model patents. While patent system defenders go through all sorts of twists and turns to explain why software should be patentable, Tim Lee has a detailed explanation of why software should not be patentable, based on earlier Supreme Court precedent. It's a great read (though, frankly, Ars Technica's habit of breaking stories like this up into multiple pages, without a single-page option is annoying) that highlights why there's a decent chance that the Supreme Court would uphold the CAFC's ruling on Bilski if it chose to hear it. Of course, you never know until it happens, and while the current court has been good about limiting the more ridiculous aspects of the patent system over the past few years, we shouldn't be surprised by bad rulings anymore. That said, who knows if the Supreme Court will even hear the case -- or if it will prefer to see how things play out based on the Bilski ruling, and wait for an alternate case to come up before addressing the issue of software patents.

Filed Under: bilski, patents, software patents, supreme court

Ding Dong, COPA Is Dead

from the dead,-dead,-dead dept

The federal government has been trying to pass a law to "protect the children" online for ages. First there was the CDA, the Communications Decency Act, which was struck down as unconstitutional. Then, there was COPA -- the Child Online Protection Act. It tried to be more narrow... but was still a very questionable law, with rather vague wording. It bounced around the courts for years, including hitting the Supreme Court twice -- which sent it back to lower courts both times. Last summer, the appeals court knocked it down again, and today the Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal... meaning that COPA is about as dead as can be. This is definitely a big win for free speech online.

But, of course, just as COPA followed the CDA, have no fear that politicians looking for headlines and photo ops about how they "protect the children" are working hard on new legislation -- such as DOPA -- the Deleting Online Predators Act -- and will continue to push the boundaries of what sort of speech is allowed online. All this really does is waste taxpayer money on unconstitutional attempts to restrict free speech. And, for what? Recent studies have shown time and time again that the threat to children online is relatively small compared to the hype -- and the best response is educating children, rather than restricting speech for all. Somehow, though, I doubt politicians will recognize that any time soon -- especially when lobbyists for companies that sell filtering tools keep beating down their doors with stories of the horrors of online content.

Filed Under: appeals court, cda, copa, dopa, first amendment, free speech, supreme court

Copyright Alliance Begs Supreme Court To Make Remote DVRs Illegal

from the we-prefer-our-screwed-up-copyright-laws dept

You may recall that the Copyright Alliance is a group that is basically the personal vehicle of Patrick Ross, a copyright maximalist, who has been known to twist copyright law to ridiculous extremes on a regular basis. He's the guy who has claimed that fair use harms innovation, that government-backed monopolies in copyright represent a free market and any attempt to actually free up the market and remove government backed monopolies would be unnecessary regulation that would result in market failure. Ross also sent all of the presidential candidates one of the most ridiculous surveys ever on their views on copyright, that was written in an extremely leading "and when did you stop beating your wife" style.

With such extreme and twisted views, it's no surprise that Ross has lined up a bunch of big entertainment companies to back him as he goes around trying to convince politicians that day is night and up is down when it comes to copyright -- but now he's moved on to trying to convince the Supreme Court as well. As you may recall, back in August there was an extremely important Appeals Court ruling that noted that Cablevision's remote DVR setup did not infringe on copyrights. The ruling pointed out the rather obvious troubles that would occur if we interpreted copyright laws the way copyright holders wanted to. It's clear that DVRs, like TiVo, are perfectly legal in the home. Time shifting shows has been found, quite clearly, to be legal. Cablevision's remote DVR is effectively the same exact thing. The only difference is that the DVR is stored at Cablevision data center, rather than at someone's home. The ruling, quite clearly, demonstrated how twisted copyright law has become, as it is patched up each time some new technology comes along.

The importance of this ruling cannot be understated, however, as it will enable many important online services that will be tremendously useful. Needless to say, copyright maximalists in the entertainment industry don't like that. They prefer the way things used to be, and want the law to force the market never to change. So, before the Supreme Court has even decided whether or not to hear the appeal on the case, Ross's Copyright Alliance has already begged the Supreme Court to overturn the ruling -- the first time the Alliance has become involved in any lawsuit. The amicus brief itself, basically uses Ross's typical logic: copyright is good, therefore, making companies pay multiple times for different types of licenses to use content in more ways must be even better!

Hopefully, the court recognizes the logical fallacies in the filing. Preventing this service will not help anyone. The entertainment industry that Ross claims to represent thinks that this will get companies like Cablevision to pay them yet again for content it already licensed. But, the reality is that they'll just move on. People will instead keep buying TiVos or home DVRs, and the potential for truly new and unique services that make the entertainment company's content even more valuable will be greatly diminished. Ross and the content companies falsely believe that the old model is the best, and that content should be paid for again and again, every time it's accessed. Basic economics tells you that this is wrong, and that protectionist policies -- such as what Ross champions -- only shrinks markets and hurts just about everyone.

Filed Under: copyright, copyright alliance, patrick ross, remote dvrs, supreme court
Companies: cablevision

Is A Conviction Constitutional If It's Based On Evidence From An Unconstitutional Search?

from the buttle-or-tuttle? dept

In a case where the legal implications should thrill any fans of Terry Gilliam's movie classic Brazil, the Supreme Court is set to examine if it's constitutional to convict someone, based on evidence that was only collected due to bad data in a government database. There's no question that a search of someone due to bad data in a database is unconstitutional, but the question is whether or not what's found in that search can then be used to charge someone. In this case, a bad (obsolete) database entry in a county database resulted in the search of an individual's car, where drugs and a firearm were found. This resulted in a conviction and jail time, but the search itself wasn't constitutional, because the data was incorrect. The appeals court let the conviction stand, oddly arguing that throwing out the conviction wouldn't put much pressure on governments to keep their data clean. The court also argues that anyone convicted as a result of such bad data, should simply file a separate, civil, lawsuit against the government. Of course, it seems like the bigger issue should simply be on the constitutionality of using any unconstitutionally obtained evidence in a lawsuit.

Filed Under: constitution, convictions, database errors, due process, supreme court

Supreme Court Decision On Guns May Cut Promoting Progress Out Of The Constitution

from the promote-the-progress dept

I was debating whether or not to write anything about this, but William Patry has done a good job discussing how the Heller case may impact copyright, and it's something I was concerned about, so it should be discussed. No matter what your thoughts on "the right to bear arms" (which was affirmed as an individual right in the Heller decision), it may come back to cause trouble for those of us who believe that intellectual property has gone too far and does not "promote the progress."

As I've pointed out multiple times, one of the big questions concerning whether or not intellectual property law should be strengthened or weakened is based on how you parse the clause in the Constitution that enables Congress to create the IP system:

"The Congress shall have Power... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"

By my reading, that means that if the act of securing exclusive rights for a limited time does not promote the progress of science and the useful arts, then it is not covered by the Constitution. That is, the first part of the clause is defining under what conditions (to promote the progress...) it is okay to do certain things (secure exclusive rights). Thus, any intellectual property system that is shown not to promote progress (or worse, to hinder it) is by definition unconstitutional. Others, however, read that first part "promoting the progress" as a sort of "preamble" discussion. Thus, their reading is that securing those exclusive rights for a limited time, by definition, "promotes the progress."

So, what does the Heller decision on guns have to do with all of this? Well, as some in our comments pointed out way back in March, the key to the Heller decision was how the court interpreted part of the clause: "Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State...." If it interpreted that as meaningless preamble, saying that the right to bear arms had nothing to do with "a well regulated militia" then it opens up some pretty serious questions about constitutional interpretation. As Patry notes, the court can now treat sections of the Constitution it doesn't like as preamble, rendering them meaningless.

Again, so whether or not you're happy with the way the court decided the Heller case, the fact that it has no problem deciding that a clause in the Constitution can be ignored as "preamble" could have very bad consequences for those of us pointing out that dangerous innovation-hindering intellectual property systems are against the Constitution. Hopefully, the courts would still recognize that this clause is relevant and not meaningless -- but they now have the necessary tools to claim that promoting the progress is meaningless and has no bearing on whether or not a particular intellectual property system is constitutional.

Filed Under: clauses, copyright, guns, heller, preamble, promote the progress, supreme court

Supreme Court To Investigate If AT&T Is Violating Antitrust Laws With Wholesale DSL Pricing

from the competition? dept

In most cases, antitrust rules seem fairly bogus. They often are used to try to punish companies for being successful, even if they're not actually abusing any kind of monopoly situation. However, there are some cases where antitrust laws become a lot more interesting, when it comes to governments effectively granting monopoly rights to certain companies. That's what's happened with many telco services, where the government has basically provided monopoly "rights of way" to certain companies to put down infrastructure in places that no other company can. These rights of way were supposed to come with "common carrier" status, that would require the provider to allow equal access, without discrimination, even to companies that might "compete" in some manner or another with the core infrastructure provider. A few years back, however, the FCC made sure to classify broadband services as information services rather than telco services -- even if they were using the same infrastructure. This was great for the telcos, since information services weren't subject to common carrier restrictions like telco services were.

Yet, those broadband services still benefited from those rights of way, and they used their new found lack of restrictions to raise wholesale prices to smaller ISPs who offered services on their networks. A series of lawsuits followed, including an appeals court ruling that found that AT&T was abusing monopoly rights to offer prices that were simply out of line with market pricing -- making it effectively impossible for any other provider to compete. AT&T has appealed and now the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case. This could be very important, as it could force a company like AT&T, which relies on these government granted rights of way, to offer up access to their network to potential competitors who could offer more reasonably priced services. This also could have a major impact on both the overall competitiveness of broadband in the US as well as network neutrality -- since having more competition would make it harder for AT&T and others to violate net neutrality.

Filed Under: antitrust, common carrier, supreme court, wholesale pricing
Companies: at&t, linkline

Quanta Decision Illustrates Case Against Specialized Patent Court

from the no-more-federal-circuit dept

I agree with Mike that the Quanta v. LG decision was a big victory for common sense in patent law. I think it's worth taking a step back to note that this is a continuation of the trend that Mike identified last year. This is at least the fourth time in as many years that the Supreme Court has taken a patent law case, and in every case they've overruled a bad decision by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which has jurisdiction over patent appeals. The Federal Circuit has spent the last 15 years making a mess of patent law, and the Supreme Court has finally started to notice and is working to clean up the Federal Circuit's messes. But it's hard because patents are one of a handful of major issues on its docket, whereas the Supreme Court has lots of other subjects it needs to deal with. Even if the Supreme Court continues taking patent cases and smacking down the Federal Circuit every time, it will still take years to undo all the damage the Federal Circuit has done.

The lesson here is that the creation of the Federal Circuit in the early 1980s was a mistake. Before Congress created the court to handle patent cases, patent appeals were handled by the same courts that handled other kinds of appeals. There tends to be a lot more diversity on the normal circuit courts, which helps the judges on the courts to have a better sense of perspective and not see every case as an opportunity to expand patenting. Perhaps more importantly, the competition among circuits made the Supreme Court's job a lot easier. If one circuit wandered off the reservation, other circuits would typically hand down decisions more consistent with Supreme Court precedent, producing what the lawyers call a "circuit split." That would serve as a signal that the Supreme Court needed to step in, and it allowed the high court to simply give its blessing to the circuit whose rulings were closer to the Supreme Court's own thinking. In contrast, the current setup forces the Supreme Court to do a lot of the heavy lifting itself, repeatedly reviewing and overruling Federal Circuit decisions in an effort to establish a better set of precedents. Congress should give the Supreme Court a hand by eliminating the Federal Circuit and restoring jurisdiction over patent appeals to the other circuits. The judges currently on the Federal Circuit should probably be re-assigned to the other circuits, where they can provide helpful advice on the nuances of patent law to their colleagues but won't have enough votes to continue indiscriminately expanding patent law.

Filed Under: cafc, patents, specialized courts, supreme court

Supreme Court Says Patent Holders Can't Shake Down Entire Supply Chain

from the big-win dept

The Supreme Court continues to bring a bit of common sense back to the patent system. While most of the tech world was sitting around paying attention to whatever Steve Jobs has to say this morning, the really big news in the tech industry may be the Supreme Court's decision that patent holders can't shake down the entire supply chain, by forcing each level of the supply chain to also license the patent (even if they bought a product from someone who had licensed the patent).

This the LG v. Quanta case that the Supreme Court agreed to hear last fall. Basically, LG had some patents that it licensed to Intel. Intel then sold products based on those patents, which its customers used to build other products. LG demanded license fees from those customers as well, even though they bought fully licensed products from Intel. LG insisted that since its contract with Intel said that the license didn't cover any additional products, then the patents had to be relicensed by each player down the supply chain. To some extent, this question of "patent exhaustion" is similar to questions about first sale doctrine when it comes to copyright, in determining if you have a right to actually resell a product that was legally purchased. And, thankfully, the Supreme Court agrees that patent exhaustion is an important concept.

This is yet another very important limitation on patent holders, preventing them from stifling innovation at every step of the product process, and double-, triple- and quadruple-dipping off a product based on a single use of their patented invention. Hopefully this will lead to the quick dismissal of a bunch of cases that were filed last fall against a ton of companies up and down various supply chains. A lot of patent hoarders, fearing this exact decision, tried to just sue everyone at once, hoping for quick settlements before the Supreme Court stepped in. It's great to see the Supreme Court taking such an active interest in rolling back massive abuses of the patent system. Update: The EFF has a good take on the ruling, noting some of the holes in it, suggesting that it's unfortunate the the Supreme Court wasn't as clear as it could/should have been.

Filed Under: contracts, first sale, patent exhaustion, patents, supply chain, supreme court
Companies: lg, quanta

Supreme Court Refuses To Hear Baseball Appeal; MLB Still Doesn't Get To Own Facts

from the good-news dept

Good news from the Supreme Court this week, as it has decided not to take up Major League Baseball's appeal over the question of whether it gets to "own" player names and stats. As you may recall, Major League Baseball had created a lucrative side business for itself "licensing" out player names and stats to fantasy baseball providers. This actually made them quite a bit of money, until one of those fantasy baseball companies put two and two together and realized that player names and statistics are public information and not subject to copyright (you can't copyright "facts"). MLB flipped out at the possibility of losing this revenue stream and sued, claiming ownership of all game data.

As MLB realized that claiming ownership of game data was never going to cut it in court, it changed the story somewhat, saying that it was really about the players' right of publicity, which also (somehow) included owning their stats. A district court quickly saw through this argument and told MLB that it had no case. Rather than admitting defeat (and recognizing that more widespread use of baseball info should bring more fans into the game), MLB appealed. The appeals court wasted little time in again telling MLB it had no case. But those folks at MLB are nothing if not stubborn. So, they asked the full appeals court to rehear the case and were turned down

So, again, rather than recognizing that perhaps all of these courts (and common sense) had a point, MLB appealed to the Supreme Court, who (as noted) turned them down. If you're keeping score at home (and, we're not claiming ownership of the score), that now makes 4 - 0 for the courts over MLB, and I think we've pretty much hit the 9th inning, as there are no more appeals. The only thing MLB can hope for now is for a different circuit to somehow (unlikely) come to a different conclusion and the Supreme Court to revisit the issue. But that seems about as likely as, say, the Seattle Mariners somehow coming back to win the World Series this year. Stranger things have happened, but not very often.

Filed Under: baseball, copyright, facts, ownership, supreme court
Companies: major league baseball, mlb

Who Do You Side With? Telco Lawyers And Binding Arbitrators Or Class Action Lawyers?

from the pick-a-side-and-hold-your-nose dept

There are times when you hear of lawsuits and you really don't know who to favor. In the latest such case, the Supreme Court has turned down an appeal from T-Mobile on an appeals court decision that said that T-Mobile's contract terms requiring "binding arbitration" are unenforceable if those contracts also ban class action lawsuits against the company. This doesn't mean the Supreme Court totally agrees with it, but it didn't find it worth getting involved at this point (often the Supreme Court will wait for different circuits to disagree on a point of law before weighing in -- but in the meantime, it appears that the Supreme Court is not upset by the lower court ruling).

As you probably know, many of the contracts you sign these days require binding arbitration, rather than the ability to go to court over a dispute. Companies like to claim this is because binding arbitration is faster and simpler, but it's really because arbitrators (who are hired by the company) side with the company over 95% of the time. At the same time, the companies also try to block you from being a part of any class action lawsuit, and it's this combination that the court found problematic.

The real issue here is pretty straightforward: companies are trying to get you to give up most of your rights contractually -- but not through any sort of negotiation. They're basically trying to ram through agreements in the fine print that you'll never read that take away any sort of remedy you might have against the company in case the company does something wrong. While a fair contract is one thing, these contracts are not fair; they are not negotiable, and they're often not at all clear. It seems that companies are taking them too far, often depriving customers of perfectly reasonable rights -- so it seems like a good thing that the courts are pushing back a little.

Filed Under: binding arbitration, class action, supreme court
Companies: t-mobile