That is simply restating that you disagree with the outcome. That is too broad to be able to have a discussion about. What part of the opinion that led to that outcome do you disagree with? Where in their line of reasoning did they err?

> Only because the Supreme Court is, and has always been, corrupt. Let's focus on the argument and not the people making it. What part of Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire do you disagree with?

The first amendment - like anything written in the Constitution is absolute.

That statement is not consistent with Supreme Court jurisprudence. There are limitations on many rights listed in the Constitution. For example, the first amendment has been held *not* to give you the right to incite violence. (See Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire.)

So either the Constitution is absolute or it is not

The answer is that it is not. Interpretation of the constitution comes down to a balancing act between competing rights.

It should have absolutely no influence in a court case between two individuals.

True. That's why this is about the *government's* prosecution of one individual and whether the elements of the crime were actually established.

> how is it so different from the neural networks that are trying to mimic it? These neural networks are not trying to mimic the brain.

"Communicating with the Locked-In" by Yale Neuroscientist and scientific skeptic, Steven Novella: http://www.sciencebasedmedicin...

It discusses the science (imaging, brain-machine interfaces) vs pseudoscience (facilitated communication) relating to communicating with the locked in.

Functionally, this just means you have to sue the department head responsible for the execution of the practice in question. See Clapper v. Amnesty International, for example. They didn't sue the NSA, they sued the director of national intelligence, James Clapper.

Trademark infringment is not a subset of fraud. Trademark law came out of the tort of passing off, which originally was a descendant of fraud/deceit, but they're now different in that fraud happens between the lier and the listener; trademark infringement happens between the lier and the owner of the mark that they co-opt. It isn't a subset-superset relationship anymore.

Ya, without proof, the website owners are in the same situation as Amnesty International et al. in Amnesty International v. Clapper. You'd have to wait until the US tried to use such evidence in court.

Trademark law originated as the common law tort of passing off. Passing off is *like* fraud, but differs in that fraud requires proof of damages, while passing off/trademark infringement does not require proof of damages. Passing off/trademark infringement is what the intellectual property owners could sue for. Fraud is what the end-users could sue for.

I meant implement for mass market production. I may have the resources to build a working model, or a proof-of-concept, but not the resources to bring the invention to market.

That is not consistent with patent law.

The USPTO introduced a micro-entity status that lowers the filing fee for a patent application to $70, $180 for the examination, and $445 for issuance. Just because I can pay $700 doesn't mean I have the means to implement my invention.

Patents don't reward the coming-up-with of an idea. They reward the disclosure of that idea.

This is not universally true. It might take 10-12 years to clear the regulatory hurdles in the pharmaceutical industry.

This is mostly an argument for raising the bar on the non-obviousness requirement.

However, even if concurrent discovery is common, that may only be because of the concurrent incentive to discovery. Any of the hard-working, innovative, inventors could come up with the invention. Each is being spurred on by the promise of the exclusive right waiting at the end of the tunnel. Just because one gets to the patent office before the other doesn't mean that the patent didn't provide the incentive to do the work.

Perhaps, but the question Zontar asked was how the clause provides justification for the current patent regime.