Both are cases of the law requiring a business to serve a class of clientele...
That's where you went wrong. YouTube is not refusing to serve someone because of any category they belong to. They're refusing to serve someone who doesn't follow the process they've set up to upload videos. They cannot have a rule that says "you may not upload videos if you're Catholic." They are perfectly free to have a rule that says "you must be signed in to a Google+ account to upload videos", and I challenge you to find any law or court decision that says otherwise.
When the claims are taken in the context of the letter from EFF, it seems clear that the portion of the letter relating to the claim comparison was indeed a protest under 37 CFR 1.291 (MPEP 1901).
I disagree, I think it's clear they were not protesting that patent, which if I'm not mistaken is what the "no protests" rule is about. Rather they were using it as an example to point out problems with the USPTO's process. That is to say, their point was not "this patent is bad and should be rescinded", their point was "look at these two patents - you're not following the Supreme Court's ruling".
Re: Re: My usual rant points regarding pedophilia, child sexual abuse and child welfare in the US
I thought pedophilia was a variation on NPD; that they're simply unable to see themselves as having done anything wrong because they're unwilling to see themselves as being capable of doing wrong.
I'd like to see your sources - I'm no expert but I've never heard pedophilia described as NPD or psychopathy (which is basically what your "no empathy" description sounds like). And victims would not at all be a reliable source of objective information on the nature of the condition.
Re: Re: thank you. being hard of hearing I was already aware
You are still free to be gay, the bakery just has no obligation to allow you to use their baked-goods platform in whatever way you want.
I don't think that's parallel at all. A better analogy to a bakery would be that you're free to get a cake anywhere you want but if you want one from this bakery you have to give two weeks notice. Those are their rules and if you want to be a customer you have to follow them.
There is no longer even a mention of the X-UIDH opt out there.
"This program uses a unique identifier, also known as a Unique Identifier Header or UIDH, that is inserted into certain web traffic to deliver ads to your mobile device... The UIDH discussed above will stop being inserted in web traffic from your device after you opt out of the Relevant Mobile Advertising program."
Re: Re: Re: thank you. being hard of hearing I was already aware
Google Coercion: preventing free speech since 2013.
There's a difference between preventing free speech, and setting up rules for a web site that some people don't like. You are still free to speak, they just have no obligation to allow you to use their platform in whatever way you want.
Why is someone with such poor vision trying to use a visual medium in the first place?
Because there is no parallel internet that's all audio. The internet is the greatest communication and information network ever built. It happens to be primarily visual, but that is not its core purpose.
"Clearly there is more than one reasonable interpretation of the language at issue here." That sentence right there tell me we are dealing with an activist judge who disagrees with law-as-written and is trying to legislate from the bench.
You're saying there is no such thing as ambiguous language in a statute?