Octopus Overlords

RunningMn9 wrote:Is it wrong to point out that employees aren't capital equipment or horses?

...and suddenly, Samuel Alito gets the idea that will secure his place in history.

RunningMn9 wrote:Is it wrong to point out that employees aren't capital equipment or horses?

Neigh.

Enough wrote:

RunningMn9 wrote:Is it wrong to point out that employees aren't capital equipment or horses?

Neigh.

Well done.

RunningMn9 wrote:Is it wrong to point out that employees aren't capital equipment or horses?

Only if you think someone has confused the 3.

GreenGoo wrote:Only if you think someone has confused the 3.

I think someone has confused the 3.

RunningMn9 wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:Only if you think someone has confused the 3.

I think someone has confused the 3.

Then it's not wrong.

Interesting Hobby Lobby side effect:

Lawyers representing Guantanamo Bay prisoners are now invoking the recent Burwell v. Hobby Lobby ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that if corporations are allowed to have religious rights, so should detainees.

The motions, which were filed in Washington, D.C., on behalf of Ahmed Rabbani of Pakistan and Emad Hassan of Yemen, asked the court to end the military’s policy of denying Gitmo prisoners the right to observe communal prayer during Ramadan, the Muslim holy month. Two separate courts have previously upheld restrictions on the religious expression of prisoners, arguing that Gitmo detainees are nonresident aliens and thus do not qualify as “persons” under the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act (RFRA). But the new filing points out that this position is inconsistent with last week’s Supreme Courts ruling, which granted religious rights to a corporate “person” — Hobby Lobby — under RFRA.

Dunno if it will actually go anywhere, as it would take more knowledge of what has been ruled in the past than I have, but I find it interesting.

Other interesting Hobby Lobby article - this is the point which struck me:

Five male Justices of the Supreme Court, who are all members of the Catholic faith...

I hadn't realized that the majority in the case were all Catholics, nor that the Court was composed of only Roman Catholic and Jewish members.

Have they filed incorporation paperwork? If their lawyers can get them registered as a corp in their home country, they might have a shot.

Pyperkub wrote:Interesting Hobby Lobby side effect:

Lawyers representing Guantanamo Bay prisoners are now invoking the recent Burwell v. Hobby Lobby ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that if corporations are allowed to have religious rights, so should detainees.

The motions, which were filed in Washington, D.C., on behalf of Ahmed Rabbani of Pakistan and Emad Hassan of Yemen, asked the court to end the military’s policy of denying Gitmo prisoners the right to observe communal prayer during Ramadan, the Muslim holy month. Two separate courts have previously upheld restrictions on the religious expression of prisoners, arguing that Gitmo detainees are nonresident aliens and thus do not qualify as “persons” under the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act (RFRA). But the new filing points out that this position is inconsistent with last week’s Supreme Courts ruling, which granted religious rights to a corporate “person” — Hobby Lobby — under RFRA.

Dunno if it will actually go anywhere, as it would take more knowledge of what has been ruled in the past than I have, but I find it interesting.

Other interesting Hobby Lobby article - this is the point which struck me:

Five male Justices of the Supreme Court, who are all members of the Catholic faith...

I hadn't realized that the majority in the case were all Catholics, nor that the Court was composed of only Roman Catholic and Jewish members.

And 25% of the dissenters were Catholic.

I was just surprised at the lack of Protestants. It's kind of odd in that there's only been 1 Roman Catholic President and zero Jewish Presidents.

Pyperkub wrote:I was just surprised at the lack of Protestants. It's kind of odd in that there's only been 1 Roman Catholic President and zero Jewish Presidents.

Checks and balances.

Biyobi wrote:

Pyperkub wrote:I was just surprised at the lack of Protestants. It's kind of odd in that there's only been 1 Roman Catholic President and zero Jewish Presidents.

Checks and balances.

Shouldn't those be cash balances?

Smoove_B wrote:

RunningMn9 wrote:Gearing up for a decision today on the Hobby Lobby case. It still boggles my mind that as a nation we are contemplating whether or not corporations have the right to exercise religion and believe in God.

No need to contemplate it any more:

The justices' 5-4 decision Monday is the first time that the high court has ruled that profit-seeking businesses can hold religious views under federal law.

Tomorrow I'm incorporating myself as a profit-seeking business and claiming my #1 religious belief is that I don't pay taxes.

Justification to dress like a pirate in prison?

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/1 ... -a-pirate/

Right to a beard:

The justices said prison authorities in Arkansas had no convincing reason for contending that Gregory Holt's neatly trimmed half-inch beard would represent a danger.

It is "almost preposterous to think that you could hide" a dangerous weapon in such a beard, a magistrate commented when the case was first heard.

The Arkansas prison system's no-beard policy was unusual. The "vast majority" of states and federal prisons permit inmates to grow 1/2-inch beards for religious or other reasons, said Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.
...
In Tuesday's opinion, Alito said Holt, who is also known as Abdul Maalik Muhammed, had a sincerely held belief that he must grow a beard.

I thought this was about gay rights.

:rimshot:

Isgrimnur wrote::rimshot:

Good one.

By the way, not as exciting as all the other SCOTUS stuff, but the Supremes handed down a decision yesterday that fundamentally changes the patent landscape. In Teva v. Sandoz, the Court changed the standard of appellate review for trial court claim construction rulings from de novo to clear error.

What this means:

A patent is made up of a bunch of words and drawings describing all the cool things an inventor has done (the specification) followed by a very precisely formulated set of numbered "claims" that specify exactly what the inventor is claiming a monopoly over. Because it's the words of the claims that set forth the metes and bounds of the inventor's property right, there's almost always a ton of fighting about what the words of those claims mean. In 1996, in Markman v. Westview, the Court held that determining the meaning of patent claims is a question of law for a judge, not a question of fact for a jury. In other words, the claims of a patent are like a contract, and, as in contract law, it's the judge's job to explain to a jury what the words of the claims mean, and it's the jury's job to decide if, given the claim construction ruling of the judge, the claims have been infringed by a defendant. Ever since, the claim construction hearing -- or Markman hearing -- has been one of the most pivotal events in any given patent case.

The problem with all this is what happens on appeal. Because an appellate court is required to be deferential to a jury's findings of fact, those findings are reviewed for "clear error." That's a very difficult standard to meet. On the other hand, questions of law are generally reviewed de novo, meaning they are reviewed as if the appellate court was examining the issue in the first instance, with no deference given to the findings or rulings of the judge below. In patent land, this meant that trial court judgments were virtually meaningless because everyone knew that the claim construction rulings underlying those judgments were destined to be examined fresh by the appellate court. Because no deference was given to the claim construction rulings below, the rate of reversal was staggering.

This all led to a whole lot of uncertainty and a very inefficient and wasteful system (and one that was really biased against smaller actors who might not have the stomach or bank account for a lengthy appellate process).

But that all changed, mostly, with the Court's recent decision. Taking the realistic view of the claim construction process, the Supremes have now said that claim construction issues are not generally pure questions of law, but rather mixed questions of law and fact. More importantly, they've come out and clearly said that reviewing the factual part of those decisions de novo on appeal is wrong. Rather, the factual aspects of a claim construction ruling must be reviewed for clear error. Because the vast majority of claim construction decisions are based, in part, on factual determinations and credibility assessments of testifying experts, this is a broad ruling that's going to have a significant impact on patent litigation going forward.

And I'm sure that's way more info than anyone here wanted about patent law!

Thanks for that excellent explanation Kurth.

Very clear.

Say goodbye to the east Texas patent court filing bonanza, I believe. ..

Thanks Kurth!

Pyperkub wrote:Say goodbye to the east Texas patent court filing bonanza, I believe. ..

Thanks Kurth!

I'm not sure this decision is going to have that impact on EDTX filings, Pyperkub.

It's true that EDTX has traditionally been seen as a very patent-friendly forum due to (1) local patent rules that provide specific deadlines for patent cases; (2) judges willing to hold on to cases where the jurisdictional basis (i.e., ties to Texas) are weak; and (3) most importantly, juries that tended to hand out very large damages awards upon findings of infringement. But the importance of each of these has diminished somewhat in recent years. Many other jurisdictions have now adopted similar local patent rules, the Federal Circuit has handed down some decisions that limit the degree to which judges can hold on to cases with tenuous ties to their jurisdiction, and recent case law has called into question the damages analyses that many of the more Texas-sized damages awards were previously based on.

That said, the Teva v. Sandoz decision actually may result in patent plaintiffs engaging in even more forum shopping. Because the trial judge's claim construction ruling now has teeth and won't automatically be reviewed from the ground up by the appellate court, patentees will probably try even harder to make sure they are filing in districts where there are judges who they believe will be more receptive to their claim construction arguments. This analysis is going to vary from judge to judge rather than district to district, but to the extent EDTX is seen as a patent-friendly forum with judges who may tend to sde with patentees when considering arguments about what their patent claims mean, I wouldn't expect to see a decrease in EDTX filings. Maybe the opposite.

As a side note, has anyone ever been to Marshall, TX, where the EDTX sits? Marshall, TX has taken on an almost mythical place in patent land due to the number of cases filed in EDTX and the size of some of the judgments that come out of there. But when I went there for a Markman hearing a few years back, I was floored. It's literally a one stop light town in the middle of nowhere with a tiny courthouse with two small, shabby court-rooms. Not at all what I expected!

Maryland tax ruled unconstitutional.

Maryland allowed its residents to deduct income taxes paid to other states from their Maryland state tax, but it did not apply that deduction to a local "piggy back" tax collected for counties and some city governments.

Maryland officials argued that the state has authority to tax all the income its residents earn to pay for local services like public schools.

Writing for the court, Justice Samuel Alito said the tax "is inherently discriminatory and operates as a tariff."

The case arose after Maryland residents Brian and Karen Wynne challenged tax bill. They had been blocked from deducting $84,550 that they had paid in income taxes to 39 other states. Brian Wynne's out-of-state income resulted from his ownership stake in a health care company that operates nationwide.
...
Maryland's highest court ruled in 2013 that the tax violates the Constitution's Commerce Clause.

Maryland officials said an adverse ruling could cost local governments in the state $45 million to $50 million annually and warned that Maryland might have to refund up to $120 million in taxes.

Not quite SCOTUS, but 7th Circuit denies Notre Dame's request for a Court Order to prevent students from obtaining birth control based on Hobby Lobby:

In its opinion on Tuesday, the court offered its best guess at what Notre Dame is after: “It wants us to enjoin the government from forbidding Notre Dame to bar [its insurance administrator and provider] from providing contraceptive coverage to any of the university’s students or employees.” The university, the court explained, “claims to be complicit in the sin of contraception. It wants to dissolve that complicity by forbidding Aetna and Meritain—with both of which, to repeat, it continues to have contractual relations—to provide any contraceptive coverage to Notre Dame students or staff.”

You can't not hire someone over dress code if it's religious in nature.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Muslim woman who was not hired at Abercrombie & Fitch because she wore a religious head covering.

The court ruled 8-1 that the company failed to accommodate a job applicant's religious needs when she was not hired on the basis that her hijab violated company dress policy.

The court ruled the plaintiff did not have to prove whether the company actually knew that the headscarf was worn for religious reasons.

"An applicant need show only that his need for an accommodation was a motivating factor in the employer's decision, not that the employer had knowledge of his need," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority.

Vaguebooking threats is within your free speech rights.

The Supreme Court ruled Monday in favor of a Pennsylvania man who posted several violent messages on Facebook and was convicted under a federal threat statute. The Court held that the standard used to convict him was too low.

The Court said that it wasn't enough to convict him based solely on how a reasonable person would regard his communcations as a threat. The Court left open what standard should be used.
...
The ruling marks the first time the Court addressed the implications of free speech on social media. It is a narrow ruling and the Court did not address the larger constitutional issue.

The case concerns a Pennsylvania man, Anthony D. Elonis, who posted several violent messages on his social media account after his wife left him. He claimed he was an artist who turned to rap lyrics for therapeutic purposes to help him cope with depression.

"There¹s one way to love you but a thousand ways to kill you," he wrote in one post.

"Enough elementary schools in a ten mile radius to initiate the most heinous school shooting ever imagined," he wrote in another.

He was convicted for violating a federal threat statute.

Elonis appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court arguing that the government should have been required to prove he actually intended to make a threat before sending him to jail for a 44 month term. Instead, the jury was told the standard was whether a "reasonable person" would have understood the words to be a threat.

It's not that you have a right to make vaguebooking threats, it's that the government has to affirmatively prove that you were in fact making a threat.

If they could prove it, it wouldn't be vaguebooking, now would it?

Thanks for the clarification.

Just wanted to make sure before you started making vaguebooking threats on OO. VaguebOOking threats, I suppose.

On that threat thing, a reasonable person might feel fear and anxiety over a lot of things other drivers do just driving to work, all that stuff can't be considered a federal crime. There has to be some intent there is what I'm saying. That's not even getting into what a 'reasonable' person is and who decides that.

I just want to reiterate a Supreme Court story that Isgrimnur posted six posts above because it's so important.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday revived an employment discrimination lawsuit against Abercrombie & Fitch, which had refused to hire a Muslim woman because she wore a head scarf. The company said the scarf clashed with its dress code, which called for a “classic East Coast collegiate style.”

“This is really easy,” Justice Antonin Scalia said in announcing the decision from the bench.

The company, he said, at least suspected that the applicant, Samantha Elauf, wore the head scarf for religious reasons. The company’s decision not to hire her, Justice Scalia said, was motivated by a desire to avoid accommodating her religious practice. That was enough, he concluded, to allow her to sue under a federal employment discrimination law.

Abercrombie's main argument seems to be that the applicant never told them that she wore the hijab for religious reasons, to which the Supreme Court ruled essentially "c'mon, really?"

Not edited by El Guapo on Mon Jun 01, 2015 6:59 pm, edited 0 times in total.

El Guapo Manages to Miss Post Covering Story a Mere Six Posts Above

Isgrimnur wrote:El Guapo Manages to Miss Post Covering Story a Mere Six Posts Above

I don't know what you're talking about. Of course I saw it.

El Guapo wrote:

The company said the scarf clashed with its dress code, which called for a “classic East Coast collegiate style.”

Well now I want to know what "classic East Coast collegiate style" means and how it differs from "classic West Coast collegiate style". Give me details, SCOTUS!

Ralph-Wiggum wrote:

El Guapo wrote:

The company said the scarf clashed with its dress code, which called for a “classic East Coast collegiate style.”

Well now I want to know what "classic East Coast collegiate style" means and how it differs from "classic West Coast collegiate style". Give me details, SCOTUS!

Boat shoes vs. flip flops.

No Confederate flag on Texas license plates.

The Supreme Court has freed states to control what appears on their specialty license plates, ruling Thursday that Texas authorities were justified in refusing to issue a plate bearing a Confederate battle flag.

In a 5-4 decision, the justices said a state-issued license plate is "government speech," not the private speech of a motorist. For that reason, the state may decide which messages it wants conveyed on license plates.

"When the government speaks, it is not barred by the free speech clause from determining what it says," Justice Stephen Breyer said for the court.

Justice Clarence Thomas cast a rare vote with the court's four liberals to form the majority.
...
In the Texas case, the Sons of Confederate Veterans applied to sponsor a specialty plate that displayed a Confederate battle flag. When a state board refused to issue the plate, the group sued and won in the lower courts based on the claim that the state's decision violated the 1st Amendment.
...
Justice Samuel Alito spoke for the dissenters and said motorists on the highway would know that specialty plates represent the "private speech" of the car owner, not the government.

"The state of Texas has converted ... its specialty plates into little mobile billboards on which motorists can display their own messages," he said. It is "blatant viewpoint discrimination" for officials to reject one group's message as "offensive," he said.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy joined his dissent.

It is not clear what the decision will mean for abortion-related disputes over the "Choose Life" license plates. Some abortion-rights groups have argued that the state with such specialty plates must also issue a plate with a message such as "Respect Choice."

That issue was raised in a North Carolina case that is still pending on appeal before the justices.

Isgrimnur wrote:No Confederate flag on Texas license plates.

...
Justice Samuel Alito spoke for the dissenters and said motorists on the highway would know that specialty plates represent the "private speech" of the car owner, not the government.

I wouldn't know that. I've always assumed that states curate their special interest plates just as they do vanity plates. You can't get "FUCK U" as vanity number (or even "FAHQ", as a friend of mine found out ). And likewise, a state would have to approve a specialty plate before issuing them.

The only thing that surprises me is that Texas balked at those plates in the first place.

I mean...

LawBeefaroni wrote:

Ugh. That's offensive.

Since it's now designated as state speech, maybe someone can get the state to drop the "One State Under God" plate.

Breaking news of the morning is that the Court rules in favor of the ACA and federally provided subsidies (6-3 vote).

Captain Caveman wrote:Breaking news of the morning is that the Court rules in favor of the ACA and federally provided subsidies (6-3 vote).

Thank God.