The legal standard for a judge to overturn a jury verdict in a civil case is very high one. The record must demonstrate that, as a matter of law, no reasonable jury could arrive at that verdict given the evidence produced at trial. On appeal, great deference is usually given to the trial judge's findings of fact and discretionary rulings and reversible error will not be found unless the judge's actions are determined to be "clearly erroneous". That usual deference on appeal does not apply in cases where the the trial judge overturns a jury verdict. Here, the appellate panel will review the record "de novo" and will overturn the trial court if its actions are not clearly supported by the record. That may sound like a lot of legal mumbo jumbo but what it boils down to in practice is an appeals court is much more likely to reverse a trial court that has overturned a jury verdict. All the presumptions are in favor of the correctness of that verdict and on appeal, you have a pretty high burden to overcone that presumption.

First we had "I want to make money off this". But that made you sound like a money grubbing greedy bastard. To soften things up a bit, they came up with "I want to monetize this". And that apparently has morphed into "I want to monetarize this". Please stop making up words to cover up good old human greed.

Not true. The majority of Ch11 cases wind up either being converted into a CH7 or are ended by filing a liquidating plan under CH11, i.e. all the assets are sold off after which the business ceases. The reasons are pretty clear; a business winds up filing CH11 because they are in serious trouble. Most are not successful in finding a way out of their financial problems.

What is relatively rare is the appointment of a Trustee in a CH11 case which is invariably done over the objections of the debtor. It's an indication that the judge no longer has any confidence that the debtor's management is acting in the best interests of creditors. And that's usually prompted by some irrational or improper conduct by the debtor's management during the course of the bankruptcy proceedings. The appointment of a Trustee in a CH11 case is almost always a prelude to the conversion of the case to a CH7 or the liquidation of the debtor under CH11.

That he's a Cox shucker!!

$19k may not sound like a lot but how does $96k reported received by Sen. Hatch from "TV/Movies/Music" industry sound:

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/industries.php?cycle=2010&cid=n00009869&type=I&mem=

Especially when the largest industry group contributor, Lawyers/Law Firms, was only $426k and law firms are frequently proxies for the industry clients they serve. In addition, the largest single contributor to Sen Hatch's campaign, Xango LLC, a multilevel marketing outfit located in Utah, was only $46k. Given these facts, and all the soft money that never gets reported, $19k is more than enough to buy influence with a US senator.

According to the Second Circuit's opinion(yes, I did read it), this is not a transmission issue per se. The time shifted program was clearly transmitted within the meaning of the Copyright Act; that was not disputed. The issue is whether the that transmission was to the public as is required by the relevant provision of the Copyright Act at issue in this case. Considering the technology used by the defendant, the Court held that it was not a public transmission relying heavily on the fact that the program is recorded at the customer's direction and the customer's requested program is encoded on the server so only the customer's cable box can retrieve it. So the scenarios you spin would all seem permitted by this holding as there is no transmission to the public in any of them that I can see.

That's "The Pen Is Mightier" and you know it.

Of course, his opinion on this seems utterly pointless to me. The man is a physicist, specializing in solid-state and quantum physics. He's no more qualified to analyze the science behind climate change than an electrical engineer is to build a bridge.

Have you somehow missed the irony of your statement? I have no idea what your qualifications are to make that observation but they are undoubtedly less than the person you are criticizing. More to the point, none of us here have the qualifications to make a detailed assessment of the methodologies involved in examining projected climate change; we're all taking this on faith one way or another. Kind of smells like religion on both sides of the aisle to me which undoubtedly explains the religious zeal of those opining on this topic.

Better yet, choose to remain silent but deadly.

Cuba is a communist dictatorship from the old school. If Fidel says Microsoft's copyrights and patents are null and void in Cuba, that's the law in Cuba. If Fidel says your an enemy of the people, you're going to die or spend a long time in a Cuban prison. That's the way dictatorships work.

Well, here's the original release announcement for KDE 4.0:

http://www.kde.org/announcements/4.0/

Now can we please stop with this revisionist history.