Once a patent is ruled invalid, it's not really a patent anymore, so you shouldn't be able to infringe. However, until that point, even if you're really really really sure it's going to be invalidated, you have to take it as valid.
As I was graduating college, I was planning to go into defense contracting after hearing stories of riches heaped on older classmates by Raytheon and Lockheed. My girlfriend at the time was going to work at the NSA. After her first orientation, she freaked out that I could no longer take her out to dinner or anything because it would be a conflict of interest.
We were entry-level new college grads who in no way could influence any sort of contract award or anything like that, and she was told this wasn't appropriate. To think that the former head of the agency employing the current CTO would be "manageable" shows, once again, that the NSA is completely divorced from reality.
In college around 1999 I worked for my friend's dad doing exactly this, primarily at motorcycle races. This was before it was feasible for the average person to it on a computer, but it's been established you can't take something obvious and add "on a computer" and get a patent. I have no idea when he started the business, but he'd been doing it a while before I started.
I was on the phone with Verizon last night talking about FIOS service at a house where I'm one of the property managers and they were similarly clueless, though not that pushy. She didn't even flinch when I told her I was going to cancel service completely after they lied about what my bill would be.
Even where there is competition (I can switch to Comcast there), no one seems to have any incentive to compete.
I don't disagree with you. When you make assumptions that lead to ridiculous conclusions, it usually means your assumptions are wrong. But it doesn't necessarily mean that your process in getting from assumptions to conclusions was wrong.
The only way that interpretation works is if you look at non-citizens as non-people
Unfortunately that's exactly what we do.
Didn't Mike mention a week or three back that the Constitution is pretty careful to use "citizen" most of the time, but sometimes uses "people"? As in, some parts are deliberately meant to apply just to citizens, and some to all people? This is a reasonable distinction to make, as certainly citizens should have some rights not granted to all people.
But if that's the case, and the 4th Amendment says "people", then it's pretty clear it's meant to apply to everyone.
I'm not a lawyer, though I married one and seem to spend most of my time with them.
If you take it as fact that non-citizens have no 4th Amendment rights, then saying something to a non-citizen is essentially equivalent to putting it in plain sight.
Let's say your neighbor is murdered. They find him chopped up into little pieces. It's horrible. They naturally knock on your door to see if you heard anything. If you answer the door holding an axe, covered in blood from head to toe, you have put out in the open that you are very likely the crazy person who murdered the neighbor. If you answer the door in a clean shirt and politely answer their questions, they will have to find some evidence and get a warrant to go find the bloody axe you shoved in the coat closet.
So telling something to a person who has no 4th Amendment protection is basically the same thing. You have taken something that you could have kept "hidden" where a warrant is needed to access it, and put it out in the open where anyone can discover it.
Since this is a pretty horrible result, I think we ought to go back and look at the assumptions that got us here. But given those assumptions as fact, I don't think this is an unreasonable conclusion.
It looks to me like she's got some program that generates that document and she just left the "because" field blank. Or, given ICE's understanding of computers, the program just ate the reason and spit out a blank.
I didn't read her email as entitled. A bit slimy, and undoubtedly exaggerating how good her offer is, but that's pretty standard marketing. She said, "I'll give you X in exchange for Y". It may be a good deal, it may not be, but she sent it to multiple restaurants when only one could take the offer, so clearly she expected some to turn her down. That doesn't seem entitled, that seems like she was covering her bases.
I really do appreciate the work you do towards sustainable business models on the internet, both for other industries and yourselves. It's one of the main things that's made me a regular reader for five plus years, and why I continue to be a regular reader. Techdirt was a huge inspiration for me in trying to start my own business.
And I don't dislike them for no other reason than they're sponsored. After reading some number of sponsored posts and noticing that I didn't like any of them, I came to the conclusion that it was not worth my time to read any more of them.