Jump to content

TwiceHorn

Full Members
  • Posts

    38426
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by TwiceHorn

  1. The latter is true, if the employment agreement doesn't specify that you must do it for free. And you really should review the application before signing. It has the potential to invalidate the patent if you didn't. There is no real penalty to you for refusing to sign a declaration, or for "falsely" signing one, although here is the operative language: The above-identified application was made or authorized to be made by me. I believe that I am the original inventor or an original joint inventor of a claimed invention in the application. I hereby acknowledge that any willful false statement made in this declaration is punishable under 18 U.S.C. 1001 by fine or imprisonment of not more than five (5) years, or both.
  2. Also, to let you know what you're signing. It's really two documents or a single document that serves two functions. The Declaration is where you swear that you are actually an inventor and is required by the Patent Office for fairly obvious reasons. The Assignment is a contract by which you assign your rights in the invention to the employer. So, you are probably obligated by your employment agreement to assign, but you may also be due compensation. The Declaration is a factual thing, you either are or are not an inventor and you can't be compelled to sign it if you really aren't an inventor or question that. You are supposed to name all of the inventors upon filing an application, and it's a bit of a pain in the ass to change it, so refusing to sign that would be a pain in the ass, but don't if you don't think you're an inventor.
  3. Pretty standard stuff. Most employment agreements require assignment of inventions made on the job and can even effectively do so before an invention is made. That is "i hereby covenant and agree to assign and hereby do assign, any inventions or works of authorship made by me during my employment." In the absence of a similar provision, state law can be kind of blurry as to what rights employers have to the inventions of their employees. Some make it explicit, some like Texas have the" shop right," a perpetually free license to use your invention, at least internally maybe more. Probably not worth consulting an attorney unless you think you didn't invent in the course of employment. And given the low number of patents that ever generate cash revenue or royalties, you're probably not giving up much.
  4. Reap, you motherfuckers, reap.
  5. You fucking guy.
  6. Pretty sure he's Church of Christ. Gotta watch out for the Christers./Molly Ivins
  7. Not the system per se, but definitely some of the actors.
  8. Gives him carte-blanche to reduce revenue by tax cuts while ignoring spending, other than the performative nibbling that DOGE is doing.
  9. Sure were a lot of non-Memorial people in the tent or otherwise close enough to witness things.
  10. That's an excellent synopsis.
  11. Douglas Preston was inspired by Colossal to write this, which is a pretty interesting spin on the Jurassic Park theme. https://www.amazon.com/Extinction-Novel-Douglas-Preston-ebook/dp/B0C1X881FK Good yarn.
  12. It is possible that they come to the right result -- which to my mind would also include that habeas corpus is not the exclusive remedy here, with its narrow jurisdiction and venue -- but this step on the road is pretty fucking hideous really. It is unprincipled in numerous ways.
  13. Aside from all of the other stuff, SCOTUS decided a novel issue of law on the emergency application docket. That's. Just. Wrong.
  14. Also note that by confining review to the habeas corpus court, where the deportee is detained, means that the Administration can select the venue/judge by where they detain the deportee. So, expect a deportation facility to be constructed in Amarillo ASAP. And there's always Andrew Hanen in Brownsville.
  15. I'm sure he doesn't. But he doesn't want to get gigged by Abbott and Patrick as well as Trump.
  16. Also note that Steve Vladeck has left UT Law for Georgetown. Care to guess why? The erstwhile professor also notes that the major questions and non-delegation doctrines used against the "administrative state" heavily weigh against Trump's exercise of tariff power pursuant to virtually unlimited delegation of major questions to the executive.
  17. There's a shit ton of questions to be answered in the litigation. But the one this was decided on is what is the proper court in which to bring these challenges. The Supreme Court decided that the proper court is the one in which a petition for habeas corpus lies, which is a district court in the state and judicial district in which the petitioner is detained. As a matter of first principles, deciding that the trial court lacked jurisdiction is just the kind of basis that a "shadow docket" decision is based on. But that is the case only where the law is clear on which court has jurisdiction. But, which court has jurisdiction and whether the petitioner's claims are governed by habeas corpus, only, or some other remedy, in this case the Administrative Procedure Act, is a novel question in this context, never before decided. So they fucking decided it on an emergency motion on the shadow docket, making new law. Also notable that they explicitly said "venue is wrong." Venue is a relatively minor thing that does not affect a court's power to rule; a court that entirely lacks jurisdiction is powerless, one that is not a proper venue should be transferred to one that is proper, but that can happen later in time and does not invalidate the courts' rulings. Complete. Fucking. Bullshit.
  18. That's so disingenuous. A first-year law student sees through that position.
  19. I mean, this is why the stock market is not the economy. It is completely irrational in the short term. The tariffs, unless dispensed with completely, are going to have negative effects on business planning, pricing, and sales, and consumer behavior, particularly for market bellwethers like Apple and Nvidia. The stock market is no doubt going to stabilize some around the whatever is the new status quo, but businesses are not going to be able to generate the numbers that "justify" their valuations and growth as long as these tariffs are lurking out there.
  20. So, I have figured out why Trump has had some success as a real estate developer: it's all hucksterism, at which Trump is satanically gifted. His general business acumen, though, is obviously lacking. Anyone have a "uniform field theory" as to why Musk has experienced the success that he's had?
  21. Dammit, I have to agree a bit here. But, I had seen some "reviews" that mentioned Parliament was going to have some special sessions or some such about adolescent social media use. Therefore, I was expecting more focus or reveal on that aspect of it, while it actually remained pretty implicit, and the "cause" of the crime remained unclear, probably purposely. That I kept waiting for it and it never came distracted me from the more general excellence of the show.
  22. Or the really old school "govern yourself accordingly."
  23. Yeah, this is a different case from Abrego. As I said elsewhere, there's a jurisdiction issue that kind of taints the one before Boasberg. But they need to slap down this "foreign-policy/national security" shit with haste. Don't know that they will but they should.
  24. Didn't say how he'd rule, just that it wouldn't go to Ruckus or Guido, initially. Slim as the hope may be, Roberts offers some overt those two. The jurisdictional issue is a copout on the bigger issue, whether the executive can exempt itself from judicial review by encanting "foreign relations" or "national security" for what is clearly either an immigration (Article I/Congress) or judicial (Article III/Courts) issue.
Ă—
Ă—
  • Create New...