In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
Court To Monsanto: You Said You Won't Sue, So You Can't
A federal appeals court slapped down a quixotic legal campaign against Monsanto's biotech patents this week.
Organic farmers had gone to court to declare those patents invalid. The farmers, according to their lawyers, were "forced to sue preemptively to protect themselves from being accused of patent infringement" if their field became contaminated by Monsanto's genetically modified seed.
Instead, the judges — echoing the ruling of a lower court — told the farmers that they were imagining a threat that doesn't exist.
"There is no justiciable case or controversy," they wrote. Monsanto says that it won't sue anyone for accidentally growing trace amounts of patented crops, and the organic farmers couldn't come up with any cases in which this had happened.
The organic farmers, however, declared partial victory, because the court's decision binds Monsanto to this promise. Up to now, it was just a statement on the company's website. Now, it's enshrined in the legal record.
In fact, according to the judges, since the decision to reject the organic farmers' claims relies explicitly on Monsanto's policy statements, "those representations are binding."
The reason is something called "judicial estoppel" — the common-law principle that someone can't use an argument to win one case and then turn around and argue the opposite in a different case.
The only partial victory I see here is an opportunity for the organic farmers to win market share by publicly badmouthing Monsanto.
On June 12 2013 13:03 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Thus ends the AP reporters scandal, now Reporters should be jailed:
Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) said on CNN's "AC 360" Tuesday night that reporters should be prosecuted for publishing stories with leaked classified information.
After King explained why he believes the recent NSA leaks pose a grave threat to national security, host Anderson Cooper asked him if he thinks the reporters who break stories off of leaked information should be punished in some way.
"If they willingly knew that this was classified information, I think action should be taken, especially on something of this magnitude," King said.
"I think on something of this magnitude, there is an obligation both moral but also legal, I believe, against a reporter disclosing something that would so severely compromise national security."
Weren't the recent NSA leaks done via The Guardian, which is a paper in the UK? How would it make any difference if US journalists could get jailed for reporting on leaked classified information? I imagine it would just push any leak-source to a foreign newspaper.
It would be weird if all US news outlets were banned from reporting on it but Americans could still see the information on foreign newspaper sites. Then either the US would have to censor foreign news sites from American citizens or be able to punish any journalist for reporting on leaked classified information.
This is very true in this case but not in President Obama's broader war on leaks.
The distinction the administration has been making is that journalists don't get punished for breaking the news, but leakers can get punished for sharing information that is supposed to be classified. But in one leak investigation, the Obama administration has made the parallel that a journalist and his source were operating like a spy handler and a spy. So punishing the journalist is a logical step to plugging up leaks.
I think this is a pretty severe overreaction but leaking has always been a problem in Washington and it has been especially bad in the last few years. Not as an Obama thing but as an internet thing - between Wikileaks, Bradley Manning, China, and this, all sorts of stuff that should not be getting out has been leaking.
EDIT: The NSA thing has raised the specter of our newest cybersecurity nightmare, which is that someone hacks the NSA database and suddenly has access to everything everyone has ever transmitted electronically for the last 7 years.
More bandwagon fear! While they have the ability to mine the data to some extent, and definitely can get at the metadata of the communications, they aren't storing EVERYTHING. A lot of stuff, yes (anything with a 51% confidence margin that it's foreign), but not EVERYTHING.
Let's not forget that these corporations have this information as well. If somebody hacks Google, Verizon, AT&T, etc. they can get the exact same information, if not more.
Court To Monsanto: You Said You Won't Sue, So You Can't
A federal appeals court slapped down a quixotic legal campaign against Monsanto's biotech patents this week.
Organic farmers had gone to court to declare those patents invalid. The farmers, according to their lawyers, were "forced to sue preemptively to protect themselves from being accused of patent infringement" if their field became contaminated by Monsanto's genetically modified seed.
Instead, the judges — echoing the ruling of a lower court — told the farmers that they were imagining a threat that doesn't exist.
"There is no justiciable case or controversy," they wrote. Monsanto says that it won't sue anyone for accidentally growing trace amounts of patented crops, and the organic farmers couldn't come up with any cases in which this had happened.
The organic farmers, however, declared partial victory, because the court's decision binds Monsanto to this promise. Up to now, it was just a statement on the company's website. Now, it's enshrined in the legal record.
In fact, according to the judges, since the decision to reject the organic farmers' claims relies explicitly on Monsanto's policy statements, "those representations are binding."
The reason is something called "judicial estoppel" — the common-law principle that someone can't use an argument to win one case and then turn around and argue the opposite in a different case.
The only partial victory I see here is an opportunity for the organic farmers to win market share by publicly badmouthing Monsanto.
Which was the point all along.
The more I learn about the whole GMO thing, the more I'm starting to realize this is the case.
Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) said on CNN's "AC 360" Tuesday night that reporters should be prosecuted for publishing stories with leaked classified information.
After King explained why he believes the recent NSA leaks pose a grave threat to national security, host Anderson Cooper asked him if he thinks the reporters who break stories off of leaked information should be punished in some way.
"If they willingly knew that this was classified information, I think action should be taken, especially on something of this magnitude," King said.
"I think on something of this magnitude, there is an obligation both moral but also legal, I believe, against a reporter disclosing something that would so severely compromise national security."
Sounds like he's pretty out there. You lose so much when you give reporters reason to fear retaliation for what they publish--the government will just claim every leak involved classified information that the reporter should've known. Big intimidation tool. The government's role is finding and exposing/prosecuting leakers. This includes foreign agents and others intent on destruction with revelation. We punish leakers, not the publishers. It's even more hilarious considering how easily you can use the blogosphere and foreign publishers (As already mentioned by another) to disseminate the classified information that can be secondarily reported on by common journalists. Looks like one Republican went overboard.
Each reporter can evaluate the morality of the revelation of something sensitive, in light of possible impacts to legitimate national security processes. Putting "an obligation both moral and ..." is pretty insane.
On June 13 2013 02:55 KwarK wrote: How is someone hacking the NSA database the nightmare as opposed to the database existing? Do we trust the NSA that much more?
Actually, yes.
The NSA isn't very trustworthy, but it's still a large bureaucratic organization in which members directly/indirectly monitor each other and can potentially leak ethics violations to the public. Compare that with a single individual or a small group that steals the information to use for whatever purpose they choose. The difference is between little oversight and no oversight at all, and one is much more terrifying.
To use a similar example, I'm not exactly comfortable with the government being able to order targeted assassinations of American citizens... but I am much, much less comfortable with random individuals who can do that.
LINCOLN, Neb. (AP) — A judge has ruled that opponents of the Keystone XL pipeline in Nebraska can proceed with their legal challenge to a state law that paved the way for a new project route.
Lancaster County District Court Judge Stephanie Stacy on Tuesday rejected a motion by Nebraska state officials to dismiss the lawsuit.
The lawsuit filed by three Nebraska landowners asserts that Gov. Dave Heineman's decision to approve a new pipeline route was rooted in an unconstitutional state law. The law was passed during a special legislative session in 2011 as a way to reroute the pipeline away from Nebraska's environmentally sensitive Sandhills.
Stacy did not rule on the merits of the case, but said opponents should be allowed to present their evidence and arguments.
On June 12 2013 13:03 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Thus ends the AP reporters scandal, now Reporters should be jailed:
Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) said on CNN's "AC 360" Tuesday night that reporters should be prosecuted for publishing stories with leaked classified information.
After King explained why he believes the recent NSA leaks pose a grave threat to national security, host Anderson Cooper asked him if he thinks the reporters who break stories off of leaked information should be punished in some way.
"If they willingly knew that this was classified information, I think action should be taken, especially on something of this magnitude," King said.
"I think on something of this magnitude, there is an obligation both moral but also legal, I believe, against a reporter disclosing something that would so severely compromise national security."
Weren't the recent NSA leaks done via The Guardian, which is a paper in the UK? How would it make any difference if US journalists could get jailed for reporting on leaked classified information? I imagine it would just push any leak-source to a foreign newspaper.
It would be weird if all US news outlets were banned from reporting on it but Americans could still see the information on foreign newspaper sites. Then either the US would have to censor foreign news sites from American citizens or be able to punish any journalist for reporting on leaked classified information.
This is very true in this case but not in President Obama's broader war on leaks.
The distinction the administration has been making is that journalists don't get punished for breaking the news, but leakers can get punished for sharing information that is supposed to be classified. But in one leak investigation, the Obama administration has made the parallel that a journalist and his source were operating like a spy handler and a spy. So punishing the journalist is a logical step to plugging up leaks.
I think this is a pretty severe overreaction but leaking has always been a problem in Washington and it has been especially bad in the last few years. Not as an Obama thing but as an internet thing - between Wikileaks, Bradley Manning, China, and this, all sorts of stuff that should not be getting out has been leaking.
EDIT: The NSA thing has raised the specter of our newest cybersecurity nightmare, which is that someone hacks the NSA database and suddenly has access to everything everyone has ever transmitted electronically for the last 7 years.
I think the difference between "normal" leaks and the one you are talking about (spy and handler) is that in a normal situation for a leak, someone brings some information to the press and they publish it. In this situation, the reporter just received some information which is not illegal (for them). A "spy and handler" situation seems to imply that there was some back and forth where the reporter may have asked for some classified information. In this situation the reporter seems to be asking for the leaker to commit a crime on their behalf which could easily be classified as a crime.
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court says companies cannot patent human genes, a decision that could profoundly affect the medical and biotechnology industries.
In a unanimous decision, the court struck down patents held by Myriad Genetics Inc. on two genes linked to increased risk of breast and ovarian cancer.
Opponents say patent protection shouldn’t be given to something that can be found inside the human body.
But lower courts approved, saying Myriad’s genes could be patented because the DNA it isolated and took from the body has a “markedly different chemical structure” from DNA found naturally within the body.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the DNA is a product of nature and not eligible for a patent merely because it has been isolated.
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court says companies cannot patent human genes, a decision that could profoundly affect the medical and biotechnology industries.
In a unanimous decision, the court struck down patents held by Myriad Genetics Inc. on two genes linked to increased risk of breast and ovarian cancer.
Opponents say patent protection shouldn’t be given to something that can be found inside the human body.
But lower courts approved, saying Myriad’s genes could be patented because the DNA it isolated and took from the body has a “markedly different chemical structure” from DNA found naturally within the body.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the DNA is a product of nature and not eligible for a patent merely because it has been isolated.
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court says companies cannot patent human genes, a decision that could profoundly affect the medical and biotechnology industries.
In a unanimous decision, the court struck down patents held by Myriad Genetics Inc. on two genes linked to increased risk of breast and ovarian cancer.
Opponents say patent protection shouldn’t be given to something that can be found inside the human body.
But lower courts approved, saying Myriad’s genes could be patented because the DNA it isolated and took from the body has a “markedly different chemical structure” from DNA found naturally within the body.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the DNA is a product of nature and not eligible for a patent merely because it has been isolated.
Makes sense. Now if only they could apply the same logic to software/design patents...
The ruling also specifically state that cDNA is infact patentable. That distinction is pretty important since you may even patent the exact DNA in question as a cDNA based on cDNA from the original strand (I smell future cases?)...
The judgement will make gene sequensing impossible to patent based on the exact sequence. However, making cDNA patent eligible will make medicine involving a naturally occuring DNA-strand and any uses of it (Part of what is called gene-therapy so it is a booming future industry) completely safe to lock up in the patent holders hands.
In this case the cDNA jurisprudence is extreme enough to be seen as a win for Myriad based on their increase in stock value. It is not on the level of scandal as the Diamond v. Chakrabarty ("...living isn't relevant to the question of what is nature..."), but it will be pretty significant in the future.
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court says companies cannot patent human genes, a decision that could profoundly affect the medical and biotechnology industries.
In a unanimous decision, the court struck down patents held by Myriad Genetics Inc. on two genes linked to increased risk of breast and ovarian cancer.
Opponents say patent protection shouldn’t be given to something that can be found inside the human body.
But lower courts approved, saying Myriad’s genes could be patented because the DNA it isolated and took from the body has a “markedly different chemical structure” from DNA found naturally within the body.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the DNA is a product of nature and not eligible for a patent merely because it has been isolated.
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court says companies cannot patent human genes, a decision that could profoundly affect the medical and biotechnology industries.
In a unanimous decision, the court struck down patents held by Myriad Genetics Inc. on two genes linked to increased risk of breast and ovarian cancer.
Opponents say patent protection shouldn’t be given to something that can be found inside the human body.
But lower courts approved, saying Myriad’s genes could be patented because the DNA it isolated and took from the body has a “markedly different chemical structure” from DNA found naturally within the body.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the DNA is a product of nature and not eligible for a patent merely because it has been isolated.
Makes sense. Now if only they could apply the same logic to software/design patents...
The ruling also specifically state that cDNA is infact patentable. That distinction is pretty important since you may even patent the exact DNA in question as a cDNA based on cDNA from the original strand (I smell future cases?)...
The judgement will make gene sequensing impossible to patent based on the exact sequence. However, making cDNA patent eligible will make medicine involving a naturally occuring DNA-strand and any uses of it (Part of what is called gene-therapy so it is a booming future industry) completely safe to lock up in the patent holders hands.
In this case the cDNA jurisprudence is extreme enough to be seen as a win for Myriad based on their increase in stock value. It is not on the level of scandal as the Diamond v. Chakrabarty ("...living isn't relevant to the question of what is nature..."), but it will be pretty significant in the future.
I'm not 100% sure if the title of that video is completely accurate. All I heard is that he hadn't read the bill, believed all Americans deserved protection, and that he was not in favor of special protections for specific groups. Maybe he means that all Americans have the right not to be fired over orientation, race, gender et cetera and that such rights shouldn't only be for a specific group. Of course he could also mean he believes employers should be able to fire homosexuals for being homosexuals but I somehow doubt that is what he meant. I for one wouldn't put him to the chopping block on this comment before we at least give him some time to clarify what he meant.
On June 16 2013 05:02 farvacola wrote: He said, "I'm not for any special protections based on orientation." That seems rather clear to me?
You may be right, but at the same time it seems to conflict with him previously saying all Americans should be protected, maybe he just meant orientation shouldn't get any more special protections than race/gender. I am not a big fan of Mr. Rubio but I will reserve judgement until he clarifies his position.
On June 16 2013 05:02 farvacola wrote: He said, "I'm not for any special protections based on orientation." That seems rather clear to me?
You may be right, but at the same time it seems to conflict with him previously saying all Americans should be protected, maybe he just meant orientation shouldn't get any more special protections than race/gender. I am not a big fan of Mr. Rubio but I will reserve judgement until he clarifies his position.
Right now there is zero federal protection from employment discrimination based on sexual orientation, however, unlike race and gender. There are many states in which your boss can openly fire you for being gay, and there's nothing you can do about it. If Macro Rubio doesn't even know how At Will employment works, then he certainly isn't qualified to be in the U.S. Senate.
On June 16 2013 05:02 farvacola wrote: He said, "I'm not for any special protections based on orientation." That seems rather clear to me?
You may be right, but at the same time it seems to conflict with him previously saying all Americans should be protected, maybe he just meant orientation shouldn't get any more special protections than race/gender. I am not a big fan of Mr. Rubio but I will reserve judgement until he clarifies his position.
Right now there is zero federal protection from employment discrimination based on sexual orientation, however, unlike race and gender. There are many states in which your boss can openly fire you for being gay, and there's nothing you can do about it. If Macro Rubio doesn't even know how At Will employment works, then he certainly isn't qualified to be in the U.S. Senate.
From the vid it sounds like he's not in favor of special protections of any kind (laissez-faire on the issue). Though it doesn't sound like he's interested in changing the status quo either.
On June 16 2013 05:02 farvacola wrote: He said, "I'm not for any special protections based on orientation." That seems rather clear to me?
You may be right, but at the same time it seems to conflict with him previously saying all Americans should be protected, maybe he just meant orientation shouldn't get any more special protections than race/gender. I am not a big fan of Mr. Rubio but I will reserve judgement until he clarifies his position.
Right now there is zero federal protection from employment discrimination based on sexual orientation, however, unlike race and gender. There are many states in which your boss can openly fire you for being gay, and there's nothing you can do about it. If Macro Rubio doesn't even know how At Will employment works, then he certainly isn't qualified to be in the U.S. Senate.
From the vid it sounds like he's not in favor of special protections of any kind (laissez-faire on the issue). Though it doesn't sound like he's interested in changing the status quo either.
That's what I got out of it. Not surprising though. There are a lot of conservative/libertarian congressmen that think that on some level, but don't want to stake their political career on making a stand against established law.
EPT
