Oblivious Supreme Court poised to legalize medical patents • Hacker News Board

Re: Oblivious Supreme Court poised to legalize medical patents

#41

Post by binarybits » Thu, Dec 08, 2011, 4:34 AM UTC

shadowfiend wrote: post #40

binarybits wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"True change in this area really is something where the Court can only do so much. The definitions of patents in general are determined by Congress and its laws." Sorry, but this is just completely wrong. The law regarding patentable subject matter is almost entirely judge-made. There are broad categories of inventions in software, medicine, business methods, and elsewhere that clearly were not eligible for patent pr…

To some extent. But if you give so much latitude to judges, you're asking for complications. Unfortunately, things like obviousness and originality are not clear cut. If we want limits per se, I think Congress is the place to implement them, not the courts. That said, it's worth asking whether the courts are actually expanding the bounds of patentable subject matter, or simply upholding the breadth of the existing la…

"It doesn't seem like this is a case where they could expand it—that would involve overturning precedent."

Which precedent would that be?

Re: Oblivious Supreme Court poised to legalize medical patents

#42

Post by jhancock » Thu, Dec 08, 2011, 4:47 AM UTC

shadowfiend wrote: post #11

This is an extremely foolish title, and the tone of the article is likewise foolish. It's highly unlikely the Supreme Court has not read the amicus briefs, and almost impossible that they will not before passing judgement. These are not 9 people picked off the street and thrown on the bench to judge what the application of law is, and they don't mess around. Reading pretty much any Supreme Court decision will show yo…

The article is certainly biased. That's fine, it reads as an editorial and readers here can digest it accordingly.

Your feelings on SCofUS seem a bit ideal to me. My opinion is that possibly every case the supreme court hears is an act of judicial activism, as they only hear the cases they want and there is plenty of detail available to the court by both parties prior to deciding whether to hear a case or not. In many cases, we can predict how the vote will turn out. These are political appointments. They are lifetime ones, but a justice has to serve a career towing the party line in order to make the short list.

Re: Oblivious Supreme Court poised to legalize medical patents

#43

Post by shadowfiend » Thu, Dec 08, 2011, 5:02 AM UTC

binarybits wrote: post #41

shadowfiend wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To some extent. But if you give so much latitude to judges, you're asking for complications. Unfortunately, things like obviousness and originality are not clear cut. If we want limits per se, I think Congress is the place to implement them, not the courts. That said, it's worth asking whether the courts are actually expanding the bounds of patentable subject matter, or simply upholding the breadth of the existing la…

"It doesn't seem like this is a case where they could expand it—that would involve overturning precedent." Which precedent would that be?

That's precisely my point, it doesn't seem like there is precedent. For it to be an expansion, there would have to be a precedent that limits it that they'd be overturning. Otherwise, they're just confirming where the “edges” are.

Re: Oblivious Supreme Court poised to legalize medical patents

#44

Post by shadowfiend » Thu, Dec 08, 2011, 5:15 AM UTC

jhancock wrote: post #42

shadowfiend wrote: post #11

This is an extremely foolish title, and the tone of the article is likewise foolish. It's highly unlikely the Supreme Court has not read the amicus briefs, and almost impossible that they will not before passing judgement. These are not 9 people picked off the street and thrown on the bench to judge what the application of law is, and they don't mess around. Reading pretty much any Supreme Court decision will show yo…

The article is certainly biased. That's fine, it reads as an editorial and readers here can digest it accordingly. Your feelings on SCofUS seem a bit ideal to me. My opinion is that possibly every case the supreme court hears is an act of judicial activism, as they only hear the cases they want and there is plenty of detail available to the court by both parties prior to deciding whether to hear a case or not. In man…

My feelings may be a bit ideal, though again, reading decisions makes it apparent both how intelligent these people are and how their “wrong” decisions are still very well-justified. However, I think yours are perhaps too cynical.

For example, David Souter was appointed by Bush Sr and ended up being one of the most liberal justices on the court. Harold Blackmun, author of the majority decision in Roe v Wade, was appointed by Nixon. Ford appointed John Paul Stevens. Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, on the other hand, were both appointed by Clinton.

So the political leanings are not as clear-cut as you make them out to be. And there is significantly reduced pressure to toe any sort of party line after you are named to the court—that's precisely why the appointments are for life. Moreover, in order to get confirmed, it's tough for a justice to simply toe the party line. Confirmation is a 2/3 deal in the Senate, and it's extremely rare for one wing or the other to have 2/3 of the seats there. No one takes Supreme Court appointments lightly.

Even so, I think I've tempered for idealism. Idealism would say they'd come up with a perfect, fair decision, every time. I'm just saying they're not oblivious. They may have a different interpretation, they may not have a complete technical understanding, but these are not people who are oblivious. They're smart, they know how law works, and this is ultimately a debate about law, as it should be in a court. Yes, there is room for interpretation, but these are not fools, and I feel like the characterization of the Supreme Court as “oblivious” is a bit excessive in that sense.

Re: Oblivious Supreme Court poised to legalize medical patents

#45

Post by Natsu » Thu, Dec 08, 2011, 6:48 AM UTC

shadowfiend wrote: post #44

jhancock wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article is certainly biased. That's fine, it reads as an editorial and readers here can digest it accordingly. Your feelings on SCofUS seem a bit ideal to me. My opinion is that possibly every case the supreme court hears is an act of judicial activism, as they only hear the cases they want and there is plenty of detail available to the court by both parties prior to deciding whether to hear a case or not. In man…

My feelings may be a bit ideal, though again, reading decisions makes it apparent both how intelligent these people are and how their “wrong” decisions are still very well-justified. However, I think yours are perhaps too cynical. For example, David Souter was appointed by Bush Sr and ended up being one of the most liberal justices on the court. Harold Blackmun, author of the majority decision in Roe v Wade, was appo…

When I tried to submit this story, I cut the word "oblivious" out of the title. Of course, someone else had beaten me, so it counted as an upvote for this copy, which uses the original title.

Anyhow, you're right that they will read the amicus briefs. But I do wish they had given them more consideration. While it's true that you can't really gauge how they'll rule from the questioning in general, statements about how they "all agree" that it would be patentable if they'd included a few more numbers are very worrisome. Yes, sometimes they'll harshly question the side they ultimately support, perhaps to see how it fares under scrutiny, but I fear that important points were not disputed at all during that exchange.

Re: Oblivious Supreme Court poised to legalize medical patents

#46

Post by foenix » Thu, Dec 08, 2011, 7:36 AM UTC

shadowfiend wrote: post #43

binarybits wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"It doesn't seem like this is a case where they could expand it—that would involve overturning precedent." Which precedent would that be?

That's precisely my point, it doesn't seem like there is precedent. For it to be an expansion, there would have to be a precedent that limits it that they'd be overturning. Otherwise, they're just confirming where the “edges” are.

Exactly, that's why it reached the supreme court. The US has a COMMON LAW system. That means that this case will be applied to further cases in order to determine what the common punishment should be. The supreme court sets supreme precedent.

Re: Oblivious Supreme Court poised to legalize medical patents

#47

Post by digikata » Thu, Dec 08, 2011, 7:52 AM UTC

AngryParsley wrote: post #33

leot wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's amazing that so many entrepreneurs seem to hate the large payments that class action lawyers are awarded. Class action lawyers perform the same kind of high-risk high-reward gamble that startups engage in. While tech startups create value by making something useful, these lawyers create value by keeping powerful interests honest. The idea that they are unnecessary or should be capped because consumers will just…

The big difference is that successful class-action lawyers transfer wealth, while successful entrepreneurs create wealth.

If the class-actions end a practice, that frequently closes off a path where wealth would have been illegally bled off from multiple parties.

Re: Oblivious Supreme Court poised to legalize medical patents

#48

Post by digikata » Thu, Dec 08, 2011, 7:54 AM UTC

drewcrawford wrote: post #31

leot wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like a problem of the selection of legal representation. It seems there needs to be some, ah, website that helps to put together groups of plaintiffs and organizes the process of selecting a good legal team to represent them ... ... if the website got 0.25% of every settlement, it could be pretty lucrative.

As I understand it (IANAL) the vast majority of members of the class find out during the settlement process, i.e. well AFTER the lawyers have been picked. You can technically "opt out" and go sue the company yourself, but you're not going to get people who realistically, upon receiving notice that they are getting an unexpected settlement in-between two utility bills, decide to form their own class.

The lawyers are often "picked" because they are the only ones willing to invest many hours of legal effort out of their own pocket.

Re: Oblivious Supreme Court poised to legalize medical patents

#49

Post by digikata » Thu, Dec 08, 2011, 7:57 AM UTC

_delirium wrote: post #22

leot wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's amazing that so many entrepreneurs seem to hate the large payments that class action lawyers are awarded. Class action lawyers perform the same kind of high-risk high-reward gamble that startups engage in. While tech startups create value by making something useful, these lawyers create value by keeping powerful interests honest. The idea that they are unnecessary or should be capped because consumers will just…

I think the main source of dislike is that the lawyers appear to be the only ones profiting: they receive substantial payouts, the lead plaintiffs they talk to receive payments, but the bulk of the class they supposedly represent receives worthless coupons. The suspicion is that they're negotiating primarily for themselves, willing to sell out the class with a shitty settlement, as long as they themselves get a good…

Long term, if the class action changes the practice that led to the case, than all the future customers benefit too. It's hard to calculate that kind of benefit, but it's a nice benefit.

Re: Oblivious Supreme Court poised to legalize medical patents

#50

Post by buff-a » Thu, Dec 08, 2011, 8:11 AM UTC

shadowfiend wrote: post #11

This is an extremely foolish title, and the tone of the article is likewise foolish. It's highly unlikely the Supreme Court has not read the amicus briefs, and almost impossible that they will not before passing judgement. These are not 9 people picked off the street and thrown on the bench to judge what the application of law is, and they don't mess around. Reading pretty much any Supreme Court decision will show yo…

"Reading pretty much any Supreme Court decision will show you how intelligent these nine justices are."

Not saying they aren't intelligent. But they might be intelligent enough to have their wives take hundreds of thousands of dollars in lobbying money directly related to the cases before them and get away with it. So, not their intelligence I'm worried about. Its their ethics and morality.