Your point would make sense if it were at all true that the common description of the law had any legal weight outside of the actual text of the law and the applicable case law. That you can call something the "Was Being Bad" law doesn't mean that's what legal standard is applied by judge or jury. Presumably this description is applicable in New York:

http://law.onecle.com/new-york/penal/PEN0195.05_195.05.html

A reasonable person may disagree with the law or it's exact wording (we are "free" to do so), but don't imply that the title of the law somehow proves a vague catch-all conspiracy.

I'm been using it on Ubuntu for a while now. . .not sure what you mean.

Sadly this summary has no information at all, provides no description of the issue to be discussed, and provides no content other than links to other sources. Perhaps the submission could have contained:

- A description of the issue at hand
- A reason why an uninformed reader would care about patent royalties at 24-40 dollars (per what?)
- An explicit argument about why this is or is not a good thing

I have been a member of this website for years, and while I am as guilty of not reading the article(s) as the cliche suggest of most readers, I still do so if the summary has some, any, information as to why I should. This summary provides no context whatsoever to evaluate the article's worth nor describes in any way it's content.