Here's the thing about the Constitution: it's not entirely clear what it means.

1) It was written a long time ago. Should it be interpreted based on what certain words meant at the time it was written?

2) The phrasing isn't always precise. How should words that have more than one meaning be interpreted?

Assuming that you agree that the Constitution is open to interpretation you then have to determine *who* gets to interpret its meaning. Fortunately that decision was made a long time ago. In 1803 the Supreme Court of the U.S. (SCOTUS) held in Marbury v. Madison that SCOTUS is the appropriate body for determining "proper" interpretation of the Constitution.

SCOTUS has determined that the clause in the 5th Amendment stating "... nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself... " only refers to testimony.

Many cases have helped to clarify the distinction between "testimonial" and "non-testimonial." For example, the Court in United States v. Delaplane (1985) held that:

Courts have recognized that requiring a Defendant to give a demonstration of his voice for identification purposes by speaking the exact words spoken at the commission of a crime is not violative of his privilege against self incrimination. United States v. Wade... [t]he privilege attaches only to testimonial compulsion and does not attach to demonstrative, physical or real evidence. United States v. Williams, 704 F.2d 315, 317 (6th Cir.1983)

Some evidence that has been held to be "non-testimonial" are fingerprints, voice samples, blood samples, handwriting samples, DNA, and dental impressions.

"Obama is just encouraging the graduates to do something with their lives instead of twittering them away."

Fixed that for you.

Obviously something is wrong with me because I'm not new here but I *did* read the article.

From the article: "Put bluntly, the USPTO would raise patent application and maintenance fees to such a level that massive numbers of applications will never be filed in the first place."

There is *nothing* to support this. The USPTO has already implemented a number of measures to shorten the patent approval process. I know of at least two specific programs that are in a variety of beta / roll-out modes. One is a fast track program for patents previously approved in foreign countries and the other is the Accelerated Examination (AE) program for those that are willing to do additional work up front and willing to limit the number of claims. The AE program has had approval rates as high as 80% and require a final disposition within 12 months!

I'm not a lawyer but am considering becoming a patent attorney and am currently finishing my second year of law school. There may be many points of contention with USPTO actions but I don't believe that they will be raising fees to the extent imagined by the doom-n-gloom author of the linked article. Frankly, if that somehow *did* occur it would likely be held to be invalid as a due process issue under the Constitution.

For those who may not be aware: the USPTO is largely self-funding and is one of the few (the only?) government bodies that has historically been able to run without additional funding. In fact since 1991 they have had $700 million diverted from their coffers. This is likely the reason behind their request to have greater control over the fees that they receive; by being able to retain surplus funds it gives them the flexibility to do things like increase hiring when the rest of the government is in a hiring freeze.

The 5th amendment provides protection for one against their own mental processes being used against them. So for purposes of self-incrimination it is not a violation under the 5th amendment to require tests that, although they reveal something about the person (e.g. DNA or fingerprint match), do not reveal anything about their thoughts.

There shouldn't be an issue with requiring a breathalyzer (at least with respect to the prohibition against self-incrimination).

Its also entirely possible that people have begun to realize that netbooks are just annoying. Too small for long term use, too large for stuffing in your pocket or a small purse, battery life no better than my MBP for the same tasks and utterly incapable of doing the same things. Not useful as a phone. Netbooks were a cute fad but lets face it, they aren't really useful to most people and it took people a little bit to realize it.

I've read several comments like this and am surprised that so many people really don't see the use for a netbook. Although I have both a home-brew desktop and a VAIO laptop the computer I use most often is my Eee 1000HE. I'm in law school and couldn't bring my VAIO on the days that I had to take more than 3 case books to school - it simply wouldn't fit in my bag. In Europe last Summer my fellow law students were out of luck when we were visiting other law schools which didn't have power outlets in the lecture halls; after a couple of hours their laptops had died while my battery chugged along for 8+ hours. Likewise on our ridiculously long bus trips from Austria to Venice & Venice to Dubrovnik I had a media player that outlasted their iPods when watching video.

Am I the only person who would much rather type than use a touchscreen? Don't other people want something that can be folded in half to protect the screen? Obviously this is just the experience of one law student. But I can't be the only person that thinks that the size, performance, and price are a good fit.

More power to Apple if they can sell the heck outta these things but I don't think I'm the only person who has a netbook that perfectly fits their needs.

I thought it was especially funny when they offered the option of printing tickets at home, for which they charge you an additional fee. So, I can print the ticket myself using my paper & ink and pay extra, or just let them incur postage and shipping fees.

Idiots.

I've not read through all of the replies so I apologize if I'm being repetitive, however I read enough of them to want to add some notes that I believe are important:

1) "knowingly materially misrepresents under this section... that material or activity is infringing... shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys' fees"

Understand the application of the word "knowingly" here - it matters. Knowingly in this context implies that the rights holder knows that they are misrepresenting the activity as infringing.

2) Fair use is not a black and white issue - it is very, very gray. There are four aspects to fair use and no single bright line rule that applies. Decisions may vary widely and because of this it may be difficult to show that Universal "knowingly" misrepresented the material as infringing.

Although the use in this case appears (to me) to be unquestionably fair use, Universal should be able to make an argument that they fairly believed their takedown notice to be legitimate. That said, I personally believe that the takedown notice was asinine and a slap on the wrist may serve to have Universal pay a bit more attention to their claims in the future.

I should point out that IANAL (though I am in law school) and none of the above is legal advice.

The contrarian in me read TFA and eventually found the source article:

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2010/01/usaf-seeks-airborne-car-zapper.html

Apparently it's the Air Force that's interested in such a device, which would be used from the air, not via police car.

"The Air Force Air Armament Center (AAC), 308th Armament Systems Wing, Rapid Acquisition Cell is seeking information that could lead to development of an air-delivered capability to disable moving ground vehicles while minimizing harm to occupants. Development schedule is expected to be a critical factor in any potential development effort, so responses should focus on feasibility and maturity of the key technologies. Responses should include candidate integration concepts which take maximum advantage of existing infrastructure in order to minimize cost and development time."

And since I bothered posting I guess I'll add that the comparison to the On-Star solution is bizarre. Obviously the On-Star approach has nothing to do with EMP but instead is a command sent to the on-board computer via satellite. I suppose it's comparable in that both solutions involve things above us adversely affecting motor vehicles (and to that extent I guess it's also like a traffic jam caused by drivers looking at the Goodyear blimp).

A few points:

(1) the term android, "automaton resembling a human being," was first used in 1727, and was then popularized in the 1950s by science fiction writers. "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" was published by (the truly visionary) author Philip K. Dick in 1968.

(2) the word "nexus," was first shown to be used in the 1600s and was subsequently used by Philip K Dick in his book (and subsequent movie, "Blade Runner") but was not used by the estate for any product or service.

(3) this is an homage to the visionary author; while the Estate needs to ensure that they protect their IP interests, this current issue is not one requiring protection.

(4) Google does have to file for a registered trademark however because they are selling a product / service that requires trademark protection (very different from the copyright protection afforded Philip K Dick's works).

The bottom line (my opinion) is that Philip K Dick's estate should say "thank you for the homage" and move on; Google should formally acknowledge the homage and move on as well; nobody is likely to affect change through the court system on this.

Yes; much comes from the case itself but unfortunately it was not reported and may be difficult for you to locate without using a paid service (West or Lexis). Here's the information in the event that you are able to look it up: Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants, P.T.S., Inc., No. CV 93 02419, 1995 WL 360309 (Bernalillo County, N.M. Dist. Ct. Aug. 18, 1994).

I just found an article that details much of the info; I'd not used this article as a source: http://www.jtexconsumerlaw.com/V11N1/Coffee.pdf

Much of the other info I found from a variety of sources (to include Wiki). Here are some:
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0305417907002550 (abstract only but "optimal drinking temperature" is 136)
http://www.eweek.org/site/news/Features/coffee.shtml ("safe temperature" of drinking coffee @ 143)

Also, note that the 7th Circuit Appeals decision mentioned in the Wiki entry above is ANGELINA AND JACK MCMAHON v BUNN-O-MATIC CORP., ET AL and has some differences from the Liebeck case.

First, the holding temperature at issue was 179, not up to 190 as in the case at hand. Second, and more important, the plaintiffs in the cited case were suing a manufacturer, not a provider; this distinction is important and was the foundation for much of Judge Easterbrook's opinion which includes:

"Start with the contention that Bunn's coffee maker was negligently designed because [...] 'at the temperatures at which this coffee was brewed and maintained the structural integrity of the styrofoam cup into which the coffee was poured would be compromised making it more flexible and likely to give way or collapse when its rigid lid is removed.' It is far from clear to us that this effect, if a substantial one, should be laid at the door of Bunn rather than of the cup's producer[...]."

Judge Easterbrook is pointing out that the manufacturer did not make the decision to design their coffee maker with full knowledge of the containers into which they would be poured; obviously McDonald's is in a different position and there is no clear conclusion that the judge would've held differently than was in the McDonald's case based on these facts alone.

Also, I was mistaken regarding the study of temperatures of coffee at other restaurants; the study was done for a different case in 1986 in Texas but the results still hold true and were reported in the WSF (as cited here: http://www.vanosteen.com/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit.htm)

I realize we've gone far astray from my initial point (the success of modifying corporate decisions via the torts system) but for years I believed the myths about this case and saw it as a symptom of what was wrong with the legal system in the U.S. The more I learned about the actual case the more I realized that I was mistaken; I take the opportunity to enlighten others about the facts if possible. I recognize that frivolous lawsuits exist but do not feel that this is one of them. Ms. Liebeck died in 2004 after contending with not just the "incident" but also many jokes unjustly made at her expense and I think that's a shame.

While I don't feel that your derisive "blah blah blah" was necessary I appreciate the opportunity to "debunk" another myth.

"Standard serving temperature" implies that this would be a reference temperature against which temperatures at other restaurants would be compared; but McDonald's served their coffee at a higher temperature than their peers.

In preparation for the trial, the plaintiff measured temperatures at 18 restaurants and 20 McDonald’s, and “McDonald’s was responsible for nine of the twelve highest temperature readings.”

The McDonald's QA Manager testified that the corporation realized that burns would occur, but maintained the "holding temperature" of 180-190(1) of its coffee because their research indicated customers buy coffee on their way to work or home and so wanted the coffee to be at an appropriate temperature up to thirty minutes later.

Hardly a "standard" nor an appreciation for consumers well-being.

--------

(1) by comparison the average holding temperature coffee at home is 135-140

I've wondered for some time (and often aloud, but nobody has ever responded) as to why more software updates aren't done via P2P?

Benefits:

(1) It's more efficient for everybody (I would imagine that bandwidth for folks like MS / AVG / even SourceForge would be lower by at least a magnitude of ten)
(2) It further legitimizes P2P
(3) It forces ISP's hand in treating bittorrents like all other traffic

While I appreciate that the tin-hat-wearers may believe that the MPAA / RIAA wouldn't want such a move I wonder if there are technical aspects of which I'm unaware?

Although it wasn't a fine, McDonald's changed its business practices when sued for the dangerous temperature of their coffee. While the case has been the butt of many, many jokes the jokes (and vitriol) are primarily based on misinformation.

Between 1982 and 1992, over 700 people had been seriously burned by McDonald's coffee that was brewed at a temperature that was not fit for drinking; at the time they were serving coffee at a temperature of 180-190F, a temperature that can result in third-degree burns in as little as two seconds. They had already paid claims as high as $500,000 for burns resulting from these high temperatures but had apparently done nothing to change their procedures to prevent future injuries.

Enter 79-year-old Ms. Liebeck and the infamous "coffee lawsuit." In 1992 she purchased a cup of coffee at a McDonald's drive-thru; placed the cup between her knees; and removed the lid to add cream and sugar. The cup slipped, spilling the coffee onto her cotton sweatpants which absorbed the hot liquid, resulting in serious burns.(1) This brief exposure to the coffee resulted in burns over 16% of her body, 8% of which were third-degree burns requiring skin grafts on her groin, buttocks, and thighs. She was in the hospital for eight days as the result of these injuries.

She requested $20,000 from McDonald's to cover her medical bills (which were $11,000) but McDonald's only offered $800. After filing suit a third-party mediator advised settlement of $225,000 but McDonald's refused. At trial the jury found Ms. Liebeck partly responsible for her injuries (20%) with McDonald's liable for the remaining 80%. She was awarded $160,000 ($200,000 less 20%) for compensatory damages (actual damages plus injury and harm) as well as $2.7M in punitive damages (intended to punish the harming party). The jury came up with the punitive damages amount based on two day's sales of McDonald's coffee throughout the franchise.(2) The jury's intention was to send McDonald's a message in an attempt to get them to change their business practices.

It worked. Days after the verdict the coffee served by the same McDonald's location was twenty degrees cooler. Additionally the restaurant now adds cream and sugar to the coffee for you at the drive-thru, mitigating the risk of a repeat incident.

Unfortunately this "example" of how to change corporate behavior has served as a rallying cry for corporate interests. When it's the businesses that control media spin it can become difficult for individuals to properly position stories that are "pro-consumer."

I agree that $16M is unlikely to affect change at Comcast (at least to the extent that their customers would like) but feel that it's a step in the right direction. I'm one of the "affected" customers here and will take my $16 and move on; nothing would preclude me from filing suit if they were to recommence (or continue?) their behavior in the future.

--------

(1) Despite common belief to the contrary, Ms. Liebeck was not the driver of the car. She was a passenger. Additionally, the driver, her grandson, actually pulled the car over and came to a stop to allow Ms. Liebeck to carefully remove the lid. She had taken what many would consider to be the steps of a "reasonable" person.

(2) On appeal the punitive award was reduced to $480,000 and the parties eventually settled out of court for an amount presumed to be in the neighborhood of $600,000.