I predict that when the person sending this as Mike Ferrell is located, he is going to look a lot like someone in one of the mug shots, and this turns out to be an attempt at personal internet reputation management.
Hopefully Posner's ruling that new entrants in the market, need not be bound by the same rules as incumbents can be expanded into other markets. The argument that "Google doesn't have to follow the same rules as us", is one of the tactics used by the incumbent ISP's to try to stop/slow down Google Fiber.
"The rules would have simply required cable companies pass on their existing programming (and all DRM) to third party hardware vendors"
I think some works were left out. Should it not say, "The rules would have simply required cable companies pass on their existing programming (and all DRM) to boxes made by third party hardware vendors".
If they were required to pass it to the vendors, they would have a legitimate argument. Passing it to their customer via a box made by a third party, their argument is without foundation.
I fear the likelihood of the ADA suits continuing is more dependent on how much profit they are currently making, rather than the existence of a Hansmeier law license. If after the new laws passed and the attention the suits have gotten they are still profitable, he will find some stooge/wife-attorney/new law school graduate to continue to file the suits for him.
When Fed-Ex/Kinko's copies something they charge for the cost of the copy process. They are not profiting from the content that is copied. If they were copying and then marking it up further because of the content then Great Minds would have a point.
If I buy a cable box from XYZ, my cable company does not transmit the signal to XYZ who then transmits it to me, they still transmit the signal to me. It is just as licensed as it ever was. There is no transmission by a third party. There is just a third party making a box that the cable company doesn't get to overcharge rent on.
If ever there were a "Wink Wink" statement in a court ruling, it is the following:
"We make no comment on what type of contempt Smith may wish to seek, whether the court might re‐consider the possibility of civil contempt, or whether criminal contempt could be justified once the proper procedures are followed. We are confident that the district court will take a fresh look at these questions in light of this opinion."
Translation: Mr. Steele get ready to defend yourself against Criminal Contempt.
I'm sure the company making these and taking a cut, did not just make 16 of them. While Oklahoma is taking the abuse here, the question is how many other states have and use them, but just are keeping their mouths closed about it.
The government's problem here is that they admitted that some of the money was non-tainted. They won't make that mistake again. Now instead of trying to defend yourself against the crime with a public defender, you will be trying to get a ruling that a portion of the money wasn't tainted without being able to pay for a lawyer.