A recently-released Inspector General's report shows the FBI didn't try as hard as it could to find a way into the San Bernardino shooter's locked iPhone. It appears FBI officials were more interested in obtaining a favorable court ruling than seeking technical assistance from anyone other than Apple, despite the DOJ's courtroom claims about time being of the essence.

This had a lot to do with the current FBI leadership. James Comey made fighting encryption his personal crusade -- one that has been carried forward by both the DOJ and the FBI's new director, Christopher Wray. Comey's new book about his government career -- one that came to an unceremonious end when President Trump fired him -- provides a few more details about his crusade against math and personal security.

A passage in Comey's new book briefly discusses his initial reaction to the news smartphone manufacturers would be moving to default encryption. Comey claims the Snowden leaks prompted a worldwide shift to encrypted communications before moving on to Apple and Google.

In September 2014, after a year of watching our legal capabilities diminish, I saw Apple and Google announce that they would be moving their mobile devices to default encryption. They announced it in such a way as to suggest -- at least to my ears -- that making devices immune to judicial orders was an important social value. This drove me crazy. I just couldn't understand how smart people could not see the social costs to stopping judges, in appropriate cases, from ordering access to electronic devices.

There's more to it than this, but this is from Comey's perspective. Part of the move to device encryption was due to pressure from legislators that phone companies "do more" to protect customers whose devices had been stolen. And some of it was probably backlash to the flow of Snowden leaks, showing the government had assembled a massive surveillance apparatus following the 9/11 attacks, turning tech companies into unwitting accomplices of the surveillance state.

As Comey sees it, the tech sector fails to comprehend the consequences of encrypted communications and devices because it only deals with the positive side of human connections.

The leaders of tech companies don't see the darkness the FBI sees. Our days are dominated by the hunt for people planning terrorist attacks, hurting children, and engaging in organized crime. We see humankind at its most depraved, day in and day out…

I found it appalling that the tech types couldn't see this. I would frequently joke with the FBI "Going Dark" team assigned to seek solutions, "Of course the Silicon Valley types don't see the darkness -- they live where it's sunny all the time and everybody is rich and smart." Theirs was a world where technology made human connections and relationships stronger.

Conversely, the FBI views any communications it can't see as suspect. It ignored solutions to engage in a courtroom battle over a phone that ultimately held nothing of interest. The FBI continues to push for a government solution to the problem -- a mandate it can wield in every situation. Under Comey's command, the FBI has shown it is unable to honestly hold an "adult" conversation about the issues. If officials like Comey feel tech companies are being deliberately obtuse, they cannot honestly argue the FBI isn't acting the same way.

When we recently discussed the rather odd story of the famous burger chain In 'N Out suing an Australian burger joint over trademark concerns despite having no storefront presence in the country, there was one aspect of it glossed over in the source link and omitted by me that really deserves some fleshing out. You see, like here in America, Australian trademark law has a provision that you actually must be using the mark in question in order to retain it. More specifically, use must be established every five years in order to keep the trademark valid. Given that In 'N Out operates no storefronts in Australia, readers rightly wondered how it was possible that the company even had a valid trademark to wield in its trademark battle.

The answer to that question is as cynical as it is perverse. It turns out that In 'N Out turns up so-called "pop-up" storefronts for its chain in Australia and a few other countries every so often, specifically to keep just barely within the trademark law provisions.

In Australia, in particular, trademark laws have a “use it or lose” quality to them. If they are not used within a five-year span of time, companies could lose protection for their names and logos. International businesses, though they may never create a fully running branch overseas, could be vulnerable to someone else taking their ideas in other countries if they apply for a trademark. This would dilute the brand in a whole host of ways. To avoid the misfortune of Burger King, who lost its trademark and had to become Hungry Jack’s, In-N-Out found a workaround to establishing a permanent presence in the Land Down Under by simply hosting pop-ups every so often to use their trademark in the country.

Cynical, as I said, and a serious perversion of the purpose of trademark laws generally. The entire point of trademark protections is to keep customers informed as to the source of goods purchased and the affiliations of the companies from which they purchase them. Remember that the context of this story and the chain's lawsuit is the existence of a single burger joint calling itself "Down 'N Out." While there is clear homage to In 'N Out, the burger joint does nothing to convince the public that it's part of the California chain.

So, instead of serving the public good by staving off confusion, what this gaming of Australia's trademark law does instead is to simply lock up language similar to the In 'N Out name by maintaining an insultingly limited presence in the country's market. In 'N Out does not operate these pop-ups in order to server the Australian market. Rather, they operate them specifically so as to deny that Australian market its sort of business. These pop-ups have, ahem, popped up for years, with no sign of In 'N Out even considering having any real storefront presence anywhere in the country. Instead, the pop-ups serve only as an excuse to file lawsuits such as it did against Down 'N Out.

Whatever you might think of In 'N Out's actual trademark claim in its lawsuit, that's truly about as cynical as it gets.

Eric Goldman brings us the dismissal of a lawsuit against Google that's… well, a bit on the unintentionally hilarious side. The lawsuit argues there's a First Amendment right for Google Ad placement -- one that circumvents Google's policies against allowing questionable claims like "Honey Cures Cancer!" -- and contains a request for $10 billion in damages.

El Reg first reported on the lawsuit, filed by a former IBM senior engineer. Apparently tired of the rigorous science involved in his day job, Shajar Abid decided to branch out into speculative fiction.

Abid, who goes by the first name "Shaq" on LinkedIn, claims to have developed "a divine cure for cancer" consisting of "only honey herb and spice." Google, he insists, will not allow him to advertise the product through AdWords.

He is seeking $10 billion for what he believes is a violation of his First Amendment speech and religious rights, for loss of business, and for pain and suffering. Also, he wants the opportunity to advertise on Google when people search for cancer cures.

Needless to say, it's a pro se lawsuit, which makes demands Google cover his legal costs a bit perplexing. In addition to the $10 billion, Abid wants the $88 he racked up in ad costs pre-cancellation to be nullified since there won't apparently be enough money to cover this if he wins.

But he won't win, something readers may have picked up from the first line of this post. There are many reasons he won't win, but going pro se and alleging Google's denial of prime cancer-curing ad placement is somehow a government action is but one of them.

Abid finds it odd Google won't let him claim honey cures cancer. Well, it will, but it just won't allow him to buy ad slots for this claim. Abid could start a blog or Facebook page or whatever, but he won't be allowed to promote it with Google AdWords. Prior legal issues with Google's pharma ad sales have resulted in policies that won't allow someone to claim they can cure cancer with honey, no matter how much they firmly believe it will. And Abid believes honey cures cancer as hard as anyone who stands to profit from this claim can possibly believe something. From the lawsuit [PDF]:

Last weekend on Friday March 31 -2017, i received an email that my site had been suspended. It was against google policies as they have details about selling pharmaceuticals etcs..

I said ok, I will call and tell them, i studied the google rules, tell me what to change.

So the first girl I talked to gave a half dozen modifications to do, including take out "divine cure for cancer," which is my sincerely held religious belief that it is.

But what she doesn't know is I have done an intensive pharmacognosy study as well as other in depth proprietary research.

I feel this was the first violation, obstructing my 1st amendment rights, however the kind and noble judge interprets.

References are cited.

My philosophy of medicine is based on Moses's wisdom. One time Mose got sick, so he prayed to God for guidance. God guided him to a plant. So he went and ate it. Then he was cured.

Also this:

I am combining a systems biology empirical approach based on prophetic medicine.

This culminates (sort of) in a Section 1983 claim, which is reserved for deprivation of rights by the government, which Google plainly isn't. (Or "even under the spirit of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964," as the complaint states hopefully.)

The judge points out the obvious in the dismissal [PDF]:

Plaintiff fails to state a § 1983 claim against Google. Plaintiff does not allege any facts suggesting Google is a government actor or was acting on behalf of the state.

And then notes Abid's opposition to Google's motion to dismiss states Google shouldn't even be a party to this lawsuit.

Moreover, Plaintiff’s Opposition appears to suggest that Google is not the proper defendant and that his claims in fact are against nonparty government entities. Opp’n at 3 (“My section 1983 claim should be applied against the US government, due to the gross negligence of both the FDA and the NIH[;] more than 1 year of work has gone into regulation for my small start-up only for FDA to trample my constitutional rights and NIH my civil rights.”). Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim. As Plaintiff argues the FDA and NIH violated his rights, not Google, the dismissal shall be WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

There's a Sherman Act (antitrust) claim buried in the lawsuit as well, but the court doesn't like that approach either.

Plaintiff does not allege facts showing Google had a contract or agreement with LegitScript or any another entity that was intended to harm or unreasonably restrain competition. At most, Plaintiff alleges LegitScript was Google’s service provider. Mot. to Suppl. Pleadings ¶¶ 2, 12. But there are no facts showing Google sought to unreasonably restrain trade, let alone succeeded in doing so.

This will probably only confuse the plaintiff, who so persuasively argued Google was once found guilty of antitrust violations in another country.

I have attached proof Google has done anti-trustful things recently and has been punished by the EU.

The court also finds Abid's ads violated Google policy, which states it will not permit pharmaceutical ads for non-government approved products that present themselves as proven remedies for illnesses.

Everything is dismissed with Abid given a chance to amend his complaint to fix its numerous deficiencies. The only exception is the Section 1983 claim against Google, which is so far off base (Google isn't the government) that no amount of amending would fix it.

There's a big difference between feeling wronged and being actionably wronged. This lawsuit doesn't even come close to the latter. At this point, Abid has only some wounded pride and outstanding AdWords bill for $88. Filing pro se keeps the costs down but it doesn't do much for coherent legal arguments. And we're probably all better off with Google blocking ads that claim faith-infused honey cures cancer.

Remember when Republicans were against the "Fairness Doctrine"? Apparently, that's now out the window, so long as they can attack Facebook. As we noted recently, Senator Ted Cruz appears to be pushing for the strangest interpretation of Section 230 around (in direct conflict with (a) what the law says and (b) how the courts have interpreted it) saying that in order to make use of CDA 230's immunity "good samaritan" clause, internet service providers need to be "neutral." Again, that's not what the law says. It's also an impossible standard, and one that would lead to results that would piss off lots of people. The similarities to the FCC's concept of the "Fairness Doctrine" are pretty clear, though such a rule on the internet would be an even bigger deal, since the Fairness Doctrine only applied to broadcast TV.

And, it appears that Cruz's incorrect interpretation is spreading like a virus. Senator Lindsey Graham is now spewing the same nonsense.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a subcommittee chairman on the Senate Judiciary Committee, told MT that he remains concerned about potential bias when it comes to content moderation on social media platforms. “They enjoy liability protections because they’re neutral platforms. At the end of the day, we’ve got to prove to the American people that these platforms are neutral,” he said. “You’ve got to have a validating system where the government can come in and validate that this whole system is neutral.”

So much about this is wrong. First, Section 230 of the CDA has never required platforms to be neutral. Indeed, it would be silly to do so because what the hell does "neutral" even mean in this context? Second, claiming that someone needs to "prove" that the platforms are neutral. What does that even mean? How would you prove that anything is "neutral" anyway? Finally, saying that the government has to validate that your internet service is neutral raises a very large number of very serious First Amendment questions. What kind of Senator is not only so wrong about the law, but thinks that the appropriate role of government is to "validate" internet platforms over what kind of speech they allow?

Separately, this is the same Lindsey Graham who just recently was demanding that social media sites do more to takedown content he didn't like. Now, apparently, he's up in arms over the fact that the sites took down content he did like. If Graham truly wants websites to "do everything possible to combat" terrorist groups using the internet, then attacking CDA 230 is the worst possible way to do that. CDA 230 gives websites the power to moderate and filter out such content without fear of facing legal liability. In other words, it's an excellent tool for getting websites to takedown extremist content. To then turn around and insist that sites should lose CDA 230 protections because they also took down some content you like... raises all sorts of First Amendment issues. You're basically saying websites should only remove the content I dislike, and if they remove content I like I'm going to put their existence at risk. Guess what happens then? Sites will stop moderating entirely, leaving up more of the "bad" content you dislike.

Oh, and back to that whole "fairness doctrine" thing. Guess who is vehemently against it? You guessed right: Lindsey Graham. Opposing the Fairness Doctrine is one of the few issues on his tech campaign platform and a few years back he put out a press release touting his conservative credentials including "barring the use of federal funds to re-instate the Fairness Doctrine" (which was silly anyway, because there was no appetite to re-instate the Fairness Doctrine).

Except, now, as soon as he can pretend to be up in arms over Facebook, Graham seems to jump on the idea of a Fairness Doctrine for the internet. Not only that, but he seems to think it's already in place (it isn't) and requires the government to go in and validate platforms over what speech they allow.

And now for the moment you've all been waiting for: a decision from the Ninth Circuit in the Monkey Selfie case.

Upshot: the case remains dismissed, and the defendants get to recover attorney fees for the appeal. There's also relatively little to say on the copyright front. This case has turned almost entirely into litigation about standing and proven to be a significant wrench in the works for any future litigation anyone, but PETA in particular, might want to bring on behalf of animals.

First, the court skewers PETA over the quality of its "friendship" with Naruto, casting significant side-eye towards PETA's apparent settlement of the lawsuit, which led to its attempt to dismiss the appeal, while at the same time leaving some question as to whether Naruto himself was down with this settlement and plan to dismiss his appeal. From footnote 3:

We feel compelled to note that PETA’s deficiencies in this regard go far beyond its failure to plead a significant relationship with Naruto. Indeed, if any such relationship exists, PETA appears to have failed to live up to the title of “friend.” After seeing the proverbial writing on the wall at oral argument, PETA and Appellees filed a motion asking this court to dismiss Naruto’s appeal and to vacate the district court’s adverse judgment, representing that PETA’s claims against Slater had been settled. It remains unclear what claims PETA purported to be “settling,” since the court was under the impression this lawsuit was about Naruto’s claims, and per PETA’s motion, Naruto was “not a party to the settlement,” nor were Naruto’s claims settled therein. Nevertheless, PETA apparently obtained something fromthe settlement with Slater, although not anything that would necessarily go to Naruto: As “part of the arrangement,” Slater agreed to pay a quarter of his earnings from the monkey selfie book “to charities that protect the habitat of Naruto and other crested macaques in Indonesia.” See Settlement Reached: ‘Monkey Selfie’ Case Broke New GroundForAnimal Rights, PETA, https://www.peta.org/blog/settlementreached-monkey- selfie-case-broke-new-ground-animal-rights/ (last visited Apr. 5, 2018). But now, in the wake of PETA’s proposed dismissal, Naruto is left without an advocate, his supposed “friend” having abandoned Naruto’s substantive claims in what appears to be an effort to prevent the publication of a decision adverse to PETA’s institutional interests. Were he capable of recognizing this abandonment, we wonder whether Naruto might initiate an action for breach of confidential relationship against his (former) next friend, PETA, for its failure to pursue his interests before its own. Puzzlingly, while representing to the world that “animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, use for entertainment, or abuse in any other way,” see PETA, https://peta.org (last visited Apr. 5, 2018), PETA seems to employ Naruto as an unwitting pawn in its ideological goals. Yet this is precisely what is to be avoided by requiring next friends to have a significant relationship with, rather than an institutional interest in, the incompetent party—a point made by ChiefJustice Rehnquist in Lenhard v. Wolff, 443 U.S. 1306, 1312 (1979). See infra page 9 for exact language.

But repudiating PETA's "next friend" standing doesn't end the inquiry. There is a 2004 case from the Ninth Circuit, Cetacean Community v. Bush, which established the precedent that animals might be able to sue for themselves, even without a "next friend" to do the suing for them. The court decides it has to defer to that precedent, although so reluctantly as to undermine its persuasive effect in future cases.

Reaching that conclusion didn't end the inquiry, however. Cetacean Community means that animals might be theoretically able to sue for themselves in the Ninth Circuit, but it doesn't mean they will necessarily have a viable claim. To figure out whether they do, we have to look at the applicable statute, which in this case is the Copyright Act. And here the court concludes that Naruto, being a monkey, has no standing to sue for copyright infringement.

Several provisions of the Copyright Act also persuade us against the conclusion that animals have statutory standing to sue under the Copyright Act. See Davis v. Mich. Dep’t of Treasury, 489 U.S. 803, 809 (1989) (“It is a fundamental canon of statutory construction that the words of a statute must be read in their context and with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme.”). For example, the “children” of an “author,” “whether legitimate or not,” can inherit certain rights under the Copyright Act. See 17 U.S.C. §§ 101, 201, 203, 304. Also, an author’s “widow or widower owns the author’s entire termination interest unless there are any surviving children or grandchildren of the author, in which case the widow or widower owns one-half of the author’s interest.” Id. § 203(a)(2)(A). The terms “children,” “grandchildren,” “legitimate,” “widow,” and “widower” all imply humanity and necessarily exclude animals that do not marry and do not have heirs entitled to property by law. Based on this court’s decision in Cetacean and the text of the Copyright Act as a whole, the district court did not err in concluding that Naruto—and, more broadly, animals other than humans—lack statutory standing to sue under the Copyright Act.

So there you go. Our long national nightmare of not knowing whether any random monkey might be able to sue for copyright infringement has been resolved. We may now go about our lives confident in the knowledge that they cannot, at least not in the Ninth Circuit.

iMazing calls itself the Swiss Army Knife of iPhone, iPad, and iPod management because it lets you truly manage your mobile data the way you want to. This all-purpose tool lets you easily browse and manage your backups, extract and print your text messages, drag and drop songs to your iPhone - all without jailbreaking your device. If you've ever upgraded or had to switch phones, you know the pain of leaving data behind. This license is on sale for $25.

Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

Yes, the CIA made a card game. And... we're releasing it. No, really. If you want to play the top secret card game that the CIA used to train analysts, you can now back our Kickstarter project for CIA: Collect It All.

Let me explain how we got here...

We write a lot about the CIA here on Techdirt -- often covering just how secretive the organization is around responding to FOIA requests. After all, this is the same organization that invented the famous "Glomar Response" to a FOIA request: the now ubiquitous "we can neither confirm, nor deny." And that one "invention" is used all the time. Indeed, if you have a few extra hours to spend, feel free to go through just our archives demonstrating CIA obstructionism over FOIA.

But... the organization actually did recently respond to a set of interesting FOIA requests. Back in 2017, at SXSW, the CIA revealed its gaming efforts, and even let some attendees play them. That resulted in a few FOIA requests for the details of the game, including one by MuckRock's Mitchell Kotler and another by entrepreneur Douglas Palmer. In response to the FOIA requests, the CIA released the details of some of the games (though, somewhat redacted, and in typical FOIA response gritty photo-copy style), including a card game called "Collection Deck." My first reaction was... "Hey, that would be fun to play..." And then I had a second thought.

There's another super popular topic here on Techdirt: the public domain and how important it is to build on works in the public domain. Remember, under Section 105 of the US Copyright Act, works of the federal government of the United States are not subject to copyright and are in the public domain.

We've already been working with Randy Lubin of Diegetic Games on a few different projects (including Working Futures and others you'll need to stay tuned for). So, we started talking about making a version of the CIA's game to play for ourselves. And everyone we mentioned it to wanted to play as well. And the more we looked at the details, the more we realized that we could make a much nicer version (while paying homage to the original and its route through FOIAdom) that was playable, and maybe even offer some changes, fixes and alternative rules. We decided to name our version, "CIA: Collect It All." Not only does "Collect It All" spell out CIA and pay homage to the CIA's "Collection Deck" name, "Collect It All" was also General Keith Alexander's surveillance motto that we roundly mocked due to its inherent conflict with the old 4th Amendment. Anyway, this seemed like a way to take back the phrase a bit.

And that led us to Kickstarter. We're using Kickstarter in the real original sense of Kickstarter. We had an idea that we thought was pretty damn cool that we wanted for ourselves. And we want to see if others want it as well so we can produce it at scale. If people want it, awesome. We'll make a bunch. If we're wrong and no one really wants it... well, we'll probably still make a copy for ourselves, but you're on your own, working with redacted photocopies.

So... here's a chance to:

1. Get a cool, fun game that until just recently was a top secret training game by created by the CIA -- which, come on, is pretty cool
2. Help support Techdirt and all the reporting we do (including reporting on the CIA pushing back on FOIA requests)
3. Demonstrate why building on the public domain is a good thing
4. Did I mention that you get to play a fun game, with awesome design work (much better than the CIA's), that was originally created by the CIA?

So, check it out and back us on Kickstarter. And tell your friends. Because, look, they wanted to be CIA agents when they were kids too.

Ever since the FBI began its "going dark" crusade, crucial questions have gone unanswered. Considering the budget and technical expertise the FBI has access to, why was it so necessary to get Apple to crack an iPhone's encryption for the Bureau? Turns out it wasn't. The FBI did have a solution, but the head of the division charged with cracking open the San Bernardino shooter's phone didn't want a technical solution. He wanted a courtroom solution.

The report that outed the FBI's general disinterest in using outside contractors to crack encrypted devices is now being used against the FBI. Ten (bipartisan) legislators have signed a letter demanding answers from the agency about its anti-encryption efforts. The "going dark" narrative continues to be pushed by director Christopher Wray, despite recent reports showing at least two vendors have tools that can crack any encrypted iPhones. The tools are also much cheaper than the ~$1 million the FBI spent to open the shooter's phone, which raises questions about the agency's fiscal responsibilities to taxpayers.

The letter [PDF] highlights portions of the Inspector General's report indicating the agency was less than motivated to find an outside solution while engaged in a legal battle with Apple. It also points to the thousands of devices the FBI says it can't access, despite the ready availability of vendor tools designed to do what the FBI continues to claim is impossible.

These are the questions the legislators want answered -- questions we've been asking for months:

Have you consulted with relevant third-party vendors to understand what tools are available to help the FBI access device content?

Do you agree that there are solutions available to help unlock or nearly every device on the market? If not, why are these solutions, particularly the ones discussed above, insufficient?

Why can't the FBI unlock the 7,800 devices? Have you attempted to use tools developed by third-parties to unlock these devices?

Of these locked phones, how many are equipped with biometrics or how many have data available through a cloud service, which would provide additional means to access data or unlock phones?

For each device that you have not used a third-party tool to unlock, what is the rationale for not doing so?

These are all reasonable questions. But the FBI has been anything but reasonable when it comes to device encryption. Its director continues to insist -- despite zero tech expert support -- that safe and secure encryption backdoors are possible and that it's willing to sacrifice the public's security for "public safety." The FBI's disingenuous actions show it can't be trusted to handle the encryption debate honestly. Hopefully, this letter will reset the "conversation" by giving stakeholders insight into the fight the FBI appears to be throwing in hopes of being bailed out by legislators or federal judges.

A few years ago, annoyance at John Deere's obnoxious tractor DRM birthed a grassroots tech movement. John Deere's decision to implement a lockdown on "unauthorized repairs" turned countless ordinary citizens into technology policy activists, after DRM and the company's EULA prohibited the lion-share of repair or modification of tractors customers thought they owned. These restrictions only worked to drive up costs for owners, who faced either paying significantly more money for "authorized" repair, or toying around with pirated firmware just to ensure the products they owned actually worked.

The John Deere fiasco resulted in the push for a new "right to repair" law in Nebraska. This push then quickly spread to multiple other states, driven in part by consumer repair monopolization efforts by other companies including Apple, Sony and Microsoft. Lobbyists for these companies quickly got to work trying to claim that by allowing consumers to repair products they own (or take them to third-party repair shops), they were endangering public safety. Apple went so far as to argue that if Nebraska passed such a law, it would become a dangerous "mecca for hackers" and other rabble rousers.

Apple's efforts in particular to monopolize repair run deep. The company has worked alongside the Department of Homeland Security and ICE to seize counterfeit parts in the United States and raid shops of independent iPhone repair professionals. FOIA efforts to obtain details on just how deeply rooted Apple is in ICE's "Operation Chain Reaction" have been rejected. The efforts to "combat counterfeit goods" often obscures what this is really about for Apple: protecting a lucrative repair monopoly and thwarting anybody that might dare repair Apple devices for less money.

And Apple's efforts on this front are a decidedly global affair. More recently, Apple has been harassing an independent repair shop owner in Norway named Henrik Huseby. After Norway customs officials seized a shipment of 63 iPhone 6 and 6S replacement screens on their way to Huseby's repair shop, Apple threatened to sue the store owner unless they agreed to stop using aftermarket screens and pay a hefty settlement:

"In order to avoid being sued, Apple asked Huseby for “copies of invoices, product lists, order forms, payment information, prints from the internet and other relevant material regarding the purchase [of screens], including copies of any correspondence with the supplier … we reserve the right to request further documentation at a later date."

The letter, sent by Frank Jorgensen, an attorney at the Njord law firm on behalf of Apple, included a settlement agreement that also notified him the screens would be destroyed. The settlement agreement said that Huseby agrees “not to manufacture, import, sell, market, or otherwise deal with any products that infringe Apple’s trademarks,” and asked required him to pay 27,700 Norwegian Krone ($3,566) to make the problem go away without a trial."

How sweet. Huseby decided to fight the case, and despite being out-manned five Apple lawyers to one, managed to win. And despite Apple's ongoing claims that it's simply engaged in a moral crusade against counterfeiters, Huseby's lawyer is quick to reiterate what Apple's methods are really all about:

"In this case, Apple indirectly proves what they really want,” Per Harald Gjerstad, Huseby’s lawyer, told me in an email. “They want monopoly on repairs so they can keep high prices. And they therefore do not want to sell spare parts to anyone other than ‘to themselves.’"

Apple's real motivation is the protection of their lucrative repair monopoly enjoyed thanks to their "Authorized Service Provider" program, which requires that repair companies become authorized by paying Apple a fee, only buy "authorized" repair parts from Apple at a fixed rate, and limits what repairs a third-party vendor can actually perform. Meanwhile, Apple continues to lobby against right to repair laws in 18 states around the United States, all of which require hardware vendors sell replacement parts and repair tools to the general public and independent repair companies.

Ironically, the harder Apple and other companies fight against this trend, the more support they drive toward these right to repair bills.

This week, our first place winner on the insightful side is an anonymous commenter with a response to the Goldman Sachs analyst asking whether curing patients is a sustainable business model:

If curing patients is not a sustainable business model then perhaps health care should not be a for profit endeavor.

Obviously, treating the symptoms will be much more profitable than curing the disease, however - what kind of an asshole verbalizes such revolting thoughts. Everyone has dumbass ideas, but most refrain from embarrassing themselves with same.

In second place, we've got a comment from That Anonymous Coward in the discussion about his own recent Twitter suspension:

The easiest solution is to make people use the tools they have been given.

Dislike a word? Filter it.
Think that users a tool? Block them.

Reporting shouldn't be a weapon, it should be more like 911 when something serious is happening... not because McD's is out of fscking nuggets.

Because everyone has a different level of comfort its impossible to have a single approach, and in trying to do it you just piss both sides off a bit more each time.

For editor's choice on the insightful side, we've got a comment about the MPAA's quiet shutdown of its legal movie search engine. We noted that to succeed the company must innovate, and Personanongrata spelled out in more detail why they feel like they don't have to:

Au contraire, MPAA can continue to hire lobbyists to shape the "law" in the industries favor while using the states security agencies (eg FBI, DHS) and courts to investigate industry related violations of the "law" at tax-payer expense.

MPAA can also retain swarms of attorneys to harass/intimidate/litigate.

Next, we've got an anonymous upgrade to our suggestion that pre-1972 sound recordings need to be unified under federal copyright law:

Or how about we just put them in the public domain now? If someone hasn't made money in 46 years or more, the next 46 years are unlikely to be much more profitable.

Over on the funny side, our first place comment comes from Roger Strong in response to our post about a copyright troll accusing Google, Popehat and BoingBoing of "black hat SEO":

This guy doesn't care about his reputation. What he's desperate for is attention and relevance. Before trying to trash him via SEO, remember the old saying:

"If only our tongues were made of glass. How much more careful we would be when we speak."

• John F. Kennedy

In second place, we've got Capt ICE Enforcer with another response to the MPAA's search engine shutdown:

Not good

Great. Now I need to find a pirate site to show me where all the legal content is...

For editor's choice on the funny side, we start out with Pixelation applying some Apple branding to the company's leaked memo warning employees not to leak stuff:

Oh, the iRONY.

And finally, we've got an anonymous comment about the New Hampshire first amendment ruling that said it's okay to call a patent troll a patent troll:

Reminds me of the Brit who was haled into magistrate's court for calling a noblewoman "pig". The magistrate fined him.

"So that means I can't call a duchess "pig"?" he asked.

"No, you can't," the magistrate explained.

"But can I call a pig "duchess"?

"Yes."

So he strolled out of the courtroom, nodding to the plaintiff and saying "Good day, duchess."

That's all for this week, folks!