Complains about an issued patent but nowhere actually includes the claims of the issue patent in the text of the article. Jfc, what garbage. If you look up the issued claims, they are pretty narrow and easy to design around. This article is bait.
No, that’s not even remotely true. The person doesn’t know what they’re talking about whatsoever. Over 75% of patent prosecution (bringing am application to issued claims) revolves around arguing whether a piece of prior art preempts the instant application. Just a buck wild utter opposite understanding of how patent examination works.
That is not what judges have said. They’ve said that merely training on text is not a copyright infringement. However, companies that downloaded enormous amounts of pirated texts (i.e., stuff they did not have license to download in the first place) still infringed copyright just like anybody else. Effectively the courts have been holding that if you study material you have license to access, you aren’t infringing, but if you pirate that material, even if it is merely to study it, it’s still infringing. For better or worse this is basically basically how it’s always been.
I have no idea what Trump is proposing. Like most republicans, but especially him, he is incapable of even approaching understanding of nuanced and technical areas of law and/or technology.
Effectively, this has been an ongoing initiative across DoTs for a long while now. The issue is that it’s a hodgepodge approach baked piecemeal into various grants and other programs. But, yeah, digital, vendor agnostic, secure transit infrastructure is always on a lot of DOT folks’ minds.