Discover more from The Latest from Seton Motley
Is the Ninth Circuit Court More Conservative and Constitutional Than the Supreme Court?
The Sun Also Sets....
The Year of Our Lord 2020 - has been a long stretch of very bad road.
Fair is foul - foul is fair. Down is up - up is down.
Swine are sprouting pinions and taking to the air. I think often of the cinematic classic “The Lion in Winter”:
Henry II: “The day those stout hearts band together is the day that pigs get wings.”
Eleanor of Aquitaine: “There'll be pork in the treetops come morning.”
People who claim there are fifty-seven genders - are screeching we must “follow the science.”
And the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals - is rendering rational, reasonable, Constitutional judicial decisions.
The Supreme Court, meanwhile, has recently been uncorking a lot of 2020-esque, anti-Constitution wild pitches.
Please keep in mind - each of these is a different case and ruling.
But ummm…don’t get too excited about Gorsuch.
The new Ninth Circuit - is proving to be outstandingly Constitutional on Intellectual Property (IP) and its protection.
Which is outstanding news for…, well, non-savages everywhere.
IP and its protection is so Constitutional - it’s specifically protected in the Constitution:
“The Congress shall have power…To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries….”
The 2020-esque bizarre question is:
Has the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals surpassed the Supreme Court at being conservative and Constitutional? On IP and its protection, at least?
We will soon find out.
Google is the planet’s biggest IP thief this side of Communist China.
Here Google used 11,500 lines of Java code from Java owner Oracle.
Google did so to make Android - which is now the world’s #1 mobile operating system (OS). With which they have probably thus far made a trillion dollars.
And Google did so - without Oracle’s permission.
How do we know Google knew they needed Oracle’s permission?:
“Google and Oracle were negotiating terms for licenses for Google’s use of Oracle’s 11,500 lines of Java code. Until one day Google…just stopped negotiating.
“Google then released its Android OS. With Oracle’s 11,500 lines of Java – but without any licenses to use it.”
If you’re looking to secure licenses (permission) - you’re tacitly admitting you need to secure licenses (permission).
Google stole the code. It is a blatantly obvious, open-and-shut case.
So Oracle sued. To which Google responded - with one of the dumbest legal arguments you’re likely to find.
Google is ridiculously claiming copyright “fair use”:
“‘(In US copyright law) the doctrine that brief excerpts of copyright material may, under certain circumstances, be quoted verbatim for purposes such as criticism, news reporting, teaching, and research, without the need for permission from or payment to the copyright holder.’
“‘Fair use’ - is me briefly excerpting from someone else’s writing to criticize it in my writing. Or report news, teach or issue reports about it in my writing.
“As I am currently doing with this excerpted legal definition of ‘fair use.’
“‘Fair use’ should exist almost solely in the realm of the written word. Because that’s the only realm in which it makes any real, consistent sense.
“‘Fair use’ absolutely should not be applied to the realm of computer code. Because it is absurd to attempt to apply it to computer code.
“You can not engage in criticism, news reporting, teaching or research - using lines of computer code. The notion is patently absurd.”
That Google nonsense - is of what the Supreme Court is about to get a heaping helping.
Google stole the code.
And is now making this nonsensical argument in defense of its theft.
It is a blatantly obvious, open-and-shut case.
Even the Supreme Court will see it.
This first appeared in Red State.