Some U.S. jurisdictions have vexatious litigants too. Perhaps Florida is not one of those jurisdictions, or Mr. Thompson has not been declared as such yet.

Standard, I am not a lawyer, I do not intend to create a legal relationship with any reader. This is merely my opinion and should not be relied upon under any situation. If in need of legal advice go get competent legal advice from a bar certified attorney in your jurisdiction

.
Sorry parent, but that is not how statutory damages work in copyright. In copyright cases, the holder gets to elect to take statutory damages instead of actual damages. There is no requirement that they show an inability to prove actual damages in that case. The only limitation is that the work must be registered with the Copyright office in order to be eligible for statutory damages.

The statutory damages range from $750 - $30,000 per infringed work. That $750 is why the RIAA is willing to go only that low, since they will recover atleast that amount at trial--unless the defendant can show that she was not aware and had no reason to know she was infringing. Damages jump to $150,000 per work when the infringement is willful.

17 USC 412 explains registration
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000412----000-.html
17 USC 504 explains statutory damages
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000504----000-.html

(2) In a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000. In a case where the infringer sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that such infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200. The court shall remit statutory damages in any case where an infringer believed and had reasonable grounds for believing that his or her use of the copyrighted work was a fair use under section 107, if the infringer was:

Standard, IANAL disclaimer. If in need of legal advice go get competent legal advice from a bar certified attorney.

This may be a trivial point, but KSR did not raise the bar for obviousness. Most would argue that it lowered the bar required to show obviousness, by removing the teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine requirement from the analysis. Although, there is still a requirement to show some reason to combine, so it really isn't as much of a change as everyone thought. If you talk to litigators, they still drum up reasons why a person of skill in the art would combine two references, even after KSR. -- As the author states, I am not giving legal advice. I am not a lawyer nor am I trying to be a lawyer. Do not rely on my posts to support your legal conclusions, consult a lawyer in your jurisdiction and get real advice.

Although not completely accurate, this is mostly true. The Constitution, more specifically the Bill of Rights, protects individuals from State Action. Private Universities may not be considered State Actors since they are not run by the government. Further, there are many cases involving searches in a school where the court says the need for the school to conduct itself safely outweighs a student's right to protection from unreasonable search and seizure. So, while the blanket statement that the Constitution doesn't apply is certainly wrong, that statement is not as inaccurate as people hope. I once heard a police officer say the same thing, and I was torn between the desire to burst out laughing and the desire to cry out how uninformed he was.

Mr. DOS has some good thoughts, but what does Ms. DOS have to say?

Yes and no. If the blog is of substantial character in the industry, it may satisfy the publication requirement. First off, do not rely on the definition of a publication in copyright for the definition of publication in patent law. Go see the MPEP instead: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/2100_2128.htm "A reference is proven to be a 'printed publication' 'upon a satisfactory showing that such document has been disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art, exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it.' In re Wyer, 655 F.2d 221"