Ordinary, they should simply have financed the little guy who had received a notice. That way, there would have been standing.
I post here because my posts are being blocked in the other thread.
3.1
Ned,
You have hit the “pure quantity” block (also known as the “let’s NOT have any involved dialogue and instead encourage the drive-by monologues that certain blights more typically engage in” block).
To “perceptions,” can you say “La Vee”…?
And you do know better than to expect Malcolm to reply with any substantive counter point, right? It’s as if he never even heard of the Lujan case.
2
MM, entities with only generalized harm do not have standing in court, otherwise, the courts would be involved in second-guessing the acts of both the legislature and the executive at the instance of do-gooders. Courts exist to protect the rights of individuals. That is why there is a case and controversy requirement. Scalia has a good article on this, if you want me to link it.
MM, I have to post here because the filter is blocking all my posts in the other thread.
2.1
entities with only generalized harm do not have standing in court
Very specific restrictions on my rights to use a computer are not “generalized.”
This isn’t about “enjoying watching a rabbit frolic in the woods.” This is about using a computer — my computer — to perform a very specific task so I can, e.g., earn a living.
2.1.1
Infringement – on a substantial number of patents quite outside of your anti-software patent views – is possible with things that may be “yours.”
Just because you own the implements of what may be involved in a patent does not give you “the right” to use your implements in any way that you may want to.
For all of your typical screed about “grow up,” your attempted point here is rather juvenile.
1
Some really do lionize and pedestalize those folks.
Ordinary, they should simply have financed the little guy who had received a notice. That way, there would have been standing.
I post here because my posts are being blocked in the other thread.
Ned,
You have hit the “pure quantity” block (also known as the “let’s NOT have any involved dialogue and instead encourage the drive-by monologues that certain blights more typically engage in” block).
To “perceptions,” can you say “La Vee”…?
And you do know better than to expect Malcolm to reply with any substantive counter point, right? It’s as if he never even heard of the Lujan case.
MM, entities with only generalized harm do not have standing in court, otherwise, the courts would be involved in second-guessing the acts of both the legislature and the executive at the instance of do-gooders. Courts exist to protect the rights of individuals. That is why there is a case and controversy requirement. Scalia has a good article on this, if you want me to link it.
MM, I have to post here because the filter is blocking all my posts in the other thread.
entities with only generalized harm do not have standing in court
Very specific restrictions on my rights to use a computer are not “generalized.”
This isn’t about “enjoying watching a rabbit frolic in the woods.” This is about using a computer — my computer — to perform a very specific task so I can, e.g., earn a living.
Infringement – on a substantial number of patents quite outside of your anti-software patent views – is possible with things that may be “yours.”
Just because you own the implements of what may be involved in a patent does not give you “the right” to use your implements in any way that you may want to.
For all of your typical screed about “grow up,” your attempted point here is rather juvenile.
Some really do lionize and pedestalize those folks.
Comments are closed.