You forgot part of your code - it should read:

if (!Microsoft) {copying != stealing}
else if (RIAA) {copying == fair use}
else if (USA) {copying == free speech}
else {BSOD?}

Support World Peace!

CORRECTION: Support WWW Police!

Of course it can be both. <troll> just look at the debate on evolution (cf natural selection) </troll>

To use your analogy...
There is plenty of debate about the direction the fox went - we saw it run east, but someone else from a different point says the fox later turned west. This is why peer review is so important, and the methods used for peer review should be open and transparent.

Then there is the question whether the hound is actually going to follow the fox. We know they are similar, therefore must always run the same direction. If you think of any reasons they wouldn't run the same direction we won't consider them, because you disagreed with us about what direction the fox ran.

To add to the analogy, we have discovered that foxes tend to chase rabbits, and for a while we have had a rabbit farm to the east. We cut back on the farm, but hey, they are breeding like rabbits.

Now the real debate here is whether to kill all the rabbits. We won't discuss other options to killing the rabbits, because if you don't want to kill all the rabbits you clearly are denying that the fox ran east and must think the hound will run west.

And you wonder why people don't trust the scientific method?!? Try using it. In particular, try documenting your assumptions - you will be amazed at how much you re-think.

Taking rick-rolling to a whole new level.

The Matrix. I swear it was only one movie, but everyone still calls it a trilogy.

<Troll>The same thing could be said about the Patriot Act.</Troll>
That shouldn't stop consumers standing up for a decent EULA, even if only the law firms cash in. imho at face value they have a case - having the contract (EULA) varied at a later date, preventing the service from being offered to specified customers seems to breach pretty standard principles of contract law.

That is true, however 'publication' for this purpose is very broad, including almost any public disclosure. This can, if the inventor is not careful, include testing the implementation / invention or discussing it with someone without a clear agreement of confidentiality (not necessarily in writing but that helps for evidence purposes).

As for the question, if a patent is granted with prior art that the patent office didn't consider, it is still prima facie valid. This means it will likely be cited as prior art if you attempt to patent a related invention in future; and the patent owner may still sue to enforce the rights / demand licenses etc.

Usually defence to patent infringement includes an allegation the patent is invalid (such as in this matter). This is also a common way around a patent cited as prior art to your related invention. Alternatively, an interested party (such as the EFF here) may apply to have the patent revoked on the same grounds.

So when you drink coffee all night cramming for an exam - of course the only logical solution is to drink copious amounts of alcohol in the morning.
See Mum... I isnt' just a dum colledge student.

-----
Never let your schooling interfere with your education.

Or something made of wood.

Such as a Witch.

Few good law lecturers teach entirely from statute / case law; just as few good pastors teach entirely from the bible. You choose relevant examples, illustrate (sometimes exaggerate), highlight partial points, pull in commentary etc.

The issue isn't as much the source of the content, but the communication method that makes an effective teacher. It is always necessary when teaching to relate the content in a way your students / congregation can understand, relate to and apply.

Powerpoint slides can be a great tool, but they are just a tool, and sticking to one tool will never be an effective communication method