U.S. Consumer Bureau Loses Fight to Allow More Class-Action Suits - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/24/business/senate-vote-wall-street-regulation.html <comment><USER2> > Today, it is hard to open up a checking account, rent a car, get cable > service or check a loved one into a nursing home without agreeing to > mandatory arbitration.

This is the part that gives me ulcers, and it's no exaggeration. So many companies insist on us giving up our 7th Amendment rights that we either give in, or don't fly, buy a car, or get a job. We can't even go to the competition because they also have mandatory binding arbitration clauses in their contracts.

As bad as the Equifax breach is, IMO this is a greater danger to our freedoms.

<comment><USER3> When I last purchased a car I used accepting the arbitration clause to extract $150 in accessories from the dealer. The sales agent was a bit confused, it's usually the paperwork guy that deals with the arbitration and at point most people just want it over with..

<comment><USER4> I was offered over $1000 off to 'just sign the damned contract', but still ended up walking. I was fortunate to find a different dealer that didn't have an arbitration clause, though. I fear I wouldn't find that next time around, and was really hanging my hopes upon legislation like this.

<comment><USER5> I'm going to ask what might be a dumb question, because I don't know any better. But is there any statistical evidence that arbitration results in worse outcomes for the consumer, or is all the hate theoretical for now? People on HN and otherwise speak about arbitration like it's an auto-loss for the consumer, but it's not like our court systems are guaranteed to be much fairer.

EDIT:

It looks like the bottom of the article explains that the US Consumer Bureau studied arbitration and found it anti-consumer:

As arbitration clauses appeared in tens of millions of contracts, the consumer agency was specifically mandated to study arbitration under the Dodd-Frank financial law in 2010. That effort culminated in a 728-page report, released in March 2015, that challenged longstanding assumptions about arbitration.

The agency found that once blocked from suing, few people went to arbitration at all. And the results for those who did were dismal. During the two-year period studied, only 78 arbitration claims resulted in judgments in favor of consumers, who got $400,000 in total relief.

<comment><USER6> The normal system is that these civil disputes are done in a court of law. Justify the change.

<comment><USER7> The siren call of tort-reform by any other name...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> It is entirely superficial to cast this fight as one between good and evil. As much as anything, it was about proper process.

Legislative, executive, judicial - those are the three branches under the Constitution that are supposed to check and balance one another.

The legislature passed the federal arbitration act almost 100 years ago. It was signed into law by the president. And it has been consistently upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in the face of many and varied court challenges.

In essence, the result of this century-old jostling is a body of duly enacted law that says that binding arbitration clauses are truly binding and therefore can be used in contracts to foreclose judicial proceedings by requiring that disputes covered by such clauses be resolved through arbitration. Moreover, a massive court challenge resulted in a holding of the Supreme Court saying that waivers of judicial class-action rights in favor of arbitration are also binding - meaning, it is neither unjust, unfair, nor against public policy (legally speaking) to say that consumers can be required to waive such rights and be required in all cases to arbitrate their disputes.

Now, one may believe that all of this is repugnant and grossly harmful to consumers. Others may disagree and may in particular believe that class-action lawsuits are primarily vehicles that help the trial bar and do little with their nickel-discount coupons to actually further the interests of consumers. Either way, the existing law is the existing law. The proper way to change it is to gain control of the legislative and executive branches and to repeal or amend the federal arbitration act. In that way, the law could easily and properly be shaped to forbid making arbitration mandatory and binding or limit the ability to use binding clauses in specific areas of law, etc.

The problem with CFPB is that it sought to carve out its own view of what is right and proper for consumers of financial services without regard to the intent of Congress in having enacted the existing arbitration laws. As established, CFPB is not accountable to Congress or any other form of traditional oversight of its bureaucratic functions (its structure was declared unconstitutional by the D.C. court of appeals). It is in that sense an organization that could be characterized as "rogue" based on traditional rules of governance and it is certainly seen as such by those who disagree with its particular actions in using its power to attempt to regulate arbitration clauses, payday loans, etc.

So CFPB essentially stuck its thumb in the eye of Congress in pushing forward with these measures.

Now Congress has struck back, saying, in effect (with its authority under the Congressional Review Act), "we don't like what this regulation does and this is our domain - therefore, we rescind it."

So, while one can try to say this is good versus evil, it is basically the legislature asserting itself on a matter of policy against a bureaucrat who it believes overstepped his proper role.

The result is to keep the status quo, nothing more. The rules in effect as a result of this action by Congress are the same ones that have governed arbitration clauses in every walk of life in American business for nearly a century.

For those who don't like it, that is fine. The ballot box is open as the prescribed means to effect a change. All this recent action amounts to is a declaration by Congress saying that this should not happen by bureaucratic edict. That may be bad policy, or it may be good policy, but it does uphold the rules of law favoring the electorally-accountable legislative branch over the authority of an unaccountable bureau chief.

<comment><USER9> >For those who don't like it, that is fine. The ballot box is open as the prescribed means to effect a change.

Every single sentence you wrote here is extremely ignorant of the _political_ reality in which that usual proper process has been in the muck for years. You're not realizing the effect that gerrymandering, voter suppression, and money in politics has on the ability of the usual system to work to reflect the desires of people, and that redirecting people to traverse that maze is essentially sending them on a quest to square a circle that will effectively keep the status quo.

And the status quo isn't good enough. Remember, just a few years ago, someone would be denied healthcare due to pre-existing conditions and die. THAT was the status quo, and it was so toxic that the party in power now, controlling all parts of the three branches _could not_ repeal it. Forced arbitration is similar to healthcare, most people don't realize how bad it is until they have to go to head with it.

<comment><USER10> _Remember, just a few years ago, someone would be denied healthcare due to pre-existing conditions and die._

This is an open and shut issue if the only thing you're worried about is the end consumer. The gov't, on the other hand, needs to worry about _the system_ including the insurance companies. Changing the rules so that a person can forgo health insurance _until they are sick_ is a sure fire way to start a death spiral.

It wasn't until the law was changed to include the individual mandate was the pre-existing condition clause even viable. I'd argue the individual mandate is so weak, that we might end up with a death spiral anyways.

What's the popular saying on HN? "Don't tear down the fence until you know why it was put up in the first place."

<comment><USER11> I'm sure the free market will find a way to provide healthcare without insurance companies, an all-but-required middleman.

<comment><USER12> What free market are you talking about?

Until we fix the collusion between the American Hospital Association[0] and insurance companies through the National Uniform Billing Committee[1] to opaquely set pricing, there will be no free market in the healthcare industry.

[0][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Hospital_Association](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Hospital_Association)

[1][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Uniform_Billing_Commi...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Uniform_Billing_Committee)

<comment><USER11> I mean that if the ban on denying coverage for pre-existing conditions causes the health _insurance_ industry to collapse I'm sure the actual health _care_ industry will figure something out.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Is this an opportunity for a new type of law firm that opens up to deal with one type of complaint for one company and offers extremely low fees to file? The idea would be that the paperwork is all the same for the X thousand/million people suing INDIVIDUALLY such that economies of scale take over and the cost of actually filing and pushing the suit through becomes cheap enough for almost anyone.

On the side of Giant Bank, they suddenly have 150,000 lawsuits filed against them and have to act in some way. Is that even allowed? Would a court just tell the law firm to go away and stop spamming it?

<comment><USER14> With (most) arbitration clauses, you can't actually sue at all. You have to go through a private arbitration firm, which can set pretty much whatever rules they want - including things like basing rulings on religious law [1]. Compared to that, I'm pretty sure there'd be nothing illegal about rules to defeat the hypothetical law firm, like requiring complainants to show up in person.

[1] [https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/03/business/dealbook/in- reli...](https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/03/business/dealbook/in-religious- arbitration-scripture-is-the-rule-of-law.html)

<comment><USER15> Except they have to get all of those millions of lawsuits dismissed individually by advancing that argument and failing in even a single of those cases through a novel argument on the part of plaintiff, sympathetic judge, etc could open an avalanche of lawsuits against the firms.

It also would force the courts dismissing the lawsuits to grapple with the sheer scale of criminality that the dismissals are being used to hide -- it's easy to hide it when you shut down a handful of lawsuits and the vast majority of your victims remain silent, but are judges going to be so accepting of mandatory arbitration when they've already, personally, dismissed thousands of suits because of arbitration clauses that are about the exact same kind of fraud perpetrated by the exact same people and have thousands more left on their docket? How many times do you believe that a judge can see the exact same crime happen from the same perpetrator and just go "Ho, hum, nothing to see here!" Sometimes, the key is just to be _really_ noisy and annoying so they can't ignore the issue.

The act of filing the suits, particularly in a concerted bulk effort, and forcing the government to address and dismiss each individual suit is an effective form of speech and protest.

Your argument is shallow excuses for defeatism, which in turn excuses not actually trying.

Edit:

It also introduces a novel argument of "Uh, so this court has dismissed over 10,000 lawsuits about this exact issue -- clearly we're being abused by a corporation and petitioning the state for assistance. [Argument why the state is obligated to assist.]"

It forces the court to explicitly address the argument that the arbitration system is being coupled with a power imbalance to enable criminal action against entire states of people by documenting the scale via dismissals -- which are public record and can be used as evidence in subsequent cases.

<comment><USER14> I mean, the judge is going to respond by sanctioning the attorney(s) for frivolous litigation. If your legal argument (for why the case shouldn't go to arbitration) has been rejected in court, initiating even one more case before the same court with the _exact same_ argument could justifiably be considered a waste of the court's time. Initiate several of them and you're going to be fined; 10,000 and you're probably looking at things like contempt-of-court charges and disbarment. That's aside from the fee to initiate each case, as Chaebixi mentioned.

That said, if you're willing to risk all that to make a political statement - i.e. to pressure legislatures to change the law around arbitration - I can't rule out that it could be effective. But I suspect that other avenues for making a statement would be cheaper and more effective (and avoid the stigma of abusing the court system).

For example, how about just taking out TV ads? Find some maximally sympathetic victims of the arbitration system, and have them tell their stories. Less dramatic, but right now I think there isn't all that much public awareness of the issue - the New York Times' series notwithstanding. Arbitration is such a classic "big corp screwing over the little guy" story that I think a large number of even Republican-leaning voters would oppose it, especially the Trump camp (ew, but still), if they heard the full story. But most of them have probably never heard of it, or have only heard one-sided accounts that emphasize how class-action suits cost businesses and don't usually win plaintiffs all that much money. (Both of which are true, but ignore the fact that class actions _are_ effective at holding defendants accountable for violating the law, and getting them to change their behavior - whereas a trickle of arbitration cases can just be dismissed as a cost of business.)

<comment><USER15> Your position is a reasonable one, and it's beyond debating it on the internet to decide which one would be more practical -- it would depend on the situation, how much money you had, and how damaged you thought the system was. People could certainly disagree on their assessment.

I tend to think that wrench throwing is more effective for systemic problems than discussing it. The assembly line is doing damage while you discuss the problem.

That said, I'm also biased here: the lawsuits idea hits _two_ of my pet peeves, in that it also forces debate around the issue of the justice system being chronically understaffed and underfunded.

Filing that volume of lawsuits would effectively DDOS the courts (which is why they're going to hold you in contempt no matter how legal it was), but even doing due process on your contesting of that would likely drown the justice system to the point it forced a national debate over how it was operated.

That's a resonant issue with the arbitration one, since the forced arbitration is a symptom of that deeper funding issue -- we don't invest in efficient civic infrastructure, so corporations built their own.

tl;dr: Two birds, one stone; forcing instead of discussing; debating the underlying issue, not just a symptom.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I'm losing faith in our system of government. Citibank did this to me on a credit card I had with them:

1\. I stopped using the card for several months.

2\. I then used it once on a small purchase.

3\. They stopped sending me an e-mail reminders for my bill. (An "error" in their system disabled e-mails for my account specifically)

4\. I racked up about $100 in late fees and interest charges.

5\. I called them up and they said they'd waive the fees and interest charges.

6\. They did not waive the fees and interest charges.

7\. At this point, I had to give up and pay it because it was about to go to collections and damage my credit rating.

What recourse is there for this kind of thing if the GOP doesn't allow us class-action lawsuits?

<comment><USER17> Elect a Democratic congress, like the first Obama administration, who incidentally did not allow class-action lawsuits either? At least this time a bill made it to a Senate vote.

<comment><USER18> The bill passed by 50 (plus a VP tiebreaker) votes. Take a look at the breakdown of who voted against it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> So I'm trying to figure out why this was even done.

Here's the White House statement on it.

From [https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press- office/2017/10/24/state...](https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press- office/2017/10/24/statement-regarding-senate-passage-hj-res-111)

> Statement Regarding Senate Passage of H.J. Res. 111

> President Donald J. Trump applauds the Congress for passing H.J. Res. 111, > Disapproving of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's (CFPB) > Arbitration Agreements Rule. According to a recent report by the Department > of the Treasury, the evidence is clear that the CFPB's rule would neither > protect consumers nor serve the public interest. Rather, under the rule, > consumers would have fewer options for quickly and efficiently resolving > financial disputes. Further, the rule would harm our community banks and > credit unions by opening the door to frivolous lawsuits by special interest > trial lawyers. By repealing this rule, Congress is standing up for everyday > consumers and community banks and credit unions, instead of the trial > lawyers, who would have benefited the most from the CFPB's uninformed and > ineffective policy.

It seems that they're basing this on a report by the DOT (which is the parent body of the CFPB).

Here's the report (I'm still parsing it):

[https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press- releases/Documen...](https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press- releases/Documents/10-23-17%20Analysis%20of%20CFPB%20arbitration%20rule.pdf)

The CFPB's response (quoted all over the place): "rehashes industry arguments that were analyzed in depth and solidly refuted in the final rule."

I can't find a source for that response. It would be great if we could find a source for that response as well as the wording of the refutation in the "final rule."

<comment><USER20> > Rather, under the rule, consumers would have fewer options for quickly and > efficiently resolving financial disputes.

This is actually retarded. How is arbitration OR trial less options than just arbitration? Last I checked, 2 > 1 but maybe I need to review my math skills. Just because a company can't _force_ arbitration doesn't mean it isn't still an option.

The Whitehouse is just flipping words around to make it seem like a win for consumers, but their reasoning is just a blatant lie.

Translation:

Someone paid enough of us a good deal of money to make it so they can't be sued in court. Good luck, suckers.

<comment><USER19> > but their reasoning is just a blatant lie.

I would actually try to understand the reasoning from the DOT and then look at the rebuttal from the CFPB before I make statements like this.

If it's as simple as you state, 1 options instead of 2, why hasn't anyone else picked up on this blatant lie?

<comment><USER11> Everyone did pick up on it. That's what this entire thread is about. Catching a public servant in a lie doesn't change anything unfortunately.

<comment><USER19> I haven't seen anyone in this thread talk about the DOT's report, i.e. what it seems the result of the vote is based on. Or even what the White House has said in statements regarding the reasoning to do it.

Neither have I seen where the simple statement "one option is less than two" is published by any media outlet.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> This is probably a dumb question but I would appreciate a serious answer.

How am I considered a consumer of Equifax? Aren't the consumers the people that use Equifax to check my credit? When did I ever enter into an agreement with Equifax that binds me to arbitration?

<comment><USER22> Did you freeze or lock your credit with Equifax? Have you ever checked your credit report with Equifax so you knew it would be in advance?

Congratulations. You no longer have access to the court system.

<comment><USER23> Cool, I have never done any of those things with equifax! Where do I sign up for the class action lawsuit?

<comment><USER24> Why would you? To get $10 and a year of free credit monitoring, and thus indemnify them for any further damage resulting from the breach? Better to opt out and wait until/if you actually suffer identity theft. Even if you're forced into arbitration you'll probably get more for your individual damages.

<comment><USER25> To punish Equifax?

The problem with the snarky, knee jerk response to class actions that you have is that most class actions are instances where individuals aren't harmed for much, but together it's quite significant.

And I have absolutely no faith in private arbitration to do anything but find for the entity paying their fees.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> A couple years ago I got a robocall. It was a recording urging me to call my Congressman and ask them to cut funding to the USCB. Specifically that, the USCB. They did not use its name, only its acronym. They claimed that it was an agency responsible for harming small business in vague terms. After hanging up, I was curious so looked up what the USCB was. I'd never heard of it previously but after reading their website it was pretty clear to me that some company or companies was trying to drum up people opposing the agency based on sheer ignorance and misinformation. I should mention, I live in West Virginia where they might think that such a tactic would work. I get lots of political robocalls trying to convince me person X or Y is an enemy of coal or whatever (odd considering what a tiny number of people that industry actually employs... but it still holds most in the state in thrall) but that's the first I can think of that was trying to drum up support for something like this.

<comment><USER27> If someone wants to talk about something, they should at least call in person. I always hang up on robocalls.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Pure speculation ahead:

Suppose for a moment that the Equifax hack was carried out by a nation-state (like, say, North Korea). This is not an issue of consumer trust and safety. It is an issue of national (US) security and safety.

To give another analogy, imagine that in 1920, the Canadian military marched over the border and robbed some banks. Does it make sense for the patrons of that bank to be able to sue the bank? Maybe. It seems like that's less of an issue than the fact that Canada has seized assets that belong to US citizens.

My point is not that Equifax is innocent, or that the situation is being handled appropriately, but rather that this whole thing looks weird enough that there it's probably a lot worse (and more complicated) than we think it is.

<comment><USER29> The way to get better security is to let the free market system work as its intended: Equifax should die a painful death by the masses, if necessary piecemeal one lawsuit at a time until the company coffers have been emptied (and preferably any directors, agents, vested entities, and anyone else within a legally-defensible stone's throw). It may sound harsh, but that's life and life ain't fair.

That's the only way to send a message strong enough that if you are going to operate an IT business, which is what Equifax is, and you have poor security, you will not be protected by the government.

In fact, protecting Equifax and other companies who fail to properly maintain adequate security will send a message to other corporations that this kind of behavior will be tolerated, and these companies may be incentivized to not invest in their security. I've seen situations exactly like this play out at companies before. If the rules of the market suddenly change, so will the industry.

And why should we risk the stability of an entire industry because of one company? The security problems aren't going away, even if we decide to create laws that say they don't matter -- they will still be there at the end of the day, and someone will be able to exploit them. It's bad for business, bad for consumers, and ultimately bad for whatever government is foolish enough to create such policy.

<comment><USER30> Your claim sounds good the way you put it, but less so when you consider that retributive justice seems ineffectual at deterring violent crime... unless you're also going to claim that shitty companies are generally smarter than felons.

<comment><USER31> The analogy does not work. People commit violent crimes for very different reasons than shitty companies commit economic crimes.

And at the end of the day, there is some amount of basic deterrence for people who are not in some kind of adverse mental state. How many more crimes of passion would there be if murder, or assault, were not so harshly penalized? The "deterrence does not work" line as a matter of degrees, not absolutes, and only applies to a subset of the population. For the rest of us, it works just fine.

So to re-join the topic at hand, think of it this way: there will always be outright criminal corporate actors, and deterrence by corporate death will never stop them. These are the Bernie Madoffs and Jeffrey Skillings of the world. Their corporate actors, however, only act the way they do because they are simply are no consequences for doing otherwise, and upper management has evidently quashed their consciences entirely: AT&T (selling deanonymized data with token, non-retractable consent), BP (Gulf oil spill), Equifax (not caring about your security). Lest we forget that these businesses are in the business of making money, and they do so with terrifying efficiency, and their management is soullessly shrewd. If something is risky and expensive because it entails a high chance of a lawsuit or some other penalty, they will think twice about it.

<comment><USER32> Actually, no. A massive amount of crime is either primarily or secondarily driven by economics.

That is, the crime is conducted for direct financial _gain_ (various black markets, theft, burglary, fraud), to _defend_ a criminal enterprise (turf wars), to gain resources to feed some criminal activity (drugs and gambling addictions, especially), or as a consequence of economic marginalisation (people pushed into desperate situations, or engaging in activities on account of those).

(There's also a tremendous amount of white-collar and corporate crime which is never prosecuted, a whole 'nother story. The dumb criminals are the ones who get caught.)

Even various forms of tribalistic / hate crimes are often related (with varying levels of justification, having a floor of zero) to economic perceptions. As are crimes of passion or pride or reputation.

There's not a whole lot of crime that _isn 't_ at least arguably connected to some economic motive or dynamic.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> What are some arguments _for_ money in politics; lobbying?

<comment><USER34> That the alternative might be worse?

<comment><USER25> I can't possibly see how. Limit every American to $500 of political donations a year. Everyone has the right to speech, but no one has the right to more speech than another.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> I see a lot of hate here for lawyers who pursue Class-Action suits. I think it's pretty easy to see them as syphoning money off of problems that don't personally affect them and are often minor.

They do have one very strong value though. They act as a solution to the concentrated benefit diffuse cost problem.

The large take of a class action is essentially a honey pot that draws action when most of us would just put up with the problem because it represents a personal cost too small to care about.

</comment><comment><USER19> What's the best argument for this vote?

<comment><USER36> It's not very good:

"the rule would harm our community banks and credit unions by opening the door to frivolous lawsuits by special interest trial lawyers."

[http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo- way/2017/10/25/559950275/...](http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo- way/2017/10/25/559950275/senate-kills-rule-on-class-action-suits-against- financial-companies)

<comment><USER37> Ah, yeah, the old Republican trick of creating rules that clearly benefit giant corporations and pass it on the basis that it'd hurt "small corporations." I'm sorry, but if your tiny community bank fucked up badly enough to be on the receiving end of a class-action, maybe they deserve to be affected. Same for bigger banks.

<comment><USER38> > creating rules that clearly benefit

I think you mean removing rules that clearly constrain?

<comment><USER37> Six of one, half-a-dozen of the other. The end goal is the same: consumer rights get restricted in the name of "poor small businesses". That's been their rallying cry for everything, from tax cuts to trying to write homophobia/misogyny into law (the many "freedom of religion" laws that certain states pass at least once a year at great cost to the tax-payer, only to be struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> The vote was extremely partisan, with no Dems voting for it. Remember that next time someone tries to discourage you by saying both parties are the same.

</comment><comment><USER39> Could as a consumer not add an arbitration clause to every contract you are handed with the same requirements except you get to pick the arbitrator? It seems strange to me that legally only one side of a contract gets to pick all the niceties. I suppose they would have you arrested for impersonating a lawyer to even ask for this.

<comment><USER40> > I suppose they would have you arrested for impersonating a lawyer to even > ask for this.

No, in theory anyone can negotiate the terms of their own contracts.

> It seems strange to me that legally only one side of a contract gets to pick > all the niceties.

These are called "contracts of adhesion" (i.e. take it or leave it terms) and are subject to slightly stricter interpretive standards than fully negotiated contracts. It would be impossible for a very large company selling consumer products to have lawyers reviewing every consumer contract because the cost would likely exceed the revenue for each contract, never mind the profits. So it makes sense that it's allowed, though in theory we should be using regulators to ensure that they aren't abused. We don't do that, though, hence the current case.

>Could as a consumer not add an arbitration clause to every contract you are handed with the same requirements except you get to pick the arbitrator?

Not really. You could manually modify a contract by crossing out terms in pen, but that's only enforceable in cases where the other party also signs the contract. As opposed to most consumer contracts where you sign the boilerplate you are given but the company doesn't then cosign that same copy. In some jurisdictions, even if they sign the same copy, they have to initial the changes for them to be enforceable to stop people from sliding things into a large contract on the sly. But you could certainly try this with a larger personal contract like a car purchase or home rental agreement. I personally do not recommend trying to slide things in without the other party noticing, but it's always worth negotiating if you think they are willing and the modification is worth pursuing.

<comment><USER41> I'd like to think it would be possible to create a platform where blocs of consumers could negotiate, examine, modify these contracts of adhesion as a class action.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Do, what can be done? Who should I support to fight back against stuff like this (organizations, not politicians)?

</comment><comment><USER43> Wells Fargo 10 billion People 0

<comment><USER38> > People 0

Not quite, but give them a few more years in power.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> _"Tonight's vote is a giant setback for every consumer in this country," Richard Cordray, the director of the consumer bureau, said in a statement. "As a result, companies like Wells Fargo and Equifax remain free to break the law without fear of legal blowback from their customers."_

</comment><comment><USER44> This only highlights the moral emptiness and naked corruption of the modern GOP.

Deregulation is fine if you strengthen the ability of citizens to obtain redress through the judicial system. If you weaken that ability, or it is weakened, you increase regulation.

But they're both deregulating and restricting judicial redress, which only increases power of those who don't need it.

Companies either are liable or not; these clauses preventing class action lawsuits seem baseless to me.

<comment><USER45> What's crazy is that since Reagan the GOP is also fine with increased gov spending, among a host of other increasingly authoritarian policies.*

So no longer can they even claim to be anti government corruption & spending, and pro business & 'freedom.' They just appear to be 'anti people.'

But please don't pretend the Dems are a whole lot better on most of these issues... I really hope our generation can work together and do something about this failing two-party system.

*a short list: domestic surveillance, police militarization, civil forfeiture, anti net netruality, military expansion, pro Wall St, hand outs to healthcare lobbysits, etc..

<comment><USER46> > But please don't pretend the Dems are a whole lot better on most of these > issues... I really hope our generation can work together and do something > about this failing two-party system.

Paying attention and voting accordingly is a pretty good solution. Unfortunately, almost no one does that (and it tends to be even worse at the local level).

<comment><USER47> Thanks for reminding me to go vote today ;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> This should be on (e.g., researched) Thom Hartmann and Democracy now. It would also be good if Warren were to weigh in if this appears to provide cover for this oligopoly club member instead of allowing redress by consumers (e.g., every person with credit in America).

</comment><comment><USER49> Why do republicans hate the american consumer so much?

</comment><comment><USER50> Like they say in the article it looks like Equifax was only stopping clients from joining a class action against TrustedID. It also doesn't say anything about people suing individually. I suppose we can expect to see every company now put this into their terms and conditions, which is certainly a step back in consumer rights.

<comment><USER51> > It also doesn't say anything about people suing individually.

Lawsuits are very expensive and time-consuming. Few individuals have the resources to sue companies like Equifax. Also, if Equifax defrauds 10 million people of $1,000 each, that's $10 billion in fraud but zero penalty, because $1,000 isn't worth a lawsuit for any individual.

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> this was not about protecting consumers but instead about protecting the interest of trial lawyers who saw their money slush fund about to dry up. this is a group that notoriously donates to one party over another and exerts incredible control over that party. this rule would have done far more than just smack financial institutions as it was only a first move by the bureau which operates too far outside of what should have been permitted.

This was a law masquerading as a regulation and it needs to a law passed by Congress and not some out of control government agency who reports to no one. Go read up on this construct, it was an attempt to prevent normal government checks and balances from affecting it. Its chief is not subject to anyone, there are strict rules to prevent their removal, their funding is not from Congress but instead the Federal Reserve. Even the Fed cannot control the spending of this agency which can reach 12% of the Fed's budget; meaning nearly half a billion dollars to an unaccountable agency.

So while the law was good it is the agency affecting it that is the true issue and this agency needs to be put back into an accountable structure like all Federal Agencies. This was a pure partisan attempt to create an agency and staff it in a particular way to prevent debate and review.

<comment><USER53> So instead of an unaccountable government agency, your only option for redress is an arbiter that the company you're complaining against hired. "Unaccountable" is another word for "provably uninfluenced". Arbitration is provably influenced.

(For your other points: "rich" trial lawyers that make, on average, less than software developers? "partisan" isn't the dirty word you think it is, ideas should be judged on merits regardless of source. Funding from the fed reserve is actually fairly brilliant, considering the continual issues with passing a budget in congress.)

<comment><USER31> _"Unaccountable " is another word for "provably uninfluenced"_

What? No. "Unaccountable" means "can't hold them accountable for their actions".

<comment><USER53> Yes, that is the literal meaning of the word. However, when a government holds an agency "accountable", it is exerting influence over it. "Accountable" agencies have their effectiveness swing wildly depending on the current governing party's whims. "Unaccountable" agencies, like the Federal Reserve and the United States Supreme Court, carry on doing what they do regardless of whatever nonsense Congress is doing this week.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


SocketStream: a real-time web framework for Node.js - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/socketstream/socketstream

<comment><USER2> Do people not realize that "real-time" actually _means something specific_ , you can't just claim something is "real-time" because it's fairly fast?

Nothing against this project, specifically, but I've seen this a lot lately ( _especially_ among Javascript programmers).

<comment><USER3> If it's fast enough to make the user feel like they are interacting with the system in real time, I think it's a fair label.

At the end of the day, what is real time anyway? The sounds I hear and the light I see have taken time to get to me... all of experience is touched by some form of latency ;)

<comment><USER4> But the term has a very specific technical meaning [1], not just 'very fast'. This is analogous to when people say that 'NP-complete' is synonymous with 'very hard'. If I posted a problem to HN that I solved and that I found very difficult, but was not np-complete, and said "look at my solution to this np- complete problem" people would certainly (hopefully) complain.

1\. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real-time_computing>

<comment><USER5> I don't think all software needs to meet that specific definition to be considered "realtime" in some aspect of the word. Google agrees:

<http://www.google.com/realtime>

Does that meet the criteria of realtime computing? If not, is Google wrong?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Just seen the live presentation in London and it really looked interesting, even if really in its early stage.

Two demos available so far: <https://www.socketracer.com> and <http://ssdashboard.com>.

Also interesting that AOL is officially putting money in the project, and with the intention to keep it under the MIT license.

<comment><USER7> I can't connect to those domains. DNS propagation, perhaps? Are they working for anyone else?

<comment><USER8> Nope. It's not DNS either, I can ping them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Really cool to see another Node framework that uses CoffeeScript. SocketStream joins the likes of:

* Brunch: <http://brunchwithcoffee.com/>

* Zappa: <https://github.com/mauricemach/zappa>

* Coffeemate: <https://github.com/coffeemate/coffeemate>

Of course, SocketStream's use of websockets to deliver _all_ content (after an initial payload) is a very different, very opinionated approach. I also like the look of API namespacing, which allows client and server code to be structured analogously without having to use `requires` at the top of every file (one of Node's weaker points, as Ryan Dahl would be the first to tell you). It all sounds very well thought-out, and I can't wait to see where this framework goes from here.

</comment><comment><USER9> > So how secure is SocketStream? Well, to be honest - we just don't know. The > entire stack, from Node.js right up to the SocketStream client is brand new > and no part of it is claiming to be production-ready just yet. So for now we > recommend using SocketStream internally, behind a firewall.

I must say, I'm excited for this to become more robust, but I appreciate their candor in telling me why I shouldn't use it in production yet. Back to old fashioned socket.io I guess (or maybe NowJS).

</comment><comment><USER10> Just seen this demoed at the HN London meetup and it looks really cool. I'd read about how having the same language on the client and server is nice. But seeing someone live debugging the same code on the client and server was really eye opening. Kudos to AOL for funding this.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> "Note: SocketStream will be announced at the Hacker News meetup group in London on Thursday 23rd June. We'd appreciate it if you don't tweet/blog/post about it until after the announcement. Thank you."

I read about it on Twitter from a socket.io contributor, so I guess it's safe to publish this.

[edit] here's a racing game demo, powered by SocketStream: <https://www.socketracer.com>. Impressive

<comment><USER11> Looks like this has now been HN'ed...

<comment><USER12> Hi, this is Paul. Like Hugh Hefner, I will keep it up. Bear with me, I'm in the pub right now.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> _"SocketStream is kindly sponsored by AOL."_

Interesting.

</comment><comment><USER14> I think the reason 'real-time' is used in this context is primarily because user interaction is mostly dealt with on the client side, where response times are at least somewhat predictable. Server updates are handled asynchronously in the background wherever possible. The end result from a user's point of view is to remove (to the degree possible) the server lag time from their experience.

</comment><comment><USER15> Looks like a fantastic framework! with the best handpicked choice of technologies in one basket, really looking forward to using this!

</comment><comment><USER3> Really excited to start playing with this. I've been hoping for a more socket focused framework that meshes well with the node style

</comment><comment><USER16> Well done README. I certainly appreciate that.

</comment><comment><USER5> "Effortless, scalable, pub/sub baked right in"

I was curious how this system scaled beyond one node and thus a single point of failure. I then saw it used Redis. Hooray, they relocated the single point of failure.

But hey, Redis is really really fast, right? That's definitely within the spirit of node.

</comment><comment><USER17> > SocketStream automatically compresses and minifies all the static HTML, CSS > and client-side code your app will ever need

Even while I'm developing?

<comment><USER18> There are plenty of modules that do this for you, so I wouldn't be surprised.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> How is SocketStream different from nowjs? (<http://nowjs.com/>)

</comment><comment><USER20> Very interesting.

</comment><comment><USER21> Coffee Script. Geez. This is interesting, but too bad for the use of Coffee Script. Yes, I realize I could convert all the files to .js and be a happy camper.

<comment><USER22> Too bad why? I mean, aside from the fact that it's in a language you don't already know?

<comment><USER23> It just totally fragments the node developer community.

Imagine the confusion when you're working with or contributing to two different libraries that have different indentation or documentation standards. Now make the language different, and mix and match different syntaxes for different languages. Should modules in JS accept patches in coffee? What about vice versa?

Not to mention that coffeescript then becomes an additional dependency, and while in itself that's not bad, I still consider less unnecessary dependencies a positive aspect to a library/framework.

Edit: Why downvoted? Is this not a valid concern?

<comment><USER24> I agree, I would personally prefer it to be pure Javascript.

<comment><USER12> Hi, this is Paul, I liken the JS/Coffee debate to those wanting to figure out whether to learn Swedish or Danish, the languages are similar, and in fact swedes and danes speak to each other in each other's language, because they're similar.

Disclaimer - I'm still in the pub, What I'm trying to say is, I understand JS, I'm still happy to code in js, but I like teh coffeescript. Let's learn to speak to each other

<comment><USER23> That's why I bring up the fragmentation issue. I actually found coffee to be very pleasant to use, and if it was more standard I would jump head first and never look back at JS, but as it is, I got very frustrated jumping back and forth, and decided to convert all my coffee back to JS (not that it's hard).

To reiterate, I actually love coffeescript, but I see the fragmentation as overall hurting the JS developer community.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Obama administration vetos Apple iPhone 4, 3G iPad 2 product ban [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://www.ustr.gov/sites/default/files/08032013%20Letter_1.PDF <comment><USER2> Intervening in one case for an iconic American company is protectionism, not free trade. That would have entailed reforming the patent system for everyone.

This is ominous, what if this is remembered as the equivalent of Smoot-Hawley? Patents are a hell of a lot more complex than tariffs... and at least the ITC is trying to do international coordination here, and Obama has just blatantly undermined them.

<comment><USER3> Taking legal action against FRAND abuse is hardly unique to the US.

[http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/12/european-commission-to- is...](http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/12/european-commission-to-issue- statement.html)

See also Mueller on this veto; while I often disagree with him, I tend to agree on this issue:

[http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/08/obama-administration- veto...](http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/08/obama-administration-vetoes-itc- import.html)

<comment><USER2> The problem I have with this argument, is, isn't the point of every technological advance to become widespread and Standards-Essential? If we're going to disallow them, why have patents at all? For "Look-And-Feel" patents?

<comment><USER3> Because even strong software patents often have alternatives, and weak ones are easy to find an alternative to, decreasing their value, but once a standard protocol requires their use, the patent holder can jack up the price. As an extreme example, consider the exFAT patents: there are many file systems superior to exFAT that have no need for whatever bits of functionality Microsoft patented, but because Windows speaks exFAT as one of few alternatives, some companies have licensed them. Not exactly a standard, but the same idea.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> What a joke. So good to see the president is finally tackling the patent abuses, by protecting local trolls from a taste of their very own medicine.

(The justification here being that this ban is not "in the interest of the public". If this was considered in ay other cases, we'd all be paying cents for generics from India instead of thousands of millions for the brand version)

<comment><USER5> This is what increasingly bothers me lately about the decisions they make. They're sacrificing a lot of stuff "in the interest of public good". It seems like a lot of collectivism.

"We can't put bankers in prison because this way it's better for the public/the economy"

"We can't punish any corporation with more than a relatively minor fine, because that would hurt the public"

"We can't let a judge's decision about banning Apple's product for losing a patent battle in war _they_ started, be implemented, because that would hurt the public".

The worst part is that they must be thinking these are really good decisions. It's probably why Obama convinced himself and did a 180 on the mass spying, too "because it's in the interest of the public".

<comment><USER2> Actually, the justification for not going after banking or corporate malfeasance, according to Eric Holder, is that they're "Too Big to Jail".

I have to say, as a committed small r republican wary of executive power, this kind of crap makes me crave Teddy Roosevelt.

<comment><USER6> Eric Holder admitted that he can't do his job. He needs to be fired.

<comment><USER2> To be fair, he's been busy leading brave soldiers against Washington's pot dispensaries, and running guns for Mexican gangs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> There are at least 2 forms of hypocrisy here:

a) Big > Small : smaller companies are subject to market forces and are expected to sink or swim as deemed by their own competitive merit, but Apple gets a hand when times are tough!

This is essentially a State-assisted protection of private wealth owned by the few; Tim Cook and all the mutual funds and hedge funds that invested in AAPL can now sleep well at night knowing that the American government has a Protectionism Put Option on AAPL.

b) Free trade, patents, et al are "the American way" as long as they benefit America, but the moment a foreign competitor uses the same tools and wins, oh no no no, we can't have that.

I believe that protectionism and jingoism ("Buy American") is how the American car industry, amongst others, survived for many decades despite being uncompetitive? At least, this is the gist of what I got from reading articles here and there. Ironically, such protectionism is not (always) in Americans' interest; I believe the car industry has successfully stymied the development of metro trains and other public transport options that would have made cars supremely unnecessary? Just take the MTR in Hong Kong or the MRT in Singapore to realize what you are missing.

<comment><USER8> see also: Noam Chomsky

<comment><USER9> or Milton Friedman..

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GEiRroLaHc](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GEiRroLaHc)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Seems to me that in the future, companies are going to withhold some of their patents from FRAND even if they would be potentially more useful as FRAND to continue to use them as a weapon. The potential royalties of many of these FRAND patents seem small compared to the damages from infringement.

In fact, it seems the value of a patent is _inversely proportional_ to it's usefulness. A patent which covers a critical wireless protocol component is worth a few pennies and can't be used to get injunctions, but a patent for some rounded corner button can be used to sue for billions.

If you look at the patent trolling going on, a lot of the cases are for really, obvious, trivialities.

While I don't think one should be able to get bans like this, sooner or later, Apple or Microsoft has to lose a patent case in a painful way so they stop trying to shake down competitors. Mutually assured destruction doesn't work if it's not mutual. This ITC case was the closest they've come to experiencing a real threat of pain.

<comment> distant-uncle I've been mulling over the most common argument predictably wheeled out by the patent aggressors and their supporters:

"Theft! We don't want them to steal our stuff!!"

Never mind that even if one allows that the whole concept of patents is a legitimate, and an ethical legal framework, patent infringement is never theft.

Theft would involve actual trespass of someone's physical property, that involves removing and/or otherwise exploiting said property without the owner's permission -- in effect depriving them of it.

So for an obvious example, if Corp A. breaks into Corp B's engineering offices, and literally steals their code and/or design documents.

That would be theft.

Of course, computer break in is not technically a physical trespass, but the distinction still stands: an actual trespass must occur.

We already have time-tested criminal laws for this, and justly so. Patents are completely redundant for this case.

But if you think about, there is actual, honest to goodness theft that goes on in patent cases... and the thief, it's the aggressor! Albeit for a "limited time" (that's of course subject to interpretation, in 20 years many things happen, to someone who dies, that limitation is permanent), someone is given the government-sanctioned go-ahead to literally deprive another of their own discoveries and hard work.

Independently discovered, independently arrived at and hammered out.

No matter.

<comment><USER11> I'm not a fan of the concept of intellectual property, but...

...you apparently don't understand the concept of an analogy. The whole reason that IP is called intellectual _property_ is precisely to draw an analogy. Thus, the violation of that property is called theft.

And besides, you don't understand theft of physical property either. It does not require physical trespass: taking someone's wallet when they put it down on a table for a moment is theft. Theft is a transfer of possession without an accompanying transfer of ownership.

In intellectual property, theft is a duplication of possession without an accompanying duplication of ownership. The result is nevertheless that someone comes into possession of property without the right to own it. Distilled, this is an entirely fair conceptualization of theft.

<comment> distant-uncle Infringement is not theft, it is an entirely separate legal concept.

Dowling v. United States

[http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100913/22513210998.shtml](http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100913/22513210998.shtml)

The above deals specifically with copyright, but the concept is the same.

Secondly, in the post you replied to, I'm not talking about "intellectual property", I'm talking specifically about patents. I think that the copyright laws for instance, are far more balanced, and fair... lengthy time scales notwithstanding.

> It does not require physical trespass: taking someone's wallet

> when they put it down on a table for a moment is theft.

Indeed, it is also trespass on someone's physical property. This is obvious, and brings into question your own understanding.

Back to patents.

Suppose I discover, and implement a product, doing so entirely independently. I'm then summarily denied the right to practice it via a patent shakedown. Am I still in possession of it? Is one still in possession of one's freedom, if all one has remaining is a tiny cell to walk around in?

Let's now break it down in your terms. If Alice infringes on Bob's patent, both have possession, but only Bob, under the law has ownership. However, in the case of patents, Alice can come into possession of "Bob's property" without even knowing of Bob's existence, much less of the existence of "Bob's property".

This is _not_ theft.

Now let's turn it around. Assuming Alice came into possession of "Bob's property" without being aware of Bob, or "his property", i.e., Alice discovered and implemented it entirely independently.

It is now _Bob_ , who can _deprive_ Alice of her own property, in effect taking the ownership of it, as well as having it in his possession.

If this is not theft, then I do not know what is.

One more time... in the event of infringement, Bob can still practice his art and make use of his property. Alice then merely engages in competition with Bob.

In the event of patent enforcement action via the iron hand of the government, Alice can neither exercise, nor even _posses_ "Bob's property".

<comment><USER11> > Indeed, it is also trespass on someone's physical property. This is obvious, > and brings into question your own understanding.

It really isn't. Trespass is about _land_ , though in our modern day world of two-story buildings, it is more exactingly about _space_. See: [http://thelawdictionary.org/trespass/](http://thelawdictionary.org/trespass/)

In order to work trespass into your convoluted example, you had to call upon several other ancillary crimes, like breaking and entering and the oddity about exploiting someone else's property, which I don't think is even codified.

Personally? If you want to figure out how to fix patents, I'd suggest dropping software as an example and going over to food recipes.

> Back to patents.

I don't particularly care about your clever table-turning unless you actually get the argument to hold up in a court of law. Patents are problematic: this is obvious to virtually everyone working in the tech industry and many more besides. Philosophical tricks are useless until legally recognized. It's nice to be able to play semantic word games, but it's an entirely different league to be using legal language.

Also, you seem to be under the misapprehension that I was defending patents. I am not. I'm objecting to your criticism of the word "theft".

<comment> distant-uncle > Trespass is about land

Well, to borrow a phrase, it really isn't. Or more precisely, _land_ is one subject area. Take a few moments to research if you're curious, but do go beyond a law dictionary.

> that I was defending patents. I am not.

It seems we agree... then?

> I'm objecting to your criticism

Ok, fair objection. I also noticed your objection was less than friendly, so perhaps your predisposition to the abuse of certain words is so strong, that you will recognize that indeed, using the word theft when one intends to convey the concept of infringement, is invalid.

This _is_ precise legal language and meaning.

As to changes to the patent laws, I can only hope. I do also hope, that as you say, it is obvious. The more blindingly obvious this becomes to people, the better. So hopefully, we can close on the positive note of both hoping for the same thing?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> It's signed by the US trade representative, not Obama. I don't know if this kind of thing is approved all the way at the top, but the letter uses "I" a lot suggesting it was his decision. I think the headline should at least be changed to "The Obama Administration". Also, it's not a "veto".

<comment><USER13> The law puts it in the hands of the President, see this subthead: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6153056](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6153056) ; he may of course delegate his authority, but the buck stops on the desk in the Oval Office.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'm so happy the President can take the time to address the patent system when it's in regards to giving protectionism to multi-national corporations while small businesses are drowning in frivolous patent lawsuits.

<comment><USER14> Especially when it's multi-national corporations that use patents in the worst possible way, and use any possible scheme to withhold money from taxation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> And Gruber yesterday posted a link indicating that Apple's punishment of recent e-book trial was result of Amazon's good relation with Obama administration [http://daringfireball.net/linked/2013/08/02/amazon](http://daringfireball.net/linked/2013/08/02/amazon). I wonder what will he say now.

<comment><USER16> I think few people, including Gruber, expected the Obama administration would step in. It was a possibility, but it wasn't at all likely.

As for the ebook farce: Apple was told by Capitol Hill insiders that it should increase its lobbying efforts (like Amazon and Google), otherwise bad things might happen.

[http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76073.html](http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76073.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> And people say what incentives do companies have to cooperate with the government. This is one of them. All PRISM participants do. It's a mutually beneficial relationship.

</comment><comment><USER18> I'm a bit lost for words on this case. On one hand, I can't help but feel it would have been good for Apple to get a taste of their own medicine. At the same time, I think this excessive patent protection is harming the industry...

In a perfect world, Apple would have never pursued Samsung in their frivolous extortion case, and this ban would never have reached the Obama admin. But this is a world motivated by cutthroat competition.

I'm tired of it.

<comment><USER19> I've traced the history several times over the past few years here, but suffice to say, Apple wasn't suing anyone until the mobile phone industry realized Apple's little toy was gobbling all the profits.

See this comment from 1,250 days ago, recapping early timeline: [http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1166321](http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1166321)

And a comment from a year ago:

 _Over two [now three] years ago, I argued that patent suits were how the licensing game was played among the existing players. It was considered an everyday cost of doing business by the incumbents, but Apple wasn 't well prepared for this. (They've learned fast.)_

 _This wasn 't on consumers' radar because none of the fights were as interesting as the juggernauts of Apple v. Android which get framed in almost religious terms and taken personally by users who have chosen a camp._

 _The argument then was that Apple had not been actively litgating patents, but when Nokia (faced with dwindling profits, most of which appeared to be landing in Apple 's pockets) started the fight, and Kodak piled on, Apple had to demonstrate that the patents it was using to counter these suits were patents that it was actively defending. This pushed Apple to file against HTC, and eventually against others who, again, had all been actively (but boringly) suing one another before Apple got to the table._

<comment><USER20> Curious if you could link to the latter comment a year ago as well?

<comment><USER19> [http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4191403](http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4191403)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> So they intend to veto any product bans related to FRAND patents from this point going forward. That makes a lot of sense to me. Using standards- essential patents as legal weapons is completely unethical.

However, I can't help but wonder if the public good would've been greater served by letting a few multinational corporations like Apple feel some real patent pain. It's the only way the system will ever be overhauled.

<comment> distant-uncle > Using standards-essential patents as legal weapons is completely unethical.

I would argue, it's more like: "using patents as weapons is completely unethical."

And yes, it's a shame to see any patent aggressor get away with it. There is no fundamental difference between FRAND and any other patent. In all cases, independent invention is prohibited, denying inventors their natural right to gather the fruits of their labor.

Secondly, the "can't work around argument" is equally applicable to any patent discussion: unlike copyright, patent regime does not recognize the merger doctrine, placing some foundational methods at risk of being completely locked up by greedy entities.

Third, patent aggressors benefit tremendously from the work of third parties on whose shoulders they stand; patent aggression is an ugly contrast to this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Point of order. This isn't a veto. A veto is for legislation, this is fully contained within the executive branch.

<comment><USER23> Veto just means "I forbid". It is perfectly fine to use it outside the context of the President denying his consent to legislation.

For example I could, and have, vetoed a resturant in a discussion of where to go for dinner.

In this case a decision of the International Trade Commission is presumptively valid unless the President, or his designee, forbids the ruling from going into effect -- or in other words, unless he vetoes it.

<comment><USER22> These are all fine uses of the word.

However, when you use the word "veto" in the context of the President, it implies a certain set of actions that have taken place. It actually encourages people to think those events took place, when reading the letter makes it obvious that they didn't.

This is all moot now, since they changed the headline from "Obama vetoes..." to "Obama Administration vetoes...".

</comment></comment></comment><comment> chris-martin So... we've determined that you violated the law, but we're choosing not to enforce the law.

This what the kids call a bad code smell, right?

</comment><comment><USER24> I guess joining PRISM has its advantages.

</comment><comment><USER25> Although there is clear legal justification for this veto, I still fear that it was issued for perverse reasons. Apple is a lobbying juggernaut and is a favorite among the Government. Undoubtedly, Apple exerted extreme pressure on this decision, and I have severe doubts that this same conclusion would have been reached had Apple sought an embargo on Samsung products. Absurd cases and wholesale perversion of intellectual property law are nothing new in this country. Why has the administration only intervened for Apple?

It's just worrying when proper execution of the law becomes transactional.

<comment><USER19> > _Apple is a lobbying juggernaut_

Wrong.

Apple's not even in the top ten tech companies. In 2012, Google spent $18M while Apple spent $1.9M, less than Google, Microsoft, Hp, Oracle, IBM, Facebook, Intel, Cisco, Amazon, and Dell.

Handy chart:

[http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/02/18/apple-reduced- fede...](http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/02/18/apple-reduced-federal- lobbying-to-2m-in-2012)

Key quotes: "Apple has historically spent less than its rivals on government lobbying" and "Apple's lobbying efforts were spread out pretty thinly over a wide range of issues".

So, pretty much the opposite of "juggernaut".

<comment><USER26> Slightly off topic, but lobbying includes companies lobbying against NSA privacy contentions, so lobbying by the $ is not a good measure of wanting a "self licking icecream".

<comment><USER27> In that case Apple has still 'lobbied' far less than its US competitors by holding out against prism.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> My comment from earlier this week[1] seems extremely relevant:

And thus, too big to fail rears its head again. If we ignore laws surrounding patent restriction enforcement due to Apple's products forming the bottom line of many mobile operators offerings, then it stands to reason that the lesson learned here is it's better to become so entrenched that nobody -- not even the government -- can pull you out, rather than forming a competitive patent portfolio.

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6121974](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6121974)

</comment><comment><USER29> Where was all this outrage when South Korea banned the iPhone until 2009 to protect the local cell phone makers?

[http://www.crn.com/news/networking/220100939/south-korea- lif...](http://www.crn.com/news/networking/220100939/south-korea-lifts-apple- iphone-ban.htm)

<comment><USER30> Believe it or not, a whole lot of South Koreans were complaining about it, you just don't hear about it over here in America.

Source: I'm Korean

<comment><USER13> I wasn't "outraged" because it didn't affect me or mine, but I do find incidents like that distressing. Especially because, at least in Korea's case, it _can_ compete.

One example, granted, with Google's help, is my father, who tried both an iPhone and a Galaxy, and decided the latter was better.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Also the violated patents are owned by Samsung. So this is the result of going "thermonuclear" against android. Irony hurts.

</comment><comment><USER31> Apple has argued that Samsung isn't licensing their standards essential patents on FRAND terms. If that is the case, it seems reasonable to me to prevent them from threatening product bans to extract exorbitant licensing fees. In my limited understanding, that right to discriminatory license fees is waived when patents are contributed to a standard, in exchange for acceptance for use in the standard. Otherwise it would be a de facto monopoly for the patent holders, with all of the negative consequences for competition.

Have there been any other cases where a product ban has been enforced because of an FRAND patent dispute? Unless there have, claims of protectionism are unwarranted. But even if there have, that doesn't prove protectionism is in play, but rather possibly that a past wrong is being corrected.

<comment><USER32> Samsung demanded a fee equal to 2.5% of the cost of the phone. From everyone, including Apple. Apple decided this was "unreasonable" for them, demanded special treatment and refused to pay.

The ITC concluded Apple was not following the rules and not playing fairly and thus initiated the ban.

And now the administration overturns the court's decision on a whim. Keep in mind this is the same legal playground which fined Samsung 1 billion dollars for having pinch to zoom on a phone.

It's very hard to see this is anything but unfair market manipulation.

<comment><USER31> 2.4%. And please cite your source that says it applied to every other licensee. My reading of the commission document indicates that all other license agreements Samsung made for this patent involved multiple SEPs from each party in cross-licensing agreements. Samsung was also trying to use its SEPs as leverage to get Apple to cross-license its non-SEPs to them at a discount to Apple's proposal. Were both parties being reasonable in their demands? Honestly, I couldn't tell from the redacted document.

Samsung blatantly copied the iPhone in many many ways. Using the pinch to zoom patent is likely similar to prosecuting the mafia for tax evasion - it wasn't their most egregious offense, but it was the only one the feds could make stick.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> One simple way to let Apple know you don't think their abuse of the legal system is cool is to simply not buy their products. No iPhone, no iPad, no MacBook, no iStore products. simply stop feeding them money to fuel their lawyer-machine.

It's easy. Apple is by far one if the least competitive players out there one you take a look at value for money and let go of the need for a hipster- approved badge.

</comment><comment><USER33> Veto? Pff. The best part of being prez is pardoning your friends! (And in Clinton's case, brother).

Here's starting at Johnson, great reading: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_pardoned_or_gran...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_pardoned_or_granted_clemency_by_the_President_of_the_United_States#Lyndon_B._Johnson)

</comment><comment><USER34> This is the most misleading headline I have seen.

<comment><USER35> You obviously haven't been on HN very long :-)

<comment><USER34> Almost a year mostly interested in actual hack threads and python threads. and pro keeping HN, HN, despise reddit style posts as there is a place for that and its called Reddit !

<comment><USER35> If you're lucky you'll get 50% "hacker" threads. Most are political or fanboy threads.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> I've wanted the Obama administration to take serious action for patent reform for awhile. This is not at all the direction I was thinking he'd take, and it's disappointing to see.

</comment><comment><USER37> Apparently, Apple is too ~riesenhafte~ to fail. Typical, as of late.

</comment><comment><USER38> I'm not sure I'm totally on board with this particular intervention as it seems to smack of the potential of favoritism; I'd have to think about that for a while after learning more about the specific case.

What is _extremely_ encouraging is that this is a sign that the highest levels of government understand that patents don't exist for their own sake and are merely a means to an end. When the desired end result isn't reached, intervention is required. That's hopeful.

</comment><comment><USER14> I'm disgusted, this is such a rigged game.

</comment><comment><USER39> From the country that forbid car parts from entering Cuba...

</comment><comment><USER35> Thank goodness! I was afraid Best Buy wouldn't be allowed to sell me an iPad 2 come Christmas.

</comment><comment><USER40> Hooray for Apple!

</comment><comment><USER27> Judging by the comments here, people on HN hate Apple more than they hate patents.

Incidentally - for those suggesting that Apple should get a taste of its own medicine, what on earth are you talking about? Since when did Apple have competitors products banned?

<comment><USER41> Is this a joke?

<comment><USER27> Is that a point?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> I know political discussion on HN is frowned upon by some, but I get amused thinking of hypothetical reaction from the president's opponents. This seems to be an action against regulation of business, but it's the Obama administration, therefore... Communism! Apple is in the tank for Obamacare!

<comment><USER25> It's upsetting that some proponents of this administration dismiss its critics because they presume that they dislike him categorically. It is this sort of bigoted presumption and political antagonism that is causing the erosion of political discourse in this country. This issue is not that Obama has critics, it's that some people believe that he shouldn't.

Why is it so difficult for people to accept that those who disagree with them aren't just trying to antagonize them, and may have actual, legitimate political orientations and views?

Instead of dismissing everyone with whom you disagree and painting them as irrational bigots, why don't you attempt to discuss something with them?

<comment><USER42> It's upsetting that you dismiss my dismissal, because a lot of the "criticism" I do see, including in this thread, amounts to little more than a transparently knee-jerk reaction that tends to be very lazy with the details. I am not mocking every criticism of Obama I have ever seen, only the crazy people who see the word "Obama" and instantly start talking about Kenya and health care regardless of the topic, drawing comparisons with the Axis powers (yes! this happened on this thread very early!) and a whole bunch of other shit that has nothing to do with anything. I don't think you can deny that this line of thought exists in the American psyche and it has more influence than it ought to.

But I would like to make another thing clear: Obama is a center-right politician. Your first line implies that I am a "proponent of [his] administration" but I am considerably to the left of that guy. But a large component of the attitude I am mocking is that many Obama haters really don't care about the details, they just know they're against the guy. Here's a guy who's got a tax plan from George Bush, a health care plan from Dole/Gingrich and implemented by Romney, a more competent wiretapper, assassin, and immigrant-deporter than his predecessor - even if some of these critics previously held similar beliefs as Obama, they don't care about any of that, he's just Satan to them. This includes congresspeople who are now against things they previously sponsored, because it's now an Obama plan. Witness on this thread that the administration is actually _blocking_ "government intrusion in the marketplace", and people are really just finding excuses to find faults with this because of what party it comes from. I'd say on the balance they've proved my initial assertion right, far more than I expected even from the pseudo-libertarians I am accustomed to seeing on HN.

<comment><USER25> I respect your views and sympathize with many of them, but your original comment did nothing to rationally confront the issues in the way that your second comment did. Your original post pertained to "the president's opponents," which seemed to include all of them. It just appeared as a off- handed, categorical attack, similar to the ones that you decried. I acknowledge that the reactionary, bigoted uber-right is frustrating, but immediately jumping on them in a way that didn't pertain to the the specifics of this case seemed like an unwarranted attack. I wish that you had explained your displeasure in a more thorough and thoughtful way that didn't seem like a political straw man, like you did in your second comment. Sorry if my initial response seemed condescending.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How to sell myself to a company downplaying my holes in experience? - <AUTHOR> I'm going to lead with a particular example. Everyone probably understand the value of code testing, though I haven't seen it in my personal experience, to see fellow developers at work writing their own tests. I've been with five companies and they all follow a QA-focused process.
What we typically do is mark an issue on our project tracker (Redbooth, for example) as something like "send to QA", wait for the lead developer to push to the staging server, which can take a while because the lead dev is usually outsourced and living in a very different time zone. When he finally pushes the code, QA is able to test the new code to see if the issues have been fixed.
As the developer I'm not expected to write my own tests there. I don't know what regression means (is that like linear regression?) and wouldn't know which testing framework to use. However, more and more, I have been interviewing with companies that prefer automated testing and developers writing their own tests.
They might ask me what my experience with unit testing is, my mind draws a blank and simply say I have no experience with it. I'm sure that's a turn-off for them and now probably see me as a rogue who plays by his own rules, wreaking a tornado of havoc onto well-structured code. Anyways, I want don't want things like a lack of automated testing experience to be an "anti-selling point" anymore. But the companies I worked at didn't have a business case justifying why they should spend expensive developer resources that detracts from something that just works already.
"I don't know X but I will have no problem learning it!!" is also not the saving grace at an interview like some people think it does. There has been no instance of me saying I can pick up new knowledge quickly in an interview in which the company gave me an offer. It's getting to the point where now I have to sell businesses cases to remain employable for other companies. Anyone help me out with this, starting with this particular example with TDD? <comment><USER2> Here's what I would do:

1\. Spend a couple of hours doing some research. So you'll learn "regression test" means "automated test to ensure a bug is fixed and doesn't reoccur", and about some automated testing frameworks for your language of choice.

2\. Spend another hour doing some minimal automated testing with one of those libraries.

3\. In interview when asked about testing you explain "At my previous employer we mostly focused on manual testing, so I did that, and then QA person checked it and usually my manual testing was good enough, so I'm pretty thorough. But I know automated testing is important so I've spent some time looking into it, and I'd probably be using <testing framework you found in step 1> for <your language>."

Basically:

1\. Don't lie.

2\. Spend small amount of time to make sure you have basic albeit superficial knowledge, which is a _lot_ better than "dunno".

3\. Communicate you can learn on your own.

4\. Communicate you care about quality.

Some general advice for interviewing for jobs with technologies you don't know: [https://codewithoutrules.com/2018/01/23/job-with- technology-...](https://codewithoutrules.com/2018/01/23/job-with-technology- you-dont-know/)

<comment><USER3> > automated test to ensure a bug is fixed and doesn't reoccur

This is not necessarily true, you can perform a regression test manually as well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> First, framing: obviously, every company would _love_ to hire candidates who are proven experts in _their_ methodology and _their_ technology and _their_ industry. But it's just as obvious that this isn't possible. So hiring involves compromise. You don't need to get every question "right" in order to be a winning candidate.

Second, as itamarst said: always be honest, but also be curious. If you're consistently seeing something come up in ads or interviews for the places you want to work, dedicate the time to research it thoroughly and earnestly. You can't invent experience, but you can demonstrate enthusiasm and preparedness.

Third, fulfill the compromise: look for jobs where you're already a very good fit for other details like familiarity with their industry or with a particular solution. The more you stand out by some measures, the more leeway they'll afford you for others.

</comment><comment><USER5> So do you know what unit test means? You said at the interview you could learn it, so have you?

At interviews I loved asking a question I did not expect someone to know, but they would feel embarrassed by not knowing:

You know what trees are? <of course>

You know what binary tree are? <of course> Please explain...

Do you know what a 2-3 tree is? <usually not, so I explain>

You know what a balances tree is? <yes>

You know what a B tree is? <yes>

What is the difference between a Balanced tree and a B tree? <silence> Ok so this seems like a technical question right? Wrong. There are several possible answers:

1) I have no clue (this is acceptable)

2) say something (I will write down every word you say, after the interview I will look it up, because even I cannot remember the answer. If you are right, then good for you, this question counts no more than answer #1, if you are wrong, depending on how wrong, you might be eliminated. I do not need someone who feels such a need to be an expert that they make up stuff)

3) I do not know but I know how to find the answer. (this is really what I am looking for. You will not know everything but should be able to work stuff out. But that only gets you 0.5 points. You must look up the information and email me the answer. 24 hours is as good as 10 minutes after the interview. Although I hate it, it should be in the stupid thank you note.

For any skill you do not have but you understand it, try and relate it to something you already have been doing.

</comment><comment><USER6> IMHO, not understanding testing is a very big hole. It is not like not knowing what the latest and greatest Node.js web framework is. An interviewer could quite reasonably eliminate someone by not having worked with testing before. Your best bet is to learn about testing well enough to eliminate this hole.</comment>


Colt suspends production of AR-15 for civilian market - <AUTHOR> https://www.kark.com/news/national-news/colt-suspends-production-of-ar-15-for-civilian-market/ <comment><USER2> This is pretty irrelevant to the modern world. Colt traded on the name alone, thats it. Colt also hasn't been a top tier vendor in at least a decade, pretty much every vendor makes better equipment.</comment>


25 Sublime Text 3 Packages for Polyglot Programmers - <AUTHOR> http://nickjanetakis.com/blog/25-sublime-text-3-packages-for-polyglot-programmers <comment><USER2> Yes, because today's programmers can't do anything without being guided by ton of their editor's plugins.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm sure we could manage, but if a plugin can automate tedious tasks like doing static analysis on a code base then why not take advantage of it?

<comment><USER2> Your plugin doesn't automate tedious task of doing static analysis. Your static analyzer does that. Your plugin merely calls the static analyzer for you, and there's high chances that you don't actually know[+] how to call it by yourself. I saw this with programmers that were so deep in their IDEs they've never seen the compiler running in command line.

[+] Not you in particular, just general "you" as in people using tons of editor/IDE plugins.</comment></comment></comment>


ACL2 Version 6.5 - <AUTHOR> http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/moore/acl2/ <comment><USER2> Still no epsilon-delta support? This is the sort of thing I have in mind: [http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/110573/continuous- fu...](http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/110573/continuous-function-on- a-compact-metric-space-is-uniformly-continuous)</comment>


Harvard's top astronomer says an alien ship may be among us - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/harvards-top-astronomer-says-an-alien-ship-may-be-among-us--and-he-doesnt-care-what-his-colleagues-think/2019/02/04/a5d70bb0-24d5-11e9-90cd-dedb0c92dc17_story.html <comment><USER2> The contents are exactly as rich as the click-baity title suggests, here are the 81 (out of ~1500) relevant words:

> But it's moving too fast for an inert rock, Loeb points out — zooming away > from the sun as if something is pushing it from behind. And if it's a comet > spewing jets of steam, the limited observations astronomers made of it > showed no sign.

> Loeb argues that 'Oumuamua's behavior means it can't be, as is commonly > imagined, a clump of rock shaped like a long potato, but rather an object > that's very long and no more than 1 millimetre thick

Meanwhile, wikipedia claims non-gravitational effects aren't uncommon in comets with no detectable activity, which is not something Loeb bothers talking about in his letter.

Worth noting is that Loeb is not any sort of expert on solar system objects, and I think he doesn't even do observational astronomy.

<comment><USER3> > here are the 81 (out of ~1500) relevant words

Thank you. I closed the article as soon as they started describing the astronomers appearance.</comment></comment>


Soundcloud's problem with bots. - <AUTHOR> http://doandroidsdance.com/features/soundcloud-bots-sway-numbers/

<comment><USER2> There is an undeniable bot problem. I have posted nothing and only listen, but I've been followed by bots at least twice.

Comparing twitter numbers to Soundcloud numbers seems completely nonsensical, though. Following on Soundcloud means you only get updates when the music producer, well, produces music. Twitter could be anything. Twitter followers will naturally be a more hardcore group of fans.</comment>


NASA Live: Soyuz Launch to ISS [video] - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwMDvPCGeE0 <comment><USER2> For those joining late, looks like everything went to plan this time: [https://spaceflightnow.com/2018/12/03/soyuz-crew-enjoys- prob...](https://spaceflightnow.com/2018/12/03/soyuz-crew-enjoys-problem-free- launch-heads-for-space-station/)</comment>


Ask HN: Dell pricing of XPS 13 developer notebooks - <AUTHOR> I am not sure how many people know this, but Dell's pricing is a little skewed when it comes to Ubuntu XPS 13 laptops. The highest end hardware you can buy is roughly >= $2000 but exactly the same hardware with Windows 10 is selling for $1450 at Adorama. Does anyone know why this discrepancy in price? <comment><USER2> They're overly expensive and out of date.

But you're buying a niche product aimed at a tiny demographic. The regular XPS 13 is extremely popular and I'm sure they sell in the hundreds of thousand (given how many businesses/governments buy, not to mention private consumer sales). So as a private consumer buyer you're benefiting from the economies of scale when you buy a Win10 XPS 13.

Unfortunately someone has to pay for the Ubuntu install/testing/drivers and Dell ProSupport who has support staff who can help with Ubuntu (unlike regular support who only do Windows).

PS - ProSupport is an enterprise support product. The regular XPS 13 comes with "Premium Support" which is a consumer product, it is essentially normal support but they'll also help you with networking equipment, and popular third party [Windows] software. With Premium Support you have to buy SupportAssist to get any on-site support, ProSupport has it out of the box (as well as next day turnaround on parts).

</comment><comment><USER3> Just looking at the dell website, it looks like the xps 13 developer edition still needs to be updated. The updated 13" xps has the 6th generation intel and better pricing. It could be they just have not updated their website, which is not surprising to me from Dell. There is also the possibility Adorama is getting a deal from Dell to sell their laptops for less than dell.com. Maybe they have un-bundled some services, or added some bloat-ware.

</comment><comment><USER4> I know a friend who got the windows version and had a lot of trouble getting Linux on it. I think like the other poster said there is a difference in the hardware. Seems the screen is different.

I looked at them. Not very good value for money. Better to get a macbook or a lenovo/asus and install ubuntu on it.

<comment><USER5> I agree. I now have NixOS on an older (2011) MacBook, which seems to work flawlessly. There's an issue with iSight built-in camera, and sound, but I didn't spend time trying to figure it out. Installation was a breeze and everything works out of the box.</comment></comment>