Wouldn't it be better if companies were forced to come up with new and potentially better ways of creating a product rather then simply copying the guys who came before?
I suspect you haven't thought this through. Sure, second-movers could "simply copy" the guys who came before, but how does that help them? In order to capture market share, they need to not only copy the previous design, but undercut prices by being more efficient with production. That's a "better way of creating a product" right there!
Now imagine you're the first company. You were doing great for a while, you had a new and exciting product, you could set your own prices, then some jerks come in and start competing with you. What is your best strategy? More innovation. Come up with another new product. Create a brand new market where you can make tons of money. Sure, the other guys will eventually copy your design, but you'll have a few years before they figure it out.
If copying is illegal, a company only needs to innovate once and can ride that idea forever. Profits will never decrease because no one is allowed to compete.
If copying is legal, the only way to be profitable is to create something. The copying firm needs to discover cheaper ways to make the same product, and the inventive firm needs to keep creating new products to stay ahead of the copycats. Any company that stops being creative, that stops producing economic value to society, also stops making money. Isn't that how it should be?
You seem to be very upset about the "misuse" of the word median, and I cannot figure out why. Simply stating the definition does not constitute an argument, unless it clearly contradicts a previous definition, implied or otherwise. No one appears to have implied any particular definition; they merely claimed a value (which is roughly correct for "median US income") and observed that $1 billion is about 21,000 times that median value.
The only thing I can think of is that you somehow object to the validity of the phrase "median US income". In common usage, that phrase refers to income value of the middle US individual (or household, sometimes) if ordered by income. To use your emphatically stated definition, it is the middle number in the sequential counting of all incomes in the US.
Perhaps if you take a moment to point out a specific mistake in a previous comment we could have a more meaningful conversation. For example, the number $45,016 was given; since you clearly dispute that this is a "median", what is the correct name for this value?
I'm not sure who actually has standing to sue for perjury. I'm pretty sure Henry can't sue UM though - but he might be able to sue Google, and Google can probably sue UM if it wanted to. Of course that's not going to happen, since Google wants to set up their online store to compete with iTunes, which is kind of hard if you sue a big music company over a "misunderstanding".
I don't think that's "censoring" so much as "defining". And as a company, they can decide to exclude whatever goods they like. Are you equally upset over their refusal to list sex toys? Do you really feel that Google has a duty to treat all goods equally, or are you just mad because they took down something you like?
Two-step verification via phone eliminates roughly 99.9% of account hijack attempts. I could be wrong about that number though; it might be 100%. That's mostly because criminals are lazy, of course; your phone itself is easy enough to 'hack' (via social engineering on the dumb-as-rocks phone companies) but so far no one bothers.
I mean yes, clearly Google just wants to invade your privacy.
Actually he's right - or at least, he's more right than you. Google no longer has separate accounts for each service. If the first AC has a gmail account, he has a Google account, which is also a G+ account. Now he may not have any information filled in, but that's not really the point.
Do you know how many patents have been infringed upon by computer and software companies? Every time you use the internet, you're stealing from hundreds and thousands of inventors and patent holders. You should probably stop using a computer entirely.
Instead of an internet petition on obviously-biased-personal-website, whose results ultimately don't mean anything, why not start an internet petition on the official government website?Don't mention the criminal trial at all, just ask for the personal data of law-abiding citizens to be returned to them. Make reference to a safety deposit box, or some similar analogy.
Or start petitioning the media companies to start covering this story. Doesn't CNN have that "iReport" gimmick? Use that. But a petition only works if someone has agreed to listen to it, otherwise you're just yelling at the sky.
Yeah, that's not what I said. Of course it's threatening! But the OP implied that the police used these tactics as a "let's teach these internet punks a lesson!" type of thing. From what I can tell, the police actually thought that someone was going to make a bomb and blow up a police officer's house. Then the grabbed the first IP address they could find and called in SWAT.
The problem is, the police are allowed to do stuff like this because when there are rogue bombmakers, I would really like a SWAT team to toss flashbangs through the windows and bust down the doors. The failure here isn't that the police decided to mess with some innocent people for kicks, the problem is that they didn't bother to do the most basic investigation before assuming that the owner of an IP address must be a criminal explosives nut.
While I agree that the police should never be "punishing" people, I'm not sure where you got that from. The police didn't say they were sending in SWAT to rough a guy up - they did it to prevent a supposed threat.
Now granted this was a massive, massive overreaction to a random internet comment, and any ten-year-old could have told them that there was no actual threat. That still doesn't make the police here into bullies or thugs. It just means they are very very stupid.
I'm not sure why that would be relevant. Inman is going to hire the most expensive lawyers he can find, since the anti-SLAPP law will push those costs on to Carreon. Meanwhile, Carreon has a snowball's chance in hell of winning anything, regardless of whether he can claim costs on his own time.
FunnyJunk is not liable for anything (assume they can claim DMCA safe harbor - Inman's lawyer seems to think they may have screwed up here, but we'll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they're safe).
Inman has broken no laws.
This isn't a court battle. The courts aren't even involved, and they shouldn't be. This is a media battle, a fight for public opinion about "right" and "wrong". No matter what happens, no one is going to jail, and the only people being paid are lawyers. Oh, and that charity than Inman set up.