> Obama hasn't done much to oppose these abuses,
> but I don't really think a different President would
> make any difference.
That's why I enjoy the frowny-faces of the idealistic young Obama supporters who have watched their man’s descent from Harvey Dent into Two-Face, if only because, as Poor Richard said, “Experience keeps a dear school, but fools will learn in no other.”
I guess I'm not seeing the difference between taking someone's fingerprints upon arrest and running them through AFIS to see if they come up related to any other crime (something the Supreme Court, including Scalia, has allowed for decades) and doing the same thing with DNA.
Why would one be constitutional and the other not? Both searches operates on the same level of probable cause, so I'm not sure why Scalia (and Mike) object to the latter but not the former.
> The idea that they might then lock down entire computers
> if an incorrect file gets onto one seems even more ridiculous.
> Given how often DRM causes problems for legitimate users
> of the content, you can imagine the headaches (and potential
> lawsuits) this kind of thing would lead to.
This would be a helluva weapon for disruptive groups like Occupy that hate big corporations and banks. They could easily send one of these protected files to the entire corporate email list, and every secretary, mail boy, and assistant will then try and open it, resulting in a huge percentage of the company's computers locked down for a day or so.
> Apparently, the person they were actually looking for no
> longer lived at the address, but it didn't stop police from
> taking the guy to the police station where he was interrogated
> mainly by FACT employees with the police just sitting back
> and taking notes.
That's not what the linked article says. It says the cops went to the first address, found out that the suspect didn't live there anymore, then went to the place where he currently lives and arrested him there. They didn't arrest anyone at the first address.
> The person they were looking for no longer lived at the address
> but in the space of 15 minutes three cars, four detectives and
> two FACT officers HAD MADE IT TO THE CORRECT LOCATION.
> Armed with an emergency search warrant issued out of hours
> by a judge, police and FACT officers entered the suspect’s home.
> This is before suing. It's become increasingly common for
> trolls to send threat letters demanding settlement
Well, that makes more sense. The wording of the article quoted above-- "it enumerates factors to help judges distinguish legitimate from illegitimate patent assertions"-- made it sound like they're talking about cases that have already gone to court.
> But Disney will say that since the astronaut is (more than
> likely will be) American, and so will the rocket and lander,
> that US style copyright law does apply.
Disney can say whatever it likes. Doesn't make it true. The fact that a person is an American citizen doesn't mean U.S. law follows them around the universe wherever they go. A U.S. citizen can go to Amsterdam and legally smoke pot even though it's illegal to do so in the U.S. Likewise, a U.S. citizen could go to Mars and copy, play, and sell (if there was anyone else to sell to) the entire Disney DVD library and no law would be violated.
Despite the recent delusions of grandeur by a few Justice Department officials, U.S. law only applies in the U.S. It doesn't even apply 20 feet over the border in Canada. Why the hell would it apply on Mars?
To claim otherwise would essentially be claiming that the U.S. Congress has the legal authority to bind the entire universe with its laws, and that's laughable on its face.
> If the first person to walk on Mars
> decides to launch into "A Whole New World",
> the rights will need to have been cleared
> with Disney first.
I don't see why. Neither the United States nor any other country have jurisdiction on Mars. Their laws don't apply on Mars. There is *no* copyright law on Mars. Any person who happens to be there is free to do anything they like with any song they like.
I'll admit from the start that I don't know much about patents. I usually skip all the patent stories on this site because the technicalities of it all make my head hurt and I lose interest.
But here I have to ask about this bit:
> Factors that suggest a bad faith patent assertion
> include not identifying the patent(s)-at-issue,
> and exactly how the recipient's behavior violates
> the patent
How the hell can someone sue, claiming a violation of their patent without even identifying the patent at issue? Or how the defendant is violating it?
How would such a suit even work? Does the plaintiff go into court and just say, "Defendant is violation a patent I own. Not gonna say how, or even which one. Just trust me, I own it, and they're violating it."
While I don't know much about patents, I do know basic civil procedure, and that seems ripe for a summary judgement ruling in favor of the defense.