I came here thinking exactly this. My guess would be this is the classic problem that the USPTO doesn't actually care anymore what the law says and just approves anything. Then no business owner wants to try to test it in court because most of the time they don't understand IP well enough themselves to get how wrong the USPTO is.
Yes this is going to have some serious consequences and yes it needs to be fixed. I honestly think you've completely ignored a lot of serious problems this policy created as well in your effort to rant about the negatives that getting rid of this are going to have.
Lets remember that this policy is not part of our law. In fact it directly conflicts with the Constitutions basic requirements to allow both sides to have their arguments considered before a court.
Removing it also does not magically remove the policies created throughout our caselaw history. In fact the only thing this does is allow defendants to actually have their interpretations of these laws considered in front of the judge instead of being ignored as long as one side can come up with some argument that seems reasonable.
There were a lot of problems with giving one side complete power like that in the courtroom. Many people were hit with agencies that don't make their interpretations clear until they decide someone has broken them and then it doesn't matter if your idea of how to follow the law was also reasonable or that you had no way of knowing you were breaking the rules for that agency. They get to win automatically. This is blatantly and obviously Unconstitutional.
The fix for the issues described here needs to come from Congress, not from made up policy in the courtroom. An agency should only get this kind of deference when they've made their interpretations openly clear and easily discoverable by those they're regulating, which was not required under Chevron.
So how is admitting that a policy that never came from Congress and is not part of any law anywhere "legislating from the bench"?
Yes this will have some very negative consequences but this is literally the exact opposite of legislating from the bench.
There are also a lot of serious negatives that came from this completely illegal policy that have been completely ignored by this article and many others.
Not relevant. The price would have been much higher had a private individual not had the freedom to come in and do it. Because the government would never have had any reason to.
Of course not, but then that's not the reality of it at all.
The only systems that have ever kept the entire rest of the population in permanent poverty are Socialism and Communism. Capitalism has literally raised the standard of living for all classes of society including the poorest. It is the only system that has ever helped the poor.
Having billionaires does not matter. They existing removes nothing from anyone else.
You connect a lot of completely unrelated issues and try very hard to pretend doing so makes any sense.
Capitalism has raised the quality of life for literally everyone across the entire world by orders of magnitude. It is literally the only system that has ever helped the poor. It is the only system yet that handles corruption and greed.
No it isn't perfect. As you mentioned no system is. Happy to discuss ideas for doing better but no one I've ever heard does this. They just jump back to socialism or communism which actually have the problems they love to blame capitalism for.
You might want to read up on the caselaw surrounding these clauses, especially those courts that have declared them illegal.
This type of clause is nothing like a "normal" contract. It's incredibly one sided very strongly in favor of the employer. The fact that it's ok to have some give and take doesn't make any give or take ok. These clauses represent a literally insane amount of take with no clear benefit for doing so and nothing even remotely similar in the give category back to the employee.
It's a good thing we were never a democracy in the first place then, isn't it? Which is good considering what our founding fathers knew about why pure democracies fall apart and are actually a terrible form of government.
And to be clear they do have the power to do this. It falls very much within interstate trade which puts it very well into their wheelhouse. And yes this is a good thing.
This isn't just narrow minded, it's completely ignorant of reality.
Creativity has NEVER BEEN a blank canvas. Creativity always builds on what has come before. There are literally tons of articles on BestNetTech that have explored that to different degrees but the honest truth is that believing it's a blank canvas is just selfishly and intentionally ignorant of reality.
This is the reason all new things conflict with Copyright and end up running through the gauntlet of lawsuits and accusations of Copyright infringement. People are too busy wanting to believe a fantasy to care to understand the nature of creativity.
It also recognises the important role search plays
By punishing search for playing that role.
Seriously the leap of logic that has to happen to make anyone think this statement and this law match up at all just blows my mind.
“The Supreme Court has said this attack is okay because there are certain “safety valves” like fair use built in”
Which, of course, is already a problem because it’s only a defence to a legal attack. If someone hits you with false claims, it doesn’t matter if you had the fair use right if you’re out of business fighting the false claims
It's a much bigger problem than just that. The problem is exacerbated by judges unwillingness to recognize when a law should be unconstitutional because it doesn't have those "safety valves" in it. This was shown perfectly in Disney vs Vidangel where Disney's verbal arguments were literally "no one gets to decide when DRM can be broken but us". By that interpretation the DMCA is unconstitutional on its face but the Ninth Circuit couldn't be bothered to recognize that.
Nothing about that ruling implies that the state has any authority at all, only that landowners clearly have some degree of airspace over their land over which the government cannot have authority to regulate.
They're already regulated to a point of severe paranoia and in some cases blatant illegality. What about it don't you like exactly? And why do you feel they need more regulation rather than less?
There is no such thing as hate speech.
The notion that some combination of words can of its own accord be hateful is false.
Someone can say something out of hate certainly. But even that does not make the words they speak inherently hateful. It makes their intent hateful.
And even in that context, you should never make hating someone illegal. Banning how people are allowed to feel toward others is a juvenile attempt to make something you don't like "go away". It will only give those expressing those feelings legitimacy to feel that way and make the whole situation worse.
So, while we don’t know yet if this is in the automated system collateral damage category, or the fraudulent copyright takedown category
That's the same category as far as I'm concerned.
The lack of evidence or data pointing to a spike in sex offenses against children during Halloween suggests the laws on the books are working.
It also suggests the laws on the books are ridiculous and completely unnecessary. In fact it suggests that far more than that they are "working".
Sorry but sex offender registries are some of the most disgusting representations of abusive overpunishment we have today. When someone has served the time the law dictates they should for crimes they've committed they have a right to be treated as an honest citizen. And that doesn't even get in to how many of these registries are abused by law enforcement to punish people for whatever reason they want to come up with.
I think most here would agree that it's disturbing that individuals serving in the judicial system choose politics or even just their own personal opinion over actual law.
Of course pretending that that's somehow unique to the US is just silly. It's true of every country in the world, even independent of democracy. It's a people problem, not a system problem.
I came here thinking exactly this. My guess would be this is the classic problem that the USPTO doesn't actually care anymore what the law says and just approves anything. Then no business owner wants to try to test it in court because most of the time they don't understand IP well enough themselves to get how wrong the USPTO is.
Not the rosy policy you paint it to be
Yes this is going to have some serious consequences and yes it needs to be fixed. I honestly think you've completely ignored a lot of serious problems this policy created as well in your effort to rant about the negatives that getting rid of this are going to have. Lets remember that this policy is not part of our law. In fact it directly conflicts with the Constitutions basic requirements to allow both sides to have their arguments considered before a court. Removing it also does not magically remove the policies created throughout our caselaw history. In fact the only thing this does is allow defendants to actually have their interpretations of these laws considered in front of the judge instead of being ignored as long as one side can come up with some argument that seems reasonable. There were a lot of problems with giving one side complete power like that in the courtroom. Many people were hit with agencies that don't make their interpretations clear until they decide someone has broken them and then it doesn't matter if your idea of how to follow the law was also reasonable or that you had no way of knowing you were breaking the rules for that agency. They get to win automatically. This is blatantly and obviously Unconstitutional. The fix for the issues described here needs to come from Congress, not from made up policy in the courtroom. An agency should only get this kind of deference when they've made their interpretations openly clear and easily discoverable by those they're regulating, which was not required under Chevron.
So how is admitting that a policy that never came from Congress and is not part of any law anywhere "legislating from the bench"? Yes this will have some very negative consequences but this is literally the exact opposite of legislating from the bench. There are also a lot of serious negatives that came from this completely illegal policy that have been completely ignored by this article and many others.
There's nothing immoral about being wealthy. At any degree.
Well if you keep advocating against the very system that allows that competition to exist then the answer here is both of you.
Not relevant. The price would have been much higher had a private individual not had the freedom to come in and do it. Because the government would never have had any reason to.
Of course not, but then that's not the reality of it at all. The only systems that have ever kept the entire rest of the population in permanent poverty are Socialism and Communism. Capitalism has literally raised the standard of living for all classes of society including the poorest. It is the only system that has ever helped the poor. Having billionaires does not matter. They existing removes nothing from anyone else.
You connect a lot of completely unrelated issues and try very hard to pretend doing so makes any sense. Capitalism has raised the quality of life for literally everyone across the entire world by orders of magnitude. It is literally the only system that has ever helped the poor. It is the only system yet that handles corruption and greed. No it isn't perfect. As you mentioned no system is. Happy to discuss ideas for doing better but no one I've ever heard does this. They just jump back to socialism or communism which actually have the problems they love to blame capitalism for.
You might want to read up on the caselaw surrounding these clauses, especially those courts that have declared them illegal. This type of clause is nothing like a "normal" contract. It's incredibly one sided very strongly in favor of the employer. The fact that it's ok to have some give and take doesn't make any give or take ok. These clauses represent a literally insane amount of take with no clear benefit for doing so and nothing even remotely similar in the give category back to the employee.
It's a good thing we were never a democracy in the first place then, isn't it? Which is good considering what our founding fathers knew about why pure democracies fall apart and are actually a terrible form of government. And to be clear they do have the power to do this. It falls very much within interstate trade which puts it very well into their wheelhouse. And yes this is a good thing.
This isn't just narrow minded, it's completely ignorant of reality. Creativity has NEVER BEEN a blank canvas. Creativity always builds on what has come before. There are literally tons of articles on BestNetTech that have explored that to different degrees but the honest truth is that believing it's a blank canvas is just selfishly and intentionally ignorant of reality. This is the reason all new things conflict with Copyright and end up running through the gauntlet of lawsuits and accusations of Copyright infringement. People are too busy wanting to believe a fantasy to care to understand the nature of creativity.
Funny way of showing it
Nothing about that ruling implies that the state has any authority at all, only that landowners clearly have some degree of airspace over their land over which the government cannot have authority to regulate.
They're already regulated to a point of severe paranoia and in some cases blatant illegality. What about it don't you like exactly? And why do you feel they need more regulation rather than less?
There is no such thing as hate speech. The notion that some combination of words can of its own accord be hateful is false. Someone can say something out of hate certainly. But even that does not make the words they speak inherently hateful. It makes their intent hateful. And even in that context, you should never make hating someone illegal. Banning how people are allowed to feel toward others is a juvenile attempt to make something you don't like "go away". It will only give those expressing those feelings legitimacy to feel that way and make the whole situation worse.
No difference
So, while we don’t know yet if this is in the automated system collateral damage category, or the fraudulent copyright takedown categoryThat's the same category as far as I'm concerned.Re: Uh
Great strawman you got there. You seem to be confused who these bills are about. It's not you.
More than one way to look at data
The lack of evidence or data pointing to a spike in sex offenses against children during Halloween suggests the laws on the books are working.
It also suggests the laws on the books are ridiculous and completely unnecessary. In fact it suggests that far more than that they are "working".
Sorry but sex offender registries are some of the most disgusting representations of abusive overpunishment we have today. When someone has served the time the law dictates they should for crimes they've committed they have a right to be treated as an honest citizen. And that doesn't even get in to how many of these registries are abused by law enforcement to punish people for whatever reason they want to come up with.
Re:
I think most here would agree that it's disturbing that individuals serving in the judicial system choose politics or even just their own personal opinion over actual law. Of course pretending that that's somehow unique to the US is just silly. It's true of every country in the world, even independent of democracy. It's a people problem, not a system problem.