04 May 2007
Last Day.
Today is the last day of the legislative session in Colorado. Bills will be zipping past their third readings as fast as the titles can be read today. Then, it will be time to survey the wreckage and see what the process hath wraught, which actually will take a little longer as the Governor does the same thing.
Screen Death
My laptop's screen has been going into all sorts of weird color schemes in the past couple of days. Initially, I suspected that I had hit the wrong software setting. But, when slapping the screen from behind seems to resolve the problem and I can't find any settings that resolve it, I'm leaning towards a hardware problem.
Any computer experts out there have an opinion?
Any computer experts out there have an opinion?
03 May 2007
Global Executions 2006
From The Economist relying on Amnesty International data.
The United States is the only country which is neither Islamic, nor an avowedly Communist regime, which conducts a large number of executions. A few countries not in either category retain the death penalty and have used it in the past ten years, but none as often as the United States:
Amnesty lists 68 countries which retain the death penalty for ordinary crime, which I have categorized below:
Predominantly Islamic or Islamic Controlled Goverment
AFGHANISTAN, BAHRAIN, BANGLADESH, EGYPT, INDONESIA, IRAN, IRAQ, JORDAN, KUWAIT, LEBANON, LIBYA, MALAYSIA, OMAN, PAKISTAN, PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY, QATAR, SAUDI ARABIA, SOMALIA, SUDAN, SYRIA, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES, YEMEN
Communist or Recently Former Communist
BELARUS, CHINA, CUBA, KAZAKSTAN, KOREA (North), LAOS, MONGOLIA, TAJIKISTAN, UZBEKISTAN, VIET NAM
Other Asia
INDIA, JAPAN, KOREA (South), SINGAPORE, TAIWAN, THAILAND
Other Africa
BOTSWANA, BURUNDI, CAMEROON, CHAD, COMOROS, CONGO (Democratic Republic), EQUATORIAL GUINEA, ERITREA, ETHIOPIA, GUINEA, LESOTHO, NIGERIA, RWANDA, SIERRA LEONE, TANZANIA, UGANDA, ZIMBABWE
Greater Caribbean Basin
ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA, BAHAMAS, BARBADOS, BELIZE, DOMINICA, GUATEMALA, GUYANA, JAMAICA, SAINT CHRISTOPHER & NEVIS, SAINT LUCIA, SAINT VINCENT & GRENADINES, TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
The New Monarchists
Dick Cheney is on the record arguing that the Presidency of the United States should have monarchial powers. He isn't alone in the neo-conservative right in believing this, and a post at Daily Kos looks at a major academic support of this reactionary theory of American government.
The Monarchists are on the march again in America. Will it take another American revolution to displace them?
The Monarchists are on the march again in America. Will it take another American revolution to displace them?
The Meaning Of The Rat and the Honeybee
One of the most important philosophical issues in environmental policy can be summed up in a small furry package called a Laotian rock rat (Laonastes aenigmamus), common name in Laos, Kha-nyou.
The Laotian rock rat, like a lot of notable endangered species, is a relict. It is the sole surviving species of a family of rodents that otherwise went extinct 11 million years ago, called Diatomyidae, it has an isolated geographic range, and it has only modest ecological importance.
If Colony Collapse Disorder wipes out the common honeybee, or the banana goes extinct (see Snopes for caveats), you and I will feel that ecological impact dramatically, it will interrupt the human food chain. In contrast, if the Laotian rock rat were to go extinct (who knows if it is endangered itself, it was rediscovered by Western scientists in 1996), it will slightly narrow the range of traditional delicacies available in Laotian street markets and few others will notice. International trade which provides new sources of food for Laotians is probably squeezing these markets economically in any case.
Mammals are one nineteen or so classes of animals in the phylum cordata which includes all vertebrates. Cordata is one of about 37 phyla of animals. The most abundant order of mammals is that of the rodents, which make up about 40% of all known mammal species, it is one of about nineteen orders of mammals.
So, our Laotian rock rat resurrects a new family within this Order. Previous analysis had given it a different place within the same suborder. In the mammal biology world, this is still a big thing. The last time before this that someone discovered a new family of mammals was when the bumblebee bat family was discovered in 1974. When a new or relict family of mammals gets discovered a couple of times every thirty years, we can pretty pretty comfortable that the gross outline of this part of the animal taxonomy is pretty close to accurate.
The Laotian rock rat is a tangible connection to a whole branch of evolutionary history. We can now make definitive statements about the DNA of the Diatomyidae family where previously we had only guesses based upon the closest living surviving relative, the African grundie, another kind of rodent. It can help us field test things like the pace at which evolution unfolds, information that could help corroborate other evolutionary issues like the link between the dinosaurs and the birds, a long hypothesized connection cemented when we learned that the closest living relative of T-Rex today is the chicken.
But, how do we weigh the importance of the rock rat and the honeybee? The rock rat is a sole species left of an entire family of animals. The honeybee, in contrast, is one species of a great many in its family. But, the rock rat is quite unimportant to other the larger web of life, while the honeybee is a lynch pin of the ecosystem.
Also, if we value relicts, should we value higher order relicts, like the tuatara, which are the sole representatives of a higher order of classification in the taxonomy more than we do lower order relicts, like the rock rat.
Most of the time, we don't have to weigh apples and oranges like rats and bees and bananas, but when legislators and the environmental protection agency set priorities in he midst of a massive, human caused extinction, which they have limited resources to address, it does matter.
The Laotian rock rat, like a lot of notable endangered species, is a relict. It is the sole surviving species of a family of rodents that otherwise went extinct 11 million years ago, called Diatomyidae, it has an isolated geographic range, and it has only modest ecological importance.
If Colony Collapse Disorder wipes out the common honeybee, or the banana goes extinct (see Snopes for caveats), you and I will feel that ecological impact dramatically, it will interrupt the human food chain. In contrast, if the Laotian rock rat were to go extinct (who knows if it is endangered itself, it was rediscovered by Western scientists in 1996), it will slightly narrow the range of traditional delicacies available in Laotian street markets and few others will notice. International trade which provides new sources of food for Laotians is probably squeezing these markets economically in any case.
Mammals are one nineteen or so classes of animals in the phylum cordata which includes all vertebrates. Cordata is one of about 37 phyla of animals. The most abundant order of mammals is that of the rodents, which make up about 40% of all known mammal species, it is one of about nineteen orders of mammals.
So, our Laotian rock rat resurrects a new family within this Order. Previous analysis had given it a different place within the same suborder. In the mammal biology world, this is still a big thing. The last time before this that someone discovered a new family of mammals was when the bumblebee bat family was discovered in 1974. When a new or relict family of mammals gets discovered a couple of times every thirty years, we can pretty pretty comfortable that the gross outline of this part of the animal taxonomy is pretty close to accurate.
The Laotian rock rat is a tangible connection to a whole branch of evolutionary history. We can now make definitive statements about the DNA of the Diatomyidae family where previously we had only guesses based upon the closest living surviving relative, the African grundie, another kind of rodent. It can help us field test things like the pace at which evolution unfolds, information that could help corroborate other evolutionary issues like the link between the dinosaurs and the birds, a long hypothesized connection cemented when we learned that the closest living relative of T-Rex today is the chicken.
But, how do we weigh the importance of the rock rat and the honeybee? The rock rat is a sole species left of an entire family of animals. The honeybee, in contrast, is one species of a great many in its family. But, the rock rat is quite unimportant to other the larger web of life, while the honeybee is a lynch pin of the ecosystem.
Also, if we value relicts, should we value higher order relicts, like the tuatara, which are the sole representatives of a higher order of classification in the taxonomy more than we do lower order relicts, like the rock rat.
Most of the time, we don't have to weigh apples and oranges like rats and bees and bananas, but when legislators and the environmental protection agency set priorities in he midst of a massive, human caused extinction, which they have limited resources to address, it does matter.
02 May 2007
Denver Neighborhoods Ranked By Property Values
Neighborhood
Property Value Rank (2007) -- total price, not per square foot
1. Bow Mar $649,411
2. Washington Park $533,559
3. Cherry Creek $486,792
4. Congress Park
5. Union Station
6. Washington Park West
7. Cory-Merrill
8. Platt Park
9. City Park
10. Montclaire
11. North Park Hill $294,427
12. Alamo Placita
13. West Highland
14. University
15. Goldsmith
16. Sloan's Lake
17. Speer
18. City Park West
19. Cheeseman Park
20. Hampden
21. Berkely
22. Virginia Village $242,735
23. LoDo
24. North Capitol Hill
25. Harvey Park South
26. Uptown
27. Regis
28. Civic Center
29. Central Business District
30. West Colfax
31. Washington Virginia Vale
32. Harvey Park $175,923
33. Capitol Hill
34. Overland
34. College Valley
35. College View
36. East Colfax
37. South Federal
38. Mar Lee
39. Ruby Hill
40. Indian Creek
41. Montbello $145,846
42. Athmar Park $144,928
43. Hampden South $96,579
Source: Zillow.com via the Denver Post.
Property Value Rank (2007) -- total price, not per square foot
1. Bow Mar $649,411
2. Washington Park $533,559
3. Cherry Creek $486,792
4. Congress Park
5. Union Station
6. Washington Park West
7. Cory-Merrill
8. Platt Park
9. City Park
10. Montclaire
11. North Park Hill $294,427
12. Alamo Placita
13. West Highland
14. University
15. Goldsmith
16. Sloan's Lake
17. Speer
18. City Park West
19. Cheeseman Park
20. Hampden
21. Berkely
22. Virginia Village $242,735
23. LoDo
24. North Capitol Hill
25. Harvey Park South
26. Uptown
27. Regis
28. Civic Center
29. Central Business District
30. West Colfax
31. Washington Virginia Vale
32. Harvey Park $175,923
33. Capitol Hill
34. Overland
34. College Valley
35. College View
36. East Colfax
37. South Federal
38. Mar Lee
39. Ruby Hill
40. Indian Creek
41. Montbello $145,846
42. Athmar Park $144,928
43. Hampden South $96,579
Source: Zillow.com via the Denver Post.
Which States Have Civil Unions?
Oregon joins California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and Vermont in extending all of the benefits and responsibilities of marriage to same-sex couples. Hawaii, Maine, Washington state, and D.C, grant legal recognition and some of the rights of marriage to same-sex couples.
From here.
In the 2006 general election in Colorado, a domestic partnerships proposal (Referendum I) won 47.65% of the vote, which obviously wasn't enough to pass, but was also a big step forward from previous popular votes on gay rights issues in the state. A narrow marriage is between a man and a woman proposal (Amendment 43), that did not ban domestic partnerships, passed with 55.02% of the vote in the same election.
County by county results on Referendum I show that it had overwhelming support in Boulder, Denver and most resort dominated counties. But, most of rural Colorado and Colorado Springs overwhelmingly opposed the measure. Opinion was quite evenly divided in suburban Denver metropolitian area counties.
The political upshot of this outcome is that Democrats have taken some basic steps in 2007 to protect gay rights (like employment discrimination protection and second parent adoption), but have not pushed for full domestic partnership rights, as Colorado voters have expressed their will on that issue for now.
Richard Florida argues in his book on the "Creative Class" that being gay friendly is strongly linked to local economic prosperity. Recent news from Colorado seems to support that view. Gay unfriendly rural Colorado (particularly places within anti-gay Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave's 4th Congressional District) are seeing real estate values collapse by 8% this year, while the Denver metropolitan area has seen only a 1.9% drop, with gay friendly Boulder actually posting a slight increase in real estate values.
Always The Optimist
Melissa Summers at Strollerderby on my recent Soccer Dad post:
Stroller Derby is a pretty neat site, by the way.
The guy reminds me of my optimistic husband who could find the bright side of Darfur.
Stroller Derby is a pretty neat site, by the way.
Justice Sleeps
There is an academic study on sleeping judges. Bottom line: The media is not nice to judges who fall asleep during court proceedings. Who knew?
Deepwater; Big Trouble
Deepwater is the five year old program to replace almost all of the ships in the Coast Guard with new an improved models over 20 years for $24 billion. It is in big trouble, something I've been aware of for a few months but not found time to post about. The link in this post to Defense Tech has a nice summary of the problems.
I personally think that we need, as a nation, to shift resources from the Navy, which provides relatively modest benefit to national defense for the money we spend on it, to the Coast Guard, which provides a high return for the money we spend on it, particularly on the counterterrorism front.
Indeed, given my druthers, the National Guard, Coast Guard and Civil Air Patrol would be a unified force in charge of its own procurement and coordinated domestic security and crisis response duties, rather than the current approach, which treats the National Guard as a poor cousin of the Army.
Integrated Coast Guard Systems -- a partnership between electronics maker Lockheed Martin and shipbuilder Northrop Grumman -- the “lead systems integrator” for the program, meaning the firms, rather than the Coast Guard, would be responsible for selecting subcontractors to handle the aircraft, electronics and shipbuilding work. . . . [T]he service has terminated the lead-systems-integrator relationship, citing shoddy work on a $100-million effort to stretch and modernize eight 110-foot patrol boats -- the first major shipbuilding portion of Deepwater. Those boats are being decommissioned due to hull buckling, leaving the Coast Guard with a 15-percent gap in its patrol boat force, Commandant Thad Allen said while announcing the decommissioning and the Deepwater changes on April 17. Earlier, Allen had cancelled the so-called Fast Response Cutter being designed from scratch by Integrated Coast Guard Systems to eventually fill that gap, instead expressing his intention to seek off-the-shelf boat designs. [There were also electronics and software problems.]. . .
According to Allen, all aspects of Deepwater that are already far advanced -- including work on patrol planes, helicopters, short-range boats and several large cutters -- will remain intact. But overall management of the program will pass from industry to the Coast Guard.
I personally think that we need, as a nation, to shift resources from the Navy, which provides relatively modest benefit to national defense for the money we spend on it, to the Coast Guard, which provides a high return for the money we spend on it, particularly on the counterterrorism front.
Indeed, given my druthers, the National Guard, Coast Guard and Civil Air Patrol would be a unified force in charge of its own procurement and coordinated domestic security and crisis response duties, rather than the current approach, which treats the National Guard as a poor cousin of the Army.
C.J. Roberts Cements Goverment Gitmo Win
Chief Justice Roberts of the United States Supreme Court appears to agree with the government that the Military Commissions Act of 2006 absolutely forbids any judicial branch intervention in the government's treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay. This is contrary to signals that have been sent by associate justices Stevens and Kennedy in cases where they have denied certiorari, but held open the possibility of court review in some cases.
Most recently the Chief Justice refused to consider a detainee's plea that upon release from Guantanamo Bay, he was being transferred to a country, Libya, where he claims "he faces a grave risk of arbitrary detention, torture, persecution and extrajudicial assassination at the hands of the dictatorship of Colonel Muammar Al-Qadhafi." The Executive branch argued that it should be trusted with resolving this issue, despite the fact that in all other contexts, Executive branch asylum decisions are subject to judicial review, ultimately, by the judicial branch.
Most recently the Chief Justice refused to consider a detainee's plea that upon release from Guantanamo Bay, he was being transferred to a country, Libya, where he claims "he faces a grave risk of arbitrary detention, torture, persecution and extrajudicial assassination at the hands of the dictatorship of Colonel Muammar Al-Qadhafi." The Executive branch argued that it should be trusted with resolving this issue, despite the fact that in all other contexts, Executive branch asylum decisions are subject to judicial review, ultimately, by the judicial branch.
On Voting Systems
It is worth noting that Denver's voting system, which is nearly identical to that of France, Louisiana and San Francisco, requires a majority vote in the first round for the leading candidate to avoid a runoff, and places the top two candidates in a runoff otherwise.
This isn't the only set of voting rules out there. In the political caucus system, all candidates with at least 30% support make it onto the primary ballot and balloting is held until at least someone gets 30%. If Denver used that rule for candidates trying to make it inot a runoff election, there would be no runoff election this year, because every race had someone who got at least 30% of the vote, and each race had only one candidate winning 30% of the vote.
Similarly, if ordinary general election voting rules were used, and the first round was a partisan political primary, a number of races, like the 8th Council District race, would be decided by now, because all the candidates were Democrats and the candidate with the most votes in the primary goes onto the next round.
But, if the city council races were partisan general election style races with primaries, the 7th Congressional District would have had a next round not between Nevitt and Watters, the two candidates with the most votes in this round, but between Nevitt and Smith, the Democrat and the Republican, respectively, even though Smith came in 4th place in terms of votes received in the first round. Of course, if there were partisan races for city council in Denver, Councilwoman Jeanne Faatz from District 2, would probably not be in office, as she is a Republican with a real shot in a nonpartisan race who would likely be defeated in a party line vote in a partisan race (most of Councilwoman Faatz's district in in Representative Labuda's state house district which Democrat Labuda easily won against her Republican opponent in a targetted race in 2006).
I like Denver's current election rules and don't think that they should be changed. But, this election is a fine example of how election results are not merely the voice of the People speaking, they are instead, a product of the rules that government them.
This isn't the only set of voting rules out there. In the political caucus system, all candidates with at least 30% support make it onto the primary ballot and balloting is held until at least someone gets 30%. If Denver used that rule for candidates trying to make it inot a runoff election, there would be no runoff election this year, because every race had someone who got at least 30% of the vote, and each race had only one candidate winning 30% of the vote.
Similarly, if ordinary general election voting rules were used, and the first round was a partisan political primary, a number of races, like the 8th Council District race, would be decided by now, because all the candidates were Democrats and the candidate with the most votes in the primary goes onto the next round.
But, if the city council races were partisan general election style races with primaries, the 7th Congressional District would have had a next round not between Nevitt and Watters, the two candidates with the most votes in this round, but between Nevitt and Smith, the Democrat and the Republican, respectively, even though Smith came in 4th place in terms of votes received in the first round. Of course, if there were partisan races for city council in Denver, Councilwoman Jeanne Faatz from District 2, would probably not be in office, as she is a Republican with a real shot in a nonpartisan race who would likely be defeated in a party line vote in a partisan race (most of Councilwoman Faatz's district in in Representative Labuda's state house district which Democrat Labuda easily won against her Republican opponent in a targetted race in 2006).
I like Denver's current election rules and don't think that they should be changed. But, this election is a fine example of how election results are not merely the voice of the People speaking, they are instead, a product of the rules that government them.
01 May 2007
Denver Municipal Election Results (Updated)
So, the election is over (except for runoffs) and its time for popcorn.
According to the Election Commission's first round of results (with 30.0% turnout -- basically all pre-Tuesday voting):
Most of my predictions were right, but a couple were a little off.
I predicted a Council District 8 runoff between Watson and Madison. But, at this hour, it looks like Bailey and Madison, with Watson 0.86% (39 votes) behind second place Madison. This race could still swing based on ballots cast today that haven't yet been counted. Madison's Denver Post endorsement probably helped her edge out Watson.
In a Bailey v. Madison race, I think Bailey probably has an edge with Watson and Rasheed supporters over Madison, whose appeal is greater in the central business district area. Madison, of course, needs to win a supermajority of Watson and Rasheed supporters to win, in any case.
If the tide turns based upon today's voting and it becomes a Bailey v. Watson race, it is harder to tell how the race will come out, but I'm inclined to think that Madison supporters would disproportionately favor Bailey, if for no reason other than that the competition between Madison and Watson in the first round was very hot, while almost nobody campaigned against Bailey.
I predicted a Council District 3 runoff between Lopez and Romero. In fact, the runoff will be between Lopez and Phillips. The Lopez v. Phillips runoff is big enough that it is unlikely to be upset by today's returns. Kathy Sandoval, next in the vote count, is 103 votes behind Phillips (almost 4 percentage points). Assuming that Lopez holds onto voters who voted for him in the first round, he needs only about one in seven of voters who didn't vote for Phillips or himself to win. Phillips was endorsed by the Denver Post after my last set of predictions and this clearly gave her campaign a boost.
The third runoff, which I did predict will be between Nevitt and Watters. This result won't be changed by today's voting. Watters leads third place Connor by almost ten percentage points. Nevitt needs about one in six of the votes for Conner and Smith to win. He is unlikely to get many Smith votes (Smith was the only registered Republican in that non-partisan race, while Nevitt is a strongly labor union backed candidate), but he has a good shot at getting at least a quarter of Connor's votes. Watters Denver Post endorsement did little to upset the status quo in that race.
The Rocky Mountain News endorsements, while printed less often than those of the Denver Post, better match the results. The Rocky endorsed Lopez in District 3, Nevitt in District 7 and split its endorsement between Bailey and Madison in District 8.
UPDATE: 40 minutes later, the close races are even less close.
There are on the order of 3,000 votes to be counted citywide, at most, and far less than that in District 8 where it is most likely to matter, where the are probably something on the order of 400 more votes to be counted, split among four candidates. In the third council distict there are probably only 300 more votes to be counted and they are going to be split seven ways.
Madison and Watson supporters may want to hang on for late breaking results, but everyone else can call it a night and return to popcorn and after campaign beer.
Antoinette Alire's mere 60 vote showing in the 3rd Council District is notable, not only because it is the smallest number of votes cast for a non-write in candidate (the 3rd district has the lowest voter turnout and the largest number of candidates so someone in that race was bound to have that distinction) but also because, if I recall correctly, you need 100 signatures to get on the ballot -- Alire lost at least 40 of the people who signed her petition on the way to the mailbox to mail ballots.
Trust the Denver Post to run with the most uninformative headline imaginable for anyone who has been paying any attention to prior coverage of this race: "Hickenlooper Re-elected." When did they come up with that one? Last month? The mediocre Denver Post coverage of city issues continues. The Rocky in fairness, does little better, proclaiming "Hick Wins Second Term", although it does have subheadlines about other races that are mildly more informative.
FINAL UPDATE: At 8:18 p.m. the next round of results has come in, and with 68,960 votes counted, better than 36% turnout, which should be nearly all of them (and all but about 100 votes or so, if that, in the critical 8th Council District race) there is still a 75 vote lead for Madison over Watson. Today's races are over. Everybody can go drinking now.
According to the Election Commission's first round of results (with 30.0% turnout -- basically all pre-Tuesday voting):
AUDITOR
Votes/Total Votes % Votes
- Bill Wells 12190/ 56,879 21.43%
- Dennis J. Gallagher 44689/ 56,879 78.57%
CLERK AND RECORDER
Votes/Total Votes % Votes
- Jacob Werther 11403/ 51,612 22.09%
- Stephanie Y. O'Malley 40209/ 51,612 77.91%
COUNCILMEMBER AT LARGE
Votes/Total Votes % Votes
- Carol Boigon 25001/ 80,117 31.21%
- Doug Linkhart 32961/ 80,117 41.14%
- Carol E. Campbell 22155/ 80,117 27.65%
COUNCILMEMBER DIST DISTRICT 1
Votes/Total Votes % Votes
- Rick Garcia 3975/ 3,975 100.00%
COUNCILMEMBER DIST DISTRICT 10
Votes/Total Votes % Votes
- Jeanne Robb 5443/ 5,443 100.00%
COUNCILMEMBER DIST DISTRICT 11
Votes/Total Votes % Votes
- Michael Hancock 3396/ 3,396 100.00%
COUNCILMEMBER DIST DISTRICT 2
Votes/Total Votes % Votes
- Jeanne Faatz 5587/ 5,587 100.00%
COUNCILMEMBER DIST DISTRICT 3
Votes/Total Votes % Votes
- Antoinette Alire 54/ 2,668 2.02%
- Paul D. L�pez 1187/ 2,668 44.49%
- Niccolo Casewit 123/ 2,668 4.61%
- JoAnn Phillips 428/ 2,668 16.04%
- Kathy Sandoval 325/ 2,668 12.18%
- Mark Roggeman 302/ 2,668 11.32%
- Ben Romero 249/ 2,668 9.33%
COUNCILMEMBER DIST DISTRICT 4
Votes/Total Votes % Votes
- Peggy A. Lehmann 5231/ 8,107 64.52%
- Ike Kelley 1687/ 8,107 20.81%
- Bill Rutherford 1189/ 8,107 14.67%
COUNCILMEMBER DIST DISTRICT 5
Votes/Total Votes % Votes
- R.J. Ours 636/ 7,530 8.45%
- Marcia Johnson 5788/ 7,530 76.87%
- Mitchell Poindexter 1106/ 7,530 14.69%
COUNCILMEMBER DIST DISTRICT 6
Votes/Total Votes % Votes
- Charlie Brown 6107/ 6,107 100.00%
COUNCILMEMBER DIST DISTRICT 7
Votes/Total Votes % Votes
- Shelly Watters 1365/ 4,800 28.44%
- Dennis Smith 328/ 4,800 6.83%
- Chris Nevitt 2211/ 4,800 46.06%
- Julie Connor 896/ 4,800 18.67%
COUNCILMEMBER DIST DISTRICT 8
Votes/Total Votes % Votes
- Darrell B. Watson 1216/ 4,546 26.75%
- Carla Madison 1255/ 4,546 27.61%
- Sharon Bailey 1697/ 4,546 37.33%
- Greg Rasheed 378/ 4,546 8.32%
COUNCILMEMBER DIST DISTRICT 9
Votes/Total Votes % Votes
- Judy H. Montero 2103/ 2,877 73.10%
- Waldo Benavidez 774/ 2,877 26.90%
MAYOR
Votes/Total Votes % Votes
- Danny F. Lopez 7641/ 62,339 12.26%
- John Hickenlooper 54698/ 62,339 87.74%
REFERRED QUESTION 1A
DA Term Limits 0/420 0.00%
Votes/Total Votes % Votes
YES 44567/ 58,274 76.48%
NO 13707/ 58,274 23.52%
Most of my predictions were right, but a couple were a little off.
I predicted a Council District 8 runoff between Watson and Madison. But, at this hour, it looks like Bailey and Madison, with Watson 0.86% (39 votes) behind second place Madison. This race could still swing based on ballots cast today that haven't yet been counted. Madison's Denver Post endorsement probably helped her edge out Watson.
In a Bailey v. Madison race, I think Bailey probably has an edge with Watson and Rasheed supporters over Madison, whose appeal is greater in the central business district area. Madison, of course, needs to win a supermajority of Watson and Rasheed supporters to win, in any case.
If the tide turns based upon today's voting and it becomes a Bailey v. Watson race, it is harder to tell how the race will come out, but I'm inclined to think that Madison supporters would disproportionately favor Bailey, if for no reason other than that the competition between Madison and Watson in the first round was very hot, while almost nobody campaigned against Bailey.
I predicted a Council District 3 runoff between Lopez and Romero. In fact, the runoff will be between Lopez and Phillips. The Lopez v. Phillips runoff is big enough that it is unlikely to be upset by today's returns. Kathy Sandoval, next in the vote count, is 103 votes behind Phillips (almost 4 percentage points). Assuming that Lopez holds onto voters who voted for him in the first round, he needs only about one in seven of voters who didn't vote for Phillips or himself to win. Phillips was endorsed by the Denver Post after my last set of predictions and this clearly gave her campaign a boost.
The third runoff, which I did predict will be between Nevitt and Watters. This result won't be changed by today's voting. Watters leads third place Connor by almost ten percentage points. Nevitt needs about one in six of the votes for Conner and Smith to win. He is unlikely to get many Smith votes (Smith was the only registered Republican in that non-partisan race, while Nevitt is a strongly labor union backed candidate), but he has a good shot at getting at least a quarter of Connor's votes. Watters Denver Post endorsement did little to upset the status quo in that race.
The Rocky Mountain News endorsements, while printed less often than those of the Denver Post, better match the results. The Rocky endorsed Lopez in District 3, Nevitt in District 7 and split its endorsement between Bailey and Madison in District 8.
UPDATE: 40 minutes later, the close races are even less close.
There are on the order of 3,000 votes to be counted citywide, at most, and far less than that in District 8 where it is most likely to matter, where the are probably something on the order of 400 more votes to be counted, split among four candidates. In the third council distict there are probably only 300 more votes to be counted and they are going to be split seven ways.
Madison and Watson supporters may want to hang on for late breaking results, but everyone else can call it a night and return to popcorn and after campaign beer.
Antoinette Alire's mere 60 vote showing in the 3rd Council District is notable, not only because it is the smallest number of votes cast for a non-write in candidate (the 3rd district has the lowest voter turnout and the largest number of candidates so someone in that race was bound to have that distinction) but also because, if I recall correctly, you need 100 signatures to get on the ballot -- Alire lost at least 40 of the people who signed her petition on the way to the mailbox to mail ballots.
Trust the Denver Post to run with the most uninformative headline imaginable for anyone who has been paying any attention to prior coverage of this race: "Hickenlooper Re-elected." When did they come up with that one? Last month? The mediocre Denver Post coverage of city issues continues. The Rocky in fairness, does little better, proclaiming "Hick Wins Second Term", although it does have subheadlines about other races that are mildly more informative.
FINAL UPDATE: At 8:18 p.m. the next round of results has come in, and with 68,960 votes counted, better than 36% turnout, which should be nearly all of them (and all but about 100 votes or so, if that, in the critical 8th Council District race) there is still a 75 vote lead for Madison over Watson. Today's races are over. Everybody can go drinking now.
The In Forma Pauperis SCOTUS Lottery
The filing fee in the United States Supreme Court is $300, and the binding and printing costs imposed by the Court cost a few thousand more dollars. Then, having an attorney draft the paperwork costs tens of thousands of dollars more. But, the impact of making a paid petition on the likelihood of review by the U.S. Supreme Court is considerable. Still, some petitioners take the cheap route, and some succeed.
From here.
The article goes on to note that some important cases like Brendlin (involving the 4th Amendment rights of passengers in stopped cars) in the current term, and Gideon (the right to counsel), in a past one, have made important law.
Even among in forma pauperis cases, those, like Brendlin, where the petition is being written by an attorney, rather than the petitioner him or herself, are more likely to prevail, although in forma pauperis cases are still at a disadvantage.
Indeed, even bringing an in forma pauperis petition, knowing that your chances of failure in this time consuming enterprise are 99.7% requires an odd mix of insanity and hope. It isn't that the 96% certiorari failure rate for ordinary petitions is low either, but it can even be economically rational when the amount at stake for the client as a result of the precedent, even if not in the individual case at issue is a couple of million dollars or more, and there is an issue in the case with a real chance of securing review.
The IFP docket, as it is known, also is institutionally odd. Most petitions receive only cursory review by two law clerks (one for Stevens and one for the other Justices), who have a strong inclination to say no, and will be reviewing roughly 300 similar petitions. Capricious grants of goodwill by these demi-gods are necessary to even receive consideration. While many IFPs are frivilous, there is little doubt that meritorious cases are more likely to be overlooked on the IFP docket, than elsewhere. No clerk will ever be reprimanded for saying no to an IFP case. Indeed, usually, no one will ever no who made the de facto decision to deny a particular IFP review, until decades later.
The IFP docket does make up a non-trivial share of the total universe of cases heard on the merits by the Court, but just barely. IFPs without attorneys, furthermore, verge on making up a trival share of the whole.
From October, when the court's new term began, to March 1, the Supreme Court received 4,759 "in forma pauperis" petitions. That was 6 percent more than the court's previous term. Of this term, only 10 were granted review.
By contrast, the court received 1,186 standard petitions and granted review to 45. . . .
Passed in 1996, the Prison Litigation Reform Act imposed new hurdles, including a limit on an inmate's "in forma pauperis" petitions if judges rule that the filings are frivolous or malicious. In certain cases, indigent prisoners must also pay filing fees on an installment plan.
From here.
The article goes on to note that some important cases like Brendlin (involving the 4th Amendment rights of passengers in stopped cars) in the current term, and Gideon (the right to counsel), in a past one, have made important law.
Even among in forma pauperis cases, those, like Brendlin, where the petition is being written by an attorney, rather than the petitioner him or herself, are more likely to prevail, although in forma pauperis cases are still at a disadvantage.
Indeed, even bringing an in forma pauperis petition, knowing that your chances of failure in this time consuming enterprise are 99.7% requires an odd mix of insanity and hope. It isn't that the 96% certiorari failure rate for ordinary petitions is low either, but it can even be economically rational when the amount at stake for the client as a result of the precedent, even if not in the individual case at issue is a couple of million dollars or more, and there is an issue in the case with a real chance of securing review.
The IFP docket, as it is known, also is institutionally odd. Most petitions receive only cursory review by two law clerks (one for Stevens and one for the other Justices), who have a strong inclination to say no, and will be reviewing roughly 300 similar petitions. Capricious grants of goodwill by these demi-gods are necessary to even receive consideration. While many IFPs are frivilous, there is little doubt that meritorious cases are more likely to be overlooked on the IFP docket, than elsewhere. No clerk will ever be reprimanded for saying no to an IFP case. Indeed, usually, no one will ever no who made the de facto decision to deny a particular IFP review, until decades later.
The IFP docket does make up a non-trivial share of the total universe of cases heard on the merits by the Court, but just barely. IFPs without attorneys, furthermore, verge on making up a trival share of the whole.
Britain Imports Billionaires
The number of billionaires living in Britain has surged to 68, up from 54 last year. About a third are from overseas and only three of the wealthiest 10 billionaires were born here [Britain].
From here.
Does Locking Them Up Work?
Bernard Hardcourt provides some data (paper here) in support of a version of the conservative premise on crime control, plotting combined prison and mental health incarceration against homicide rates over time.
His bottom line:
The match isn't really quite the match that it is as there is a lot of controlling for independent factors going on.
His main table holds "constant three leading structural covariates of homicide (youth demographics, unemployment, and poverty)."
An important observation of the study is that total mental health and prison institutionalization rates in the United States in the 1940s and 1950s were even higher than they are now.
The study also highlights the important role that deinstitutionalization of the seriously mentally ill has played in our country's social ills.
The question is, how do you square this with international comparisons? The strong corollations with race, high poverty levels and urban settings controlled out of this analysis, sweep the economic causes of crime under the rug. It also suggests a more probing look at institutionalized treatment of mental health in other nations touted for low incarceration rates. Is the main difference between the U.S. and Western Europe that the Europeans are more likely to provide inpatient mental health treatment, while the U.S. lets those same people rot in prison without treatment?
At any rate, it is a study worth a closer look.
His bottom line:
Prison incarceration alone does not predict homicide, but when mental health institutionalization is combined with the prison rate to form an aggregate instituaionlization measure, that measure is significantly and robustly related to homcide rates over a 68 year period across the fifty separate states, holding constant a number of leading control variables.
The match isn't really quite the match that it is as there is a lot of controlling for independent factors going on.
His main table holds "constant three leading structural covariates of homicide (youth demographics, unemployment, and poverty)."
In order to test the national-level findings, I collected state-level panel data and ran clustered regressions. The results were truly remarkable. Using state-level panel data spanning the entire period from 1934 to 2001, including all 50 states, and controlling for economic, demographic, and criminal justice variables, I again found a large, robust, and statistically significant relationship between aggregated institutionalization and homicide rates. The findings are not sensitive to weighting by population and hold under a number of permutations, including when I aggregate jail populations as well.
To help visualize the relationship, I plotted the predicted values of homicide in the final model (Model 6) against the aggregated institutionalization rate. These, then, are the predicted values of homicide from the model including all the independent variables (aggregated institutionalization, real per capita income, demographics, execution rate, proportion urban, proportion black, and state and year fixed effects).
An important observation of the study is that total mental health and prison institutionalization rates in the United States in the 1940s and 1950s were even higher than they are now.
The study also highlights the important role that deinstitutionalization of the seriously mentally ill has played in our country's social ills.
The question is, how do you square this with international comparisons? The strong corollations with race, high poverty levels and urban settings controlled out of this analysis, sweep the economic causes of crime under the rug. It also suggests a more probing look at institutionalized treatment of mental health in other nations touted for low incarceration rates. Is the main difference between the U.S. and Western Europe that the Europeans are more likely to provide inpatient mental health treatment, while the U.S. lets those same people rot in prison without treatment?
At any rate, it is a study worth a closer look.
May Day
Today is May Day, the adopted high holiday of the Communist world, adopted from Beltane, the Gaelic Pagan mid-spring holiday, and counterpart to Samhain aka Halloween. Today is often associated with fertility, a sensible thing for a holiday that falls squarely in prom season.
In tax land, we place greater emphasis on Beltane eve, when by secular fiat, small businesses across the land file their quarterly payroll tax returns. In the Colorado branch of the tax cult, we like to fire up for the midnight bonfires with the magic numbers 941 and 1094.
Today is also the last day to vote in Denver's city elections. Drop off your ballot downtown by 7 p.m. at the following places:
Vote well.
In tax land, we place greater emphasis on Beltane eve, when by secular fiat, small businesses across the land file their quarterly payroll tax returns. In the Colorado branch of the tax cult, we like to fire up for the midnight bonfires with the magic numbers 941 and 1094.
Today is also the last day to vote in Denver's city elections. Drop off your ballot downtown by 7 p.m. at the following places:
The Denver Election Commission located at 303 W. Colfax Ave. . . .
Athmar Recreation Center, 2680 W. Mexico Ave.
Barnum Recreation Center, 360 Hooker St.
District 3 Police Station, 1625 S. University Blvd.
Eisenhower Recreation Center, 4300 E. Dartmouth Ave.
Harvey Park Recreation Center, 2120 S. Tennyson St.
Montbello Recreation Center, 15555 E. 53rd Ave.
Montclair Recreation Center, 729 Ulster Way
New Hope Baptist Church, 3701 Colorado Boulevard *New*
Scheitler Recreation Center, 5031 W. 46th Ave.
Tattered Cover Bookstore, 1628 16th St.
Tattered Cover Bookstore, 2626 E. Colfax Ave.
Wellington Webb Municipal Office Building, 201 W. Colfax Ave.
On Election Day, May 1, all locations will receive ballots from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., including Election Commission headquarters curbside drop-off on Court Place between Colfax Ave. and 14th St.
Please note: Ballots must be received by 7pm, May 1, 2007. Any ballots received after this date and time will not be counted regardless of postmark.
Vote well.
30 April 2007
Jury Trials and Summary Judgment
I've noted many times at this site how rare jury trials are becoming in the United States. A New York Times piece today adds an important dimension to this by pointing out the role of motions for summary judgment in the change:
While the article focuses on the impact at the federal level, there has been a similar change at the state level.
The summary judgment data also suggest that the trend towards settlement has been somewhat exaggerated.
In the early 1960s you have 12.1% of federal civil cases resolved by a judge on summary judgment or at trial. Now, you have 10.3% of cases resolved in that manner. Thus, cases are only slightly more likely to be resolved by settlement, but are a lot more likely to be resolved in motion practice.
Galanter's statement in the quote above about the declining role of cross-examination is also somewhat overstated.
What is happens in civil cases is that witnesses are deposed under oath in opposing lawyer's offices, the moral equivalent of cross-examination, rather than in front of a judge during trial. This testimony is then presented in a motion for summary judgment. Friendly witness testimony for a side seeking summary judgment is presented by affidavit, but the opposing party generally had an opportunity to depose that witness before the case went to summary judgment stage.
On the other hand, there is a lot to be said for the commentary in the article about judges encroaching on the right to trial by jury. A 10th Circuit affirmance today of a summary judgment grant in an employment discrimination case is a perfect example. Yes, the Plaintiff who was fired reversing bank charges was weak, but when every single bank branch prior to a recent reorganization was a woman (and one was an older woman) and afterwards, the Plaintiff was finally replaced, like all the others, by a young man, there is room to wonder if the severity of her dismissal was excessively harsh and really motivated by other factors. The fine lines of evidentiary sorting conducted by the 10th Circuit in that case is the stuff we'd normally leave to a jury to weigh.
In criminal cases, it isn't uncommon for the testimony of key witnesses to have been provided, instead, in a preliminary hearing.
Federal courts conducted about 3,600 trials in civil cases last year, down from 5,800 in 1962. That is not an enormous drop — until you consider that the number of cases has quintupled in the meantime.
In percentage terms, only 1.3 percent of federal civil cases ended in trials last year, down from 11.5 percent in 1962.
The trends in criminal cases and in the state courts are broadly similar, though not always quite as striking. But it is beyond dispute that even as the number of lawyers has grown twice as fast as the population and even as the number of lawsuits has exploded, actual trials have become quite rare. . . .
“During the last years of the 20th century, summary judgment in the federal courts moved from a small fraction of dispositions by trial to a magnitude several times greater than the number of trials,” Marc Galanter, who teaches law at the University of Wisconsin and the London School of Economics and Political Science, wrote last year in The Journal of Dispute Resolution. . . . “Summary judgments are being asked for in about 17 percent of cases and granted in about 9 percent,” he said, citing recent data from the Federal Judicial Center. That is a big jump from 1960, when no more than 1.8 percent of federal civil cases ended in summary judgment, according to data from the administrative office of the federal courts analyzed in a 1961 law review article.
“We’ve moved in a way to a more European way of decision-making, by looking at the court file rather than through encounters with living witnesses whose testimony is tested by cross-examination,” Professor Galanter said.
In criminal cases, the vast majority of prosecutions end in plea bargains. In an article called “Vanishing Trials, Vanishing Juries, Vanishing Constitution” in the Suffolk University Law Review last year, a federal judge questioned the fairness of the choices confronting many criminal defendants.
Those who have the temerity to “request the jury trial guaranteed them under the U.S. Constitution,” wrote the judge, William G. Young of the Federal District Court in Boston, face “savage sentences” that can be five times as long as those meted out to defendants who plead guilty and cooperate with the government. . . .
Almost all civil jury trials in the world take place here, and 90 percent of the criminal ones.
While the article focuses on the impact at the federal level, there has been a similar change at the state level.
The summary judgment data also suggest that the trend towards settlement has been somewhat exaggerated.
In the early 1960s you have 12.1% of federal civil cases resolved by a judge on summary judgment or at trial. Now, you have 10.3% of cases resolved in that manner. Thus, cases are only slightly more likely to be resolved by settlement, but are a lot more likely to be resolved in motion practice.
Galanter's statement in the quote above about the declining role of cross-examination is also somewhat overstated.
What is happens in civil cases is that witnesses are deposed under oath in opposing lawyer's offices, the moral equivalent of cross-examination, rather than in front of a judge during trial. This testimony is then presented in a motion for summary judgment. Friendly witness testimony for a side seeking summary judgment is presented by affidavit, but the opposing party generally had an opportunity to depose that witness before the case went to summary judgment stage.
On the other hand, there is a lot to be said for the commentary in the article about judges encroaching on the right to trial by jury. A 10th Circuit affirmance today of a summary judgment grant in an employment discrimination case is a perfect example. Yes, the Plaintiff who was fired reversing bank charges was weak, but when every single bank branch prior to a recent reorganization was a woman (and one was an older woman) and afterwards, the Plaintiff was finally replaced, like all the others, by a young man, there is room to wonder if the severity of her dismissal was excessively harsh and really motivated by other factors. The fine lines of evidentiary sorting conducted by the 10th Circuit in that case is the stuff we'd normally leave to a jury to weigh.
In criminal cases, it isn't uncommon for the testimony of key witnesses to have been provided, instead, in a preliminary hearing.
Hamdan Denied
The last major detainee case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court was denied cert today, on the same 6-3 basis as the previous one. Liberal Justice Stevens voted not to grant cert, probably, again, because he didn't trust Justice Kennedy to vote the right way on the merits. I personally think that Justice Stevens made the wrong call both times at grave cost to the integrity of the Constitution.
Bottom line: The Military Commissions Act of 2006 has successfully shut down almost all legal avenues to challenge indefinite executive detention and mistreatment of those detainees, despite the fact that the 2-1 D.C. Circuit ruling upholding the law seemed to defy previous war on terror precedents of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Kangaroo court Combat Status Review hearings, and procedurally deficient Military Commissions for the 3% or so of detainees who may face war crime charges (under a statutorily greatly expanded definition of war crimes), are all that remain. The MCA provides for exceedingly limited review by the D.C. Circuit, whose past precedents seem to foreclose relief in any case.
The doors of the court house are definitively closed now. The international embarassment that is the Bush Administration enemy combatant policy is now a deep threat to the liberty of all of us, and the only way anything can be done about it is through Congressional action, something unlikely to prevail in the face of President Bush's power to veto legislation.
We have been deeply betrayed by Senator Ken Salazar, and Congressman John Salazar from Colorado whose critical swing votes helped make this possible. They gambled on the courts fixing the flaws they knew about in the MCA when they voted for it. But, the gamble was lost. Their votes to sold out our freedoms by voting for the MCA.
I hurts to know that even the Democrats in Congress from Colorado are torture enablers. When I worked hard campaigning for Ken Salazar in 2004, I'd had every reason to hope for a better performance.
Bottom line: The Military Commissions Act of 2006 has successfully shut down almost all legal avenues to challenge indefinite executive detention and mistreatment of those detainees, despite the fact that the 2-1 D.C. Circuit ruling upholding the law seemed to defy previous war on terror precedents of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Kangaroo court Combat Status Review hearings, and procedurally deficient Military Commissions for the 3% or so of detainees who may face war crime charges (under a statutorily greatly expanded definition of war crimes), are all that remain. The MCA provides for exceedingly limited review by the D.C. Circuit, whose past precedents seem to foreclose relief in any case.
The doors of the court house are definitively closed now. The international embarassment that is the Bush Administration enemy combatant policy is now a deep threat to the liberty of all of us, and the only way anything can be done about it is through Congressional action, something unlikely to prevail in the face of President Bush's power to veto legislation.
We have been deeply betrayed by Senator Ken Salazar, and Congressman John Salazar from Colorado whose critical swing votes helped make this possible. They gambled on the courts fixing the flaws they knew about in the MCA when they voted for it. But, the gamble was lost. Their votes to sold out our freedoms by voting for the MCA.
I hurts to know that even the Democrats in Congress from Colorado are torture enablers. When I worked hard campaigning for Ken Salazar in 2004, I'd had every reason to hope for a better performance.
SCOTUS Reins In Patent Law
The U.S. Supreme Court made two important rulings on patent law today.
In Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T (05-1056) it held 7-1 that U.S. patent law doesn't apply to software copied abroad and not repatriated.
Of broader importantance was the court's unanimous decision in KSR International v. Teleflex (04-1350), where it broadened the definition of "obviousness" for patent law purposes beyond the narrow test previously applied by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which has exclusive jurisdiction over most patent law cases.
The SCOTUS analysis in KSR holds that patents must be reviewed to see if the proposed solution is obvious to solve any problem, not just the problem identified in the patent. It holds that "prior art" includes not just prior efforts at solving the problem identified in the patent, but also prior efforts to solve similar problems in other fields. And, finally, it ruled than when there are only so many ways to solve a problem which a skilled person in the field might have considered, that all of those possibilities are obvious, because that solution would have been "obvious to try" for a skilled person in the field, even though a skill person in the field would not have known just which solution would work best until a little experimentation was conducted.
It will be hard to tell precisely how this new standard for obviousness plays out in practice, but given that patent law is an area of law dominated by a small number of specialists who work together under the supervision, for the most part, of a single court and a single government agency, the effect could be swift and dramatic. We could see the number of patents denied on obviousness grounds surge -- greatly increasing the size of the public domain of ideas.
Of course, the news is not good for many participants in the system, so it may be met with resistance, something that drove the Federal Circuit to establish precedents narrower than the relevant U.S. Supreme Court precedents in the first place. For patent examiners, it means that while it is easier to dispose of a patent, that the relevant prior art which must be examined is much more expansive. For patent applicants (who represent the bulk of the people represented by members of the patent bar) it will mean more work on the part of their lawyers to establish in a much broader area of inquiry that there is no prior art which makes the invention obvious, and no lawyer for a patent applicant wants to have to tell a client that their invention is too obvious to be protected by a patent. For judges in patent cases, it means granting fewer motions for summary judgment, which means a larger trial docket.
But, continued efforts by lawyers for inventors fighting claims of patent infringement, a part of the patent world growing dramatically in clout in recent years, may have enough clout to really realize the implications of KSR. For them, this case is a huge litigation edge, and it flows from first principles that a man on the street should be able to understand. Why should a guy who comes up with an obvious idea (and more and more patents seem obvious these days, at least in hindsight), be able to prevent other people from using it?
In Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T (05-1056) it held 7-1 that U.S. patent law doesn't apply to software copied abroad and not repatriated.
Of broader importantance was the court's unanimous decision in KSR International v. Teleflex (04-1350), where it broadened the definition of "obviousness" for patent law purposes beyond the narrow test previously applied by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which has exclusive jurisdiction over most patent law cases.
The SCOTUS analysis in KSR holds that patents must be reviewed to see if the proposed solution is obvious to solve any problem, not just the problem identified in the patent. It holds that "prior art" includes not just prior efforts at solving the problem identified in the patent, but also prior efforts to solve similar problems in other fields. And, finally, it ruled than when there are only so many ways to solve a problem which a skilled person in the field might have considered, that all of those possibilities are obvious, because that solution would have been "obvious to try" for a skilled person in the field, even though a skill person in the field would not have known just which solution would work best until a little experimentation was conducted.
It will be hard to tell precisely how this new standard for obviousness plays out in practice, but given that patent law is an area of law dominated by a small number of specialists who work together under the supervision, for the most part, of a single court and a single government agency, the effect could be swift and dramatic. We could see the number of patents denied on obviousness grounds surge -- greatly increasing the size of the public domain of ideas.
Of course, the news is not good for many participants in the system, so it may be met with resistance, something that drove the Federal Circuit to establish precedents narrower than the relevant U.S. Supreme Court precedents in the first place. For patent examiners, it means that while it is easier to dispose of a patent, that the relevant prior art which must be examined is much more expansive. For patent applicants (who represent the bulk of the people represented by members of the patent bar) it will mean more work on the part of their lawyers to establish in a much broader area of inquiry that there is no prior art which makes the invention obvious, and no lawyer for a patent applicant wants to have to tell a client that their invention is too obvious to be protected by a patent. For judges in patent cases, it means granting fewer motions for summary judgment, which means a larger trial docket.
But, continued efforts by lawyers for inventors fighting claims of patent infringement, a part of the patent world growing dramatically in clout in recent years, may have enough clout to really realize the implications of KSR. For them, this case is a huge litigation edge, and it flows from first principles that a man on the street should be able to understand. Why should a guy who comes up with an obvious idea (and more and more patents seem obvious these days, at least in hindsight), be able to prevent other people from using it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)