|
| Authored by: PolR on Saturday, September 15 2012 @ 10:23 AM EDT |
| This list is here on the wikipedia. There are 11 judges currently sitting on the
circuit with one vacant position. Here is the count of appointees by president:
Obama: 3, Clinton 3, GW Bush: 2, GHW Bush: 2 Reagan: 1. There are also four
senior judges which may sit on the circuit on occasion. Three of then were
appointed by GHW Bush and one by Reagan. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 15 2012 @ 01:01 PM EDT |
You're right, as there is no effective economic left wing in the US. Still,
observed over the past couple of decades, it has been Democratic Party policy
that has particularly supported the institutionalization and expansion of
industry's exclusive rights in IP and their enforcement as a public service,
whereas the GOP seems to act more generally to support and advocate for the
sovereignty of authority including that of wealth and business.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 15 2012 @ 06:46 PM EDT |
From the Court's file, this was before LINN, PROST, and O’MALLEY.
From that
Wiki link, you've got
The Majority Opinion - Reversing the District
Court
Circuit Judge Richard Linn Washington, DC 1999–present — —
Clinton
Circuit Judge Kathleen M. O'Malley Washington, DC 2010–present — —
Obama
Dissenting
Circuit Judge Sharon Prost
Washington, DC 2001–present — — G.W. Bush
And the District Court
Judge that followed the Supreme's precident only to be overturned by the Fed's
was Rosemary M. Collyer, appointed by G.W. Bush.
I would probably not worry
about the wingyness of the appointer as much as the character of the appointee.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 15 2012 @ 07:29 PM EDT |
Left and right wing are roughly equally to blame here. You could argue they're
all appointed by career politicians, so perhaps that's the problem.
Alternatively I
remember reading (here?) about the nomination system and thinking it sounded
a bit screwy so it's possible the politicians are largely just rubber-stamping a
mistake which was made before them.
I don't know, but I'd be interested to see some analysis of judge competence (%
upheld etc) versus appointment process.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 16 2012 @ 09:52 AM EDT |
The question is what sets the lone dissent apart from the majority, which seems
to confuse the count of patents issued with actual innovation?
Seems to me they have the same issue as deciding that sport in a given country
is healthy on the basis of counting Olympic Medals.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 16 2012 @ 10:40 AM EDT |
It was Reagan that set up this court and gave them jurisdiction over patents and
copyrights.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 17 2012 @ 04:40 AM EDT |
The US constitution. Seriously, I have been thinking about
this a lot recently. The problem is the common law legal
system itself.
In a criminal trial there is no long term effect on a
lawyers business if they decide new precedent one way or
another, there will always be criminal trials and they will
always need a defence, a prosecutor and a judge.
But with patent law it is different. If lawyers and Judges
start being strict with what is patentable and set
precedents for invalidating patents then they are reducing
the potential for future business. So there is a clear bias
towards creating precedent law that is soft on patents. And
there is no balancing factor, it is in the interests of the
defence, the judges, and the prosecutors, to allow as many
patents as possible. A common law system simply cannot work
in such circumstances because it will lead to the worst kind
of regulatory capture - capture by the lawyers!
The only solution is to switch the patent system to a civil
law system where the lawyers and judges are bound by
statute, perhaps with the caveat of the supreme court being
allowed to set precedent when absolutely necessary so the
law doesn't stagnate.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 17 2012 @ 06:49 AM EDT |
Indirectly in some cases but you did elect the politicos who made the decisions.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 17 2012 @ 08:05 PM EDT |
The four justices that wrote and joined Stevens's opinion in Bilski that would
have overturned business method patents as a category were all the left-
leaning and Democratic appointees. The five that keps business method
patents were all the current right-wing Republican appointees. Stevens would
have cut a huge hole in software patents and contemplated overturning them
as a category also.
On the CAFC, it's the opposite. The two Democrat appointees in this case are
the ones that want unlimited scope for patents and patent lawyers to extract
rents from the productive economy and the Republican is the rational one.
It all depends on whose ox is being gored. On the Supreme Court, the D's are
looking out for the nation as a whole and the R's are carefully selected
sycophants reliably backing whatever big business might want. On the CAFC,
the D's are self-interested patent law specialists while the R's are more likely
to be movement market ideologues uncomfortable with monopolies.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
