Bilski: business as usual [LWN.net]

Bilski: business as usual

Posted Jun 29, 2010 2:12 UTC (Tue) by mikov (guest, #33179)
Parent article: Bilski: business as usual

Don't forget that the same court also just legalized gun possession in the US (I know I am simplifying). So, may be we should finally take things into our hands with regards to patents? :-) Oh, you have a software patent there? Say hello to my little friend!!

to post comments

Bilski: business as usual

Posted Jun 29, 2010 2:53 UTC (Tue) by yokem_55 (subscriber, #10498) [Link] (3 responses)

Ironically, to many gun rights groups, the McDonald ruling suffers from the same flaw as the Bilski ruling: it doesn't set a clear standard. While the court took a major step of tossing out the outright ban on handguns in Chicago, the majority did not set any standard on what kinds of restrictions on firearm ownership were alowed or not. Outright bans? No. Anything else? Who knows.

Bilski: business as usual

Posted Jun 29, 2010 3:11 UTC (Tue) by drag (guest, #31333) [Link]

I am a supporter of gun rights, but I notice how people leave out the "well regulated" part when talking about it.

Bilski: business as usual

Posted Jun 29, 2010 4:38 UTC (Tue) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] (1 responses)

No matter what else the court is in favour of, it's in favour of more work for lawyers.

(but that goes almost without saying)

Bilski: business as usual

Posted Jun 29, 2010 12:51 UTC (Tue) by proski (guest, #104) [Link]

You nailed it

Strange twist of the facts

Posted Jun 29, 2010 14:12 UTC (Tue) by clugstj (subscriber, #4020) [Link] (3 responses)

US Constitution, amendment II.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

I wouldn't say the "court just legalized gun possession". I'd say the US constitution explicitly legalized it in 1791.

If you want to ban gun posession in the US, you will need to repeal the second amendment.

Strange twist of the facts

Posted Jun 29, 2010 14:37 UTC (Tue) by davide.del.vento (guest, #59196) [Link]

Well, before the court ruled, there were many who interpreted the amendment II as applied to states ("well regulated militia"), not individuals.
Or at most that "individual rights" were there just for the historic accident of the end slavery happening at the same time, and the right of those people to defends themselves against their "owner".

So "court just legalized gun possession" could be a little twist but not much, IMHO.

Strange twist of the facts

Posted Jun 29, 2010 15:01 UTC (Tue) by mikov (guest, #33179) [Link]

You know very well that this is what the founding fathers meant:
http://www.thereheis.com/images/family%20guy%20bear%20arm...

Strange twist of the facts

Posted Jul 1, 2010 7:21 UTC (Thu) by jschrod (subscriber, #1646) [Link]

For me, »*WELL REGULATED* militia« reads different than everybody has the right to shoot at his neighbour when he thinks it's self defense. The SC didn't just confirm the right for well regulated militias, it made the (de-facto existing for most of the country) right for personal posessions of guns for personal goals precedent-level legal.

But then, I live in a civilized country, don't have to take up with barbaric U.S. gun crazyness and don't have to live in one of the U.S. cities where there are multiple shootings every night. (Chicago, any one? When there is a shooting here, it's national news, so seldom does it happen.) So, actually, I don't care.