So how much of this could we halt by simple new rule of this: Only someone (corporation or otherwise) who helped fund the research that lead to the patent in the first place may buy a public institutions patents. Otherwise they either remain with the institution, or are placed into the public domain.
Also, in the case of this -specific- patent I counter with prior art: Winamp has been doing this for ripped CD files since the late 90s or so.
The problem is the do not show again does not keep it out of your search results, just off your front page, and I've managed to prove, with screen shots, that you can't get through the game pile faster than the game pile grows (because the same names keep showing up again and again on later pages.) I'd honestly kill for the ability to say "No DLC or software, has Mixed or Better reviews, and is under this price point" at the same time.
As someone who is a tech who's options are 1.5 Mbit or less "DSL" or satalite... Oh we're -aware- and pretty much bent over backwards because we can't afford to put in our own service individually, and there's absolutely zero visible effort to fix the suburban much less rural like my area connections.
We're aware, we're pissed, and there's about jack and shit we can do about it."
... Except in this case, it looks like it is possible that they did install a buggy rootkit on their own servers. And given a server is nothing more than a computer, it can be rootkited or malwared just like any other computer. (The fact a security audit -caught- it and then stink flew actually makes this scenario sadly more plausible.
Some companies will either force or nag you to change to business class if you go over a certain amount of usage. Particularly if you are hosting a server of any kind on your end (Like, say, you play minecraft as the host machine.)
So who's going to file these counter-claims when they generate URLs that do not point at valid anything? I'd rather just give the DMCA its original presumed teeth back: You file one that contains bogus information beyond 'I have the right to this copyright, it -still- counts as perjury.
This guy is sueing because the players (kids or otherwise) tried -not- to trespass, simply by, you know, asking first? I'm trying to decide who the stupid is in this article and I'm for once thinking the -kids- aren't the stupid ones...
Offer to teach them how to fill out a form that is really not that difficult to do? It's easier than getting an account here at techdirt. (Note, it still takes time after such is filed for someone to get to it. Small company, LOTS of those to filter through...)