EFF goes to court, quashes patent troll’s attempt to grab donor names | Hacker News Reader

EFF goes to court, quashes patent troll’s attempt to grab donor names

arstechnica.com

111 pointsJtsummers16 comments

Don't celebrate. However ridiculous they might seem, defending against legal actions like this takes time, money, and focus away from efforts that will actually drive the EFF's mission forward.

Instead of patting the EFF on the back for quashing this motion, think of all the resources that went into this hollow victory, and do your best to replenish them.

s/Instead of/In addition to/

This wasn't a ridiculous legal action. EFF raised money to challenge this company's patent, and the company wanted to know who donated to that campaign. Its not like they asked for EFF's donor list out of nowhere. The speech issue is implicated, sure, but on the other side also the right of litigants to know who the opposing party really is.

Then they should as like that - is any of the following named defendants donated for this. And probably get an answer.

But I would have think that a rule against EFF would clash with some of the fallout from Citizen United and the related cases. IIRC there is right now a way to inject money in politics that are very hard to trace to the source.

"Does" get sued all the time these days. Its about time it came around.

On the face of it, and my assumptions that are mostly based on what I know of political donations, I'm actually surprised EFF won this...Yes, these aren't political donations, but if it has something to do with a pending lawsuit regarding something that is kind of political, well, who knows.

In any case, I'll state for the record that I donate to EFF and would be happy to be listed among their supporters, any time, any place.

It's more that the first amendment is supposed to protect people from having their association with the EFF exposed if they haven't done anything wrong.

> I'll state for the record that I donate to EFF and would be happy to be listed among their supporters, any time, any place.

But not in a way that would be used against the EFF. That is what was being attempted here.

So now we agree that money is protected speech?

Uh oh, somebody didn't read the article!

> At the end of the hearing, Cousins said he would be issuing a ruling in EFF's favor. However, he largely won't address the First Amendment and privacy issues brought up by EFF's motion. To Cousins, a simple issue of timing was paramount.

Well, the Supremes have said so since 1976's Buckley v. Valeo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo

The implication being that there exists some notion of "we" which has internally consistent and coherent positions?

It's really easy to feel superior to others when you construct an imaginary person (typically named after 'communities' and given names such as "HN", or "Reddit") in your head that is the nuanceless contradictory amalgamation of all of the various opinions that you have heard.

Loaded question. Quantity have a quality of its own.

A small amount of donated money could land an employee in hot water with the employers/family/social circles (which we as a society don't want). A huge amount of money could outright buy an election - which is unhealthy.

The first enhances the marketplace of ideas. The second could drown any other ideas.

So money should be protected as a speech to prevent repression. Not sure if it is possible legally (even if we ignore the first amendment)

isnt this the same kind of thing that allows most companies to hide behind riaa/mpaa?

The membership of the RIAA/MPAA is no secret. You can privately donate to an organization like the EFF and not want your name published as a supporter.

this is exactly why I would only donaze anonymously using Bitcoin.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com