Priority back to September 14, 1998, albeit with several continuations-in-part in the chain. April 2, 2001 is the earliest disclosure which is the same as the issued patent. So the claim has a priority date somewhere between 1998 and 2001, not 2006.

Assuming your problem there was DRM (which it likely wasn't), the individual applied DRM restrictions to media which foreclosed external playback on a projector, to which you were entitled by the agreement. How would that be DRM's fault, and not the fault of the individual who inadvertently applied the restriction?

It's the same as if you hire someone to code something for you and give you the source code, but at the end of the project they only give you the binaries. That's not a problem with binaries (plenty of people don't need the source code to everything, and aren't willing to pay for the privilege to obtain it), it's a problem with performance of the contract.

Last I checked, the only thing Netflix was selling was a subscription service.

Here's the thing about DRM: You want unfettered access to a particular media file? You want to be legally entitled to do whatever you please with it? That's worth a completely different amount than the limited ability to only play it on a single specified device, as governed by DRM.

Why would anyone want DRM? Because I don't particularly enjoy paying several thousand dollars for an unrestricted license to something when the ten dollar version with DRM that blocks uses I don't care about suits me.

What happens if you do away with DRM, nay, copyright, entirely? I mean, surely any "purchase" of a copyrighted work should let you do *whatever* you want with it! Heck, first sale doctrine is too restrictive, I want to make additional copies of it, and sell those! Who are you to tell me otherwise?

I'll tell you what happens -- the cost for the initial unit will be prohibitive. DRM is my friend, because it allows me to enjoy more affordable licenses, particularly subscription services (e.g., Zune, Netflix video on demand, etc.) which otherwise *would not exist*. Is that too complicated?

"replace the multitudinous connector types with a single connector" = multitudinous connector types + 1;

The US judge doesn't need jurisdiction over you to nuke your e-mail account. They just need jurisdiction over your e-mail account, which they have in the case of Gmail. This isn't an "increasing tendency by American companies to conflate US Law with World Law," (whatever "World Law" may be??) it's just how the law works in current and former Commonwealth countries. Yes, yours included. If I, as a US citizen, had an account with BigPond, you damned well better believe it's subject to Australian jurisdiction.

Or file a reexam and get the PTO to sort it out before the courts even have a chance to touch it (or at least use the drafted reexam requests as settlement leverage) ... that's generally what any company receiving solid legal advice would do in this situation.

All those national phase entry fees add up. But yes, PCT is already a pretty good system. Not sure what more cooperation we could ask for or expect. Maybe the JPO can issue Office Actions in English? (j/k)

I wholeheartedly support a correctly implemented patent system in industrialized nations. Although not all inventions fall into this particular category (and we can go on and on all day about those that don't), a number of very valuable inventions require massive investments of time and money to develop and perfect. Without any assurance of the ability to recover for these investments, people would be hard-pressed to engage in them in the first place. Think, most obviously, pharmaceuticals.

A uniform patent system would require poorer countries to adhere to patent norms that would be inherently contrary to their own interests. If you have nothing to protect, and it is absolutely to your advantage to take, why should you be forced to follow along? It makes no sense to ask developing nations and others with no need for a patent system to obey the restrictions earned elsewhere. And, here's the important thing, these two completely different levels of protection can in fact peacefully co-exist. The market will correct. If a poorer country absolutely needs a particular drug developed which no other country needs, maybe then they would find use in patent or patent-like protections. Until then, it's silly to impose our will on others.