"Fake "out_of_the_blue" unwittingly proves my point exactly: only purpose is to soil the value I've established in that screen name"
No -- you've accomplished that all on your own.
What "Fake "out_of_the_blue"" actually proves is merely that you've become (again, by your own efforts) such an object of derision, that people feel little qualms about openly disparaging you (because, after all, it's not like it harms your reputation or anything)...
The feeling of smug superiority I get from being a published author, who must receive payment before people can enjoy or use my great creative work -- *that's* what copyright infringement deprives me of!
"The ruling was 135 pages of different judges all disagreeing with each other. In all of that there is only one single paragraph that the court agreed on -- one which rejected the patent as not being patentable subject matter. But as for why they did that? No one could agree."
In other words: It doesn't matter how you come at it, it doesn't matter how you break it down, or how you try to split hairs... The answer still comes out the same -- "Not patentable!"
I forget whether it was 60 minutes or 20/20 that ran a story about a dozen guys with the same (common) name (Robert Johnson) who had all run afoul of the no-fly list, and couldn't get their names removed, let alone their presence on the list explained, even though it seemed patently obvious that none of them were a threat (heck, the youngest one was something like 6 years old -- when they filmed the episode).
Of course, if I were a terrorist, and my name was Robert Johnson, I would just use an alias.
> Judge Alsup should get ready to get taken off the case for appearance of impropriety.
I've been wondering if this was the DOJ strategy -- get Alsup so incensed that he can be over-ridden on the basis of lacking impartiality.
(IIRC, Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson had his remedies (ie. the break-up of Microsoft) over-ruled in the Microsoft anti-trust trial, in very large part because he made the mistake of commenting, outside the court, on the utterly atrocious and blatant misconduct which Microsoft had displayed during the trial. It's a shame to see what the DoJ appears to have learned from that experience).
Police officers have a difficult and sometimes dangerous job, often under the scrutiny of the general public.
But cab drivers are actually much more likely to be wounded, or killed, by violence committed with a knife or gun or other weapon, on the job, than police officers are.
We admire diligent and professional officers of the Law, and depend on them in many ways. Police are granted special permissions and allowances to enable them to do their job properly. But at the same time as we grant these privileges -- because we grant them these privileges -- we demand the aforesaid competence and professionalism, and inevitably and rightly despise those who act like thugs or clowns, yet expect to still receive special treatment and undue allowance for bad behaviour..
... is that the DOJ lawyers apparently seem to believe that they can get away with this sort of thing -- that federal judges (after perhaps a token objection or smack-down) will just compliantly roll over, credulously swallow any blatantly ridiculous, patently self-serving excuse that the government presents under the colours of "national security".
Perhaps because that is, in their experience, what generally happens?
Actually, I believe it was right here on Techdirt that I first learned how actual artists (especially Hip-hop and Rap) were using locker services as their preferred distribution channel and business model -- they could upload their music to a popular locker service, and their fans would buy subscriptions to be able to download it (legitimately) and support their favourite artists. The artists got paid *by the locker service* on this basis.
The argument that Hotfile deserves to be assumed to be up to no good because they encouraged uploads/downloads with financial incentives is deeply flawed.
Stephen Harper is an Ideologue? Matter of public record.
Stephen Harper is a covert religious fundamentalist wacko? Well, yes -- but in the press and in public debate it's generally swept under the carpet, at least in the anglophone parts of the country. It may be true, but bringing it up will probably hurt the one who brings it up more than it will hurt Harper.
Stephen Harper is a Pedophile? Wait, what? First I've heard it even hinted at. And pedophilia is the one crime that is inexcusable and reviled across the entire political spectrum -- if there was anything to it, someone would be making hat out of it.