Have you ever actually talked to a judge about technical matters at all? I used to help run IT for a courthouse and getting them to understand basics requires its own Rosetta Stone Geek -> Judge.
Rulings like this show that they don't understand the technology involved and what the difference is between the purported infringer and the platform being used. By this logic if someone advertised on a billboard using my trademarked words, I could sue the billboard maker, the billboard owner AND the entity who rented the space to the billboard owner. Does that make sense?
The NSA is just remixing, tell me if you haven't heard this before:
Iran doesn't yet have the capability to develop nuclear weapons, officials say. But, if they somehow developed or acquired it, the likelihood of being able to use such weapons effectively would become far more likely, according to most war hawks.
And the labels have never ever unpaid the staff (song writers, studio musicians, etc) with the promise of royalties if a song becomes a hit. And then they have never ever used questionable accounting practices to make sure they pay little to no royalties to those same staff. The record labels are only interested in making sure everyone gets paid fairly, as long as everyone isn't the people who actually worked on the music....
So I've bought stuff from etsy and follow a couple of artists that use it on twitter or facebook. Every now and then they popup with a story about how some chain retailer has taken one of their designs and started to mass produce it. So if SOPA passes, does this mean someone on Etsy can trademark and/or copyright their designs, wait for the knockoff to appear at the chain retailer and take down the "rogue site" for "theft" of their intellectual property?
Show me how many of these companies in East Texas have an actual product on the market and then maybe I'll think about believing your "Serial infringers" line. Having an idea is not enough, show that you can execute it and then maybe you have a case.
And don't act like this East Texas court didn't think through the possible ramifications of being the go to Patent Court: more business in town, more tourism, more hotel and sales taxes, its a win win for the town of Marshall that frankly doesn't have much else going for it.
Before this lawsuit I saw the commercial and didn't even associate it with Ms. Lohan. Now I will...forever. Is this like the Streisand Effect but for making something about you when it isn't? Call it the Lohan Corollary?
The funnier part about this for me being that it just started raining here a bit after 2+ years of severe drought. And the Statesman was up for sale until Cox pulled them off the market recently. Maybe they saw the rain coming and saw a way to make money for the struggling paper thus the new campaign.
Ok the restrictions on the other portions make no sense but I would like to expand on part of the rationale on the officials:
As an official everything you say is scrutinized on the field and items on social networks could lend fuel to the fire. Think of innocuous statements such as "Can't believe I have to go to Oakland this week" and how people could construe that statement to mean the official has something against the Raiders and that he will make calls against them. Then you combine that statement with a blown call and you could see the NFL with a PR nightmare on it's hands not to mention a high chance of being sued (knowing it may not go far).
Now that being said, I think an outright ban on using social media is wrong. There are certain things that shouldn't be talked about (interaction with coaches, players, dislikes of certain areas or teams, stuff like that) but a lot of what can be said on a social network could be beneficial and certainly couldn't hurt the NFL. I update my facebook and twitter regularly with the games I am going to (i.e. "off to work XXX vs YYY 8th grade game) but I never make commentary about what happened in the game, with coaches, players or even other officials.
As for Hochuli's apology, the NFL should be applauding him for that. Due to their policies of keeping officials away from the press and fans, the officials are the most insulated members of the NFL. For him to come out and admit he was wrong adds a human face to the official and allows people to remember that the officials are human and maybe let people cut them a bit more slack.