Patently-O Software Law Bits & Bytes: Data Privacy by Grant Harrison

by Grant Harrison (grant@patentlyo.com)

Data Privacy: Data Privacy or Information Privacy Law is, in short, a way to regulate how companies, individuals, and governments access, use, and collect public information, usually via online. Contemporaneous information privacy law has been around since the 1970’s when the FTC (Federal Trade Commission) first released the Fair Information Practice Principles or the FIPPs, which then served as a foundation for subsequent Data Privacy laws. The principles primarily give the people the right to know when, where, what, and how our data is used and collected. It gives the people substantial transparency with the company regarding our private data and treats our data as our property so that companies must ask before doing anything with our private information. This has been huge news in the last few years because the United States is one of the only highly developed countries that has not enacted comprehensive Data Privacy regulations.

Recent Articles and Editorials:

46 thoughts on “Patently-O Software Law Bits & Bytes: Data Privacy by Grant Harrison

  1. 5

    Where should one categorize “data privacy”? Tort law? Property law? Intellectual property law? Data Privacy law?

    1. 5.1

      A related question:

      Should data privacy law BE separated into only one “pigeonhole” of law (including possibly its own grouping unto itself)?

      You might look into a phrase that has been used in regards to this topic: “the law of the horse.”

      1. 5.1.1

        Interesting — I had never heard of “the law of the horse.” Cyber law would be another category, if one had to choose.

        1. 5.1.1.1

          Way back when I was studying cyber law is when I was exposed to that concept (and of course, discussion thereof).

          1. 5.1.1.1.1

            What category of law does cyber law fall into?

            /sarcasm off

            1. 5.1.1.1.1.1

              You act as if your snideness is “biting.”

              It is not.

              It is merely mindless.

              That you don’t — or can’t — recognize this, that is merely Malcolm being Malcolm.

              1. 5.1.1.1.1.1.1

                My bad. Didn’t mean to interrupt this important conversation.

  2. 4

    Totally off topic, but is this what it looks like when one is “winning” a trade war? Remind me again what we are fighting about here? Oh, yeah, “IP theft,” whatever that means…

  3. 3

    From the other thread:

    What a clown show.

    Be aware that it these mainly these same cl0wns who are pushing for expanding eligibility into the State Street stratosphere. That they’ve managed to capture the limited imaginations of some of the semi-articulate self-dealing shills here is mainly due to the failure of certain folks (not you, not me) to keep reminding everyone that these people are, genuinely, cl0wns and nothing more than that.

    Dennis and Jason have gotten very very lazy. Must be all that “pure” Missouri and Iowa water they’ve been drinking.

    1. 3.1

      Your feelings are noted.

    2. 3.2

      Paul Morgan: Do they ever consider what aggravating judges by making such arguments without even professional constitutional law expert help does to other, winnable, arguments their clients may have had, if any?

      No. The make these terrible arguments because (1) they have no other arguments to make; (2) their entire lives are dominated by their sense of entitlement and resultant persecution complexes; and (3) they spend their time in echo chambers where their absurd arguments are not only not laughed at, but welcomed.

      You have to understand what you’re dealing with, Paul. These are people who look at life like a big game whose sole purpose is to end up with as much money as possible, by whatever means as possible. They have identified the patent system (correctly!) as a system that is ripe for exploitation on that level (i.e., on the level of a game). As long as they aren’t being severely sanctioned for their behavior, they will just keep pushing and pushing. Sure, the AIA was a setback. But look who is in charge of the Senate, the Presidency and the Supreme Court now! This is a “Flight 93” moment for these b0ttom feeders. That’s why they peddle the absolute worse nonsense possible: someone might buy it and that would mean an early retirement. And sc r e w everyone else.

      Dennis knows this. Jason knows this. It’s impossible not to know it if you’ve been paying even the slightest attention to the last couple decades of patent law.

      1. 3.2.1

        “No. The make these terrible arguments because (1) they have no other arguments to make; (2) their entire lives are dominated by their sense of entitlement and resultant persecution complexes; and (3) they spend their time in echo chambers where their absurd arguments are not only not laughed at, but welcomed.”

        Come on MM, some of these people actually do make products and services etc. bruh, don’t be overly generalizatin’. Those people are trying to compete anyway they can just like everyone else.

        1. 3.2.1.1

          don’t be overly generalizatin’

          Do YOU realize that you are talking to “one-bucket” Malcolm?

        2. 3.2.1.2

          I never said “none of these people make products and services.”

          Anyone can “make a product or a service” and still have a completely oversized or utterly misplaced sense of entitlement. Let’s say you programmed a computer to help skim some money off some money-making scheme. Wowee zowee! Or maybe you just imagined that it could be done and you wrote a patent, because you’re a patent attorney or your silent partner is a patent attorney (or the wife of a patent attorney).

          And then you hit the wall at the PTO (totally predictable, by the way) because someone correctly points out that this cr @p doesn’t belong anywhere near the patent system for a zillion great reasons. People get confused and deluded all the time when they spend too much of their lives in a windowless rooms plotting get-rich-quick-schemes with like minded b0ttom feeders. Most normal people would just lick their wounds and find a different grift (or better yet, find something productive to do).

          But these entitled sycophants always want to make a Constitutional issue out of their oh-so-precious “patent rights”. Just look at all the incredibly ridiculous arguments that we have seen floated here, including the absurdidea that the Constitution guarantees a patent right. At the same time, these deep (=FAKE) “Constitutional scholars” (LOL) are utterly incapable of addressing straightforward logical arguments except to kick up dust and fabricate all kinds of nonsense about their “anti-patent” (LOL) “enemies”, “China taking over”, “broad ineligible patents cured my cancer”, etc., etc.

          I’ll say it again: if anything remotely similar to the proposed 101 “revision” is passed, the blowback is going to fast and severe. Choose your sides. The funny thing is for most normal people it’s easy which side to choose, once you understand what’s at stake. But for some mysterious reason (LOL), a certain class of patent attorneys and conflicted bloggers (paying attention, Dennis) can’t step up and tell it like it is. It would be funny if it weren’t so disgusting.

          1. 3.2.1.2.1

            Your rant is noted.

          2. 3.2.1.2.2

            “still have a completely oversized or utterly misplaced sense of entitlement”

            I hear you bruh but those people just trying to compete, however they can. It isn’t all a grand scheme of “sense of entitlement”, and to the extent that it is it was congress that turned it into an entitlement match/game, not joe shmoe the business man, or even richie rich the super rich investor etc. And that was in order to get those sweet sweet disclosures, and to help people doing the innovating c o m p e t e.

            “Let’s say you programmed a computer to help skim some money off some money-making scheme. Wowee zowee! ”

            I hear you bruh but at this point it’s literally congresses fault to let that sort of thing go on at all. We’ve been discussing this, out in the open for 15 yearsish, are you planning to sit and argue for 100 years? Congress knows sup by now, even if most people were, in the pre-PO/ipwatchdog days rather “in the dark ages” where most people didn’t know anything about it or hadn’t heard the arguments fer and agin in depth. Nowadays either they want to let it be an entitlement game or they don’t. And the courts get their say as well, somewhat in that overall governance.

            “Most people — nearly everybody, in fact — “competes” without patents.”

            This is obviously true, but there are many ways to compete, and if the congress wants to make this one of them, then I mean bruh, there’s nothing you or I can do about it. The arguments fer and agin have been put forth ad infinitum, it’s up to the deciderers.

            1. 3.2.1.2.2.1

              This is obviously true, but there are many ways to compete, and if the congress wants to make this one of them, then I mean bruh, there’s nothing you or I can do about it.

              Well, in my case, I just ignore the patents or further, I advocate and encourage people to infringe them. The patents are disgusting and the people who “own” them are worse.

              [shrugs]

              1. 3.2.1.2.2.1.1

                further, I advocate and encourage people to infringe them.

                Given the statutory presence and level of presumption of validity, I do hope that you have informed your malpractice carrier of your (“internet tough guy”) advocacy habits.

                The patents are disgusting and the people who “own” them are worse.

                Your feelings are noted.

                I do hope that your actual advocacy is NOT run by the feelings that run so amuck from you.

          3. 3.2.1.2.3

            “the blowback is going to fast and severe”

            Absolutely how it should be in a republic like ours, so just let it happen, if its going to happen. It’ll work out.

            1. 3.2.1.2.3.1

              the blowback is going to fast and severe

              This empty rhetoric from Malcolm backs into merely being a fast and severe blow hard.

              The “internet tough guy” is going to “write a book” from his “massive archive.”

              Maybe we should open a contest for the title of Malcolm’s opus.

              Here’s a starting suggestion:

              Paradise Lost: a Liberal Left Whiner’s perspective on how innovation protection went OUT OF CONTROL

              1. 3.2.1.2.3.1.1

                Here’s a starting suggestion:

                Paradise Lost: a Liberal Left Whiner’s perspective on how innovation protection went OUT OF CONTROL

                There’s nothing particularly “liberal” about advocating for the freedom to use information and logic. I agree that’s definitely not in line with Drumpfist “give everything to the rich so they can ream my pocketbook with everything” mentality that seems to be in vogue these days among the moufbreather glibertarian white supremacist crowd who makes up the “base” of the diseased Re pu k-k-k-e party.

                1. I agree that’s definitely not in line with Drumpfist

                  YOUR advocacy based on feelings is very much in line with Drumpfist.

                  That you are otherwise simply of the Liberal Left only shows that Trump’s inanity is NOT “party-dependent.”

        3. 3.2.1.3

          Those people are trying to compete anyway they can just like everyone else.

          Most people — nearly everybody, in fact — “competes” without patents.

          Just a friendly reminder of how things really are, and always will be.

          1. 3.2.1.3.1

            Your cognitive dissonance is noted.

            1. 3.2.1.3.1.1

              There’s no “cognitive dissonance” — none at all — with being a patent attorney (as I am) and acknowledging indisputable facts about reality.

              I know this is a difficult thing for people like you to understand. You see, I’m intelligent enough and intellectually honest enough to recognize both that (1) patents are important and (2) patents are not the most important thing in the entire world (by a long shot) and (3) handing out patents on every claim that is “non-obvious” just because some non-abstract subject matter is recited in the claim is b-effing ret@rded.

              1. 3.2.1.3.1.1.1

                with being a patent attorney (as I am) and acknowledging indisputable facts about reality.

                You absolutely miss the point.

                Obtuse. Is it deliberate?

                You see, I’m intelligent enough and intellectually honest enough…

                NOT
                BELIEVABLE

                14 plus years of your blight on this board is more than enough truth that this statement from you is simply a falsehood.

                …(1) [blah blah blah], (2) [even more blah blah blah], (3) [NOT THE LAW]

                The cognitive dissonance comes in from your insertion of feelings at (3) that contradict the notion that you want to obtain innovation protection for clients. This is NOT a matter of “not the most important thing” and SUCH is at best dust-kicking.

                1. the notion that you want to obtain innovation protection for clients.

                  Paying another issue fee today, in fact, for a client that I helped grow from nothing into a company with a budget in the many millions and patents all over the world.

                  [shrugs]

                  Go eff yourself, Bildo.

                2. Paying another issue fee today…

                  [shrugs]

                  Has nothing at all to do with the point at hand. Pretty safe bet that you were in deep cognitive dissonance throughout that process of obtaining that patent right (and most likely, you obtained a “picture claim” that did NOT fully protect the innovation for your client.

                  Go eff yourself, Bildo.

                  Ah yes, ever the classy individual. Your lack of emotional control is noted.

    3. 3.3

      6: Those people are trying to compete anyway they can just like everyone else.

      On further reflection, this statement is so off-the-charts false that it is worth flagging and an extra heaping of scorn.

      The fraction of practitioners who make bizarre arguments about unconstitutional “takings” because their cr @p patent claims got tanked is miniscule. We’re talking about less than 0.01% of applicants/patentees, if that.

      The Internet patentverse is a cessp 00l, however, where these kinds of glibertarian w@ ck jobs and their s-cky “arguments” thrive. The Internet is where these g 00 fb@lls historically worked themselves up into a frenzy before KSR, before Mayo, before Bilski, before Alice and before pretty much everything else. It’s all they do is complain about their entitlements are being taken away. Meanwhile, the PTO is granting historically huge numbers of patents and most patent attorneys who aren’t feeding on the b0tt0m have plenty of work. The only people who really got pinched are litigators who represented tr 0lls, or litigators who defended against tr 0lls, and the tr 0lls themselves. Everybody else is doing just fine, including talented litigators in that middle category.

      1. 3.3.1

        “We’re talking about less than 0.01% of applicants/patentees, if that.”

        Then why sit around PO talking about the .01%? Just let them do their thing. It’s how our republic functions.

        “It’s all they do is complain about their entitlements are being taken away”

        Well, they are. Let them complain. What have you got against people complaining? Do some weed, chill out, you don’t have to write books about them, they’re literally not that interesting, until they “win” and then the “swift and harsh blowback comes”, it’s all political theater.

        1. 3.3.1.1

          What have you got against people complaining?

          Dontcha know 6 that only Malcolm should be able to complain…?

          (is there such a thing as “complainISM?”)

        2. 3.3.1.2

          What have you got against people complaining?

          LOL

          Take a deep breath, snowflake. I’ll criticize the behavior and false statements of whoever I want, whenever I want. Don’t like it? Change your behavior or S T F U.

          1. 3.3.1.2.1

            Don’t like it? Change your behavior or S T F U.

            LOL – heed your own advise son.

        3. 3.3.1.3

          it’s all political theater.

          Until you get sued, or until your medical bills spike up because of the increase in patent infringement insurance rates.

          This is otherwise known as “elections have consequences.” The theatre is theatre right up until the moment when it’s real. I know this is hard for glibertarian Repu k k k e types to understand. Empathy isn’t a strong suit for white @ h0le bros.

          1. 3.3.1.3.1

            Your “one-bucketing” and lack of recognition that the problem of politics happens every bit as much for the Liberal Left politics is noted.

          2. 3.3.1.3.2

            “Until you get sued, or until your medical bills spike up because of the increase in patent infringement insurance rates.”

            Yeah but I’m not going to get personally sued, and neither is like 99.9999% of the population. And of those that do, yeah they may take a financial hit. But few of those people won’t be the rich people you so dislike in the first place (because why sue poor people? they have no money to take).

            “medical bills spike up because of the increase in patent infringement insurance rates”

            That’s a bit of a new line from you. A true leftist position so far as I can tell. That’s an issue of doctors prescribing non-generic meds that are newish, and insurance companies agreeing to pay for on-patent drugs/treatments etc. bruh. You know this. That isn’t the patentee’s “fault”. I do understand that you’re not wanting correlations etc. to be patentable like in the mayo/prom etc. cases is loosely related to those things, but come on, those are a drop in the bucket compared to the insurance rate hikes for paying for actual prescription drugs and medical devices etc.

            Be honest, is that really why you’re so upset about this, leftist media mind control about “muh insurance rates fer da poorz”? Come on man, we’ve all seen the circus that happened with the genetic testing and correlations etc. patents, but if most of your bsing about this is because you don’t want insurance rates rising that’s just a big lol.

            “Change your behavior or S T F U”

            Um, it isn’t muh behavior.

            “I’ll criticize the behavior and false statements of whoever I want, whenever I want.”

            That’s fine, criticize all you want. Separately from that I’m asking you what you have against their complaining, as in: why bother criticizing?. If you want to stay mum then fine, stay mum. If it’s because “muh leftism/feelings derp” and you don’t want to tell us because we’re going to lol at u, then that’s fine also.

  4. 2

    New Data Privacy Laws Could Slow The Music Business

    ROTFLMAO

  5. 1

    the United States is one of the only highly developed countries that has not enacted comprehensive Data Privacy regulations.

    Derpy McDerpface: “Derp if we change we will lose to China and Eurep derp!”

    But definitely we should hand over the right to correlate data (obtaining using prior art technology) to private corporations! Otherwise progress in the correlating arts will cease, just like it did when Mayo was passed. Oh wait, that never happened. But some patent attorneys lost clients! And we all cried.

    1. 1.1

      MM uses derp in an old people way, and like he’s new to it. Derp has a very specific usage bruh. If you throw it around improperly you end up looking like the derpface.

      I think we’re all mostly on board with protecting people’s data. Most everyday people are, even patent attorneys. And remember, patents are only exclusive, they don’t grant any positive rights (to correlate data or otherwise).

      1. 1.1.1

        … as I have noted with “Malcolm doing his Derp Dance”…

        6, face it, Malcolm is going to be Malcolm. He does not have the force of will to be otherwise.

      2. 1.1.2

        Derp has a very specific usage bruh.

        “Derpderp my blow up doll speaks 4chan when I pull the cord derp”

        You funny, 6t@rd. Your dad called, by the way. He wants to laugh at your tiny pp again.

        1. 1.1.2.1

          Your over-sharing is noted.

      3. 1.1.3

        6: I think we’re all mostly on board with protecting people’s data.

        I see what happened here, “bruh.” You mistook my post at 3 for commentary about data privacy laws (which are a good thing). But I’m referring to the “takings” cl 0 wns discussed in the previous thread (posted here because I had reached the comment/day limit in that thread).

    2. 1.2

      Not stated here by Malcolm, but often implied in his “no patents for software” view is that any protection should come from a different aspect and protected under the different realm of copyright law (never mind that he appears to understand copyright law even less than he understands patent law — if that were possible).

      This past week, the ABA journal had an interesting article on the relativistic view of “ethical” in regards to violating copyright protections.

      I believe this may be behind a paywall, so I will just leave the title attribution:

      Pirating files not so bad, with one exception, according to survey of Harvard LLM students

      By Debra Cassens Weiss

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You can click here to Subscribe without commenting

Add a picture