No, it just means Microsoft will be able to plausibly sue over every manifestation of foot-controlled computing. And with patent case law strongly favoring a wide interpretation of a patent's coverage and narrow interpretation of prior art, they'll likely win. Wait, my first "No" is incorrect, then.

I've not seen evidence of the "wide interpretation" of patent claims you're talking about, but I could be convinced if you had some evidence.

Also, it's important to note that prior art isn't the only limiting factor on viability of patent claims. In particular, non-obviousness is important. With the KSR ruling, the Supreme Court actually introduced the notion that the test for non-obviousness should incorporate a broader understanding of how practitioners of an art solve problems. The upshot is that it's more difficult for inventors to claim that a reasonably skilled practitioner of the art involved in their field wouldn't have come up with the same solution.

"Somehow, Arrington's version of the story smells a lot like half-truths."

Arrington's version of just about any story is going to smell like a lot of half-truths. He's monumentally skilled at drawing attention to himself, but he makes his reputation and his money off of confrontation, so it's no surprise that the CrunchPad project went down in flames. It's amazing that after making such a hash of the project, he still has the balls to tell actual tech leaders in the Valley how they should be running their businesses.

Sure, Rathakrishnan comes off sounding half-baked, but the fact that Arrington did business with him speaks volumes about Arrington's business acumen. The public finger-pointing is in keeping with Arrington's reality TV/daytime talk show style. It doesn't matter whether it's truth, fabrication, or idle speculation, as long as it draws visitors.

Most Air Force critters aren't pilots. Plus, Air Force Para-Rescue as well as Forward Air Controllers are specialized grunts who happen to work for the Air Force. The military is full of weird situations like this. For example, the Army operates 119 vessels (we're not talking about inflatable rafts here).

Please read the actual patent claims themselves before declaring prior art. The fact that the Slashdot headline boldly proclaims "Microsoft Patents Foot Computing" doesn't mean that the patent covers every manifestation of foot-controlled computing. Every single time a patent is discussed in Slashdot, we go through the same song and dance about how there's prior art. And yes, I know it's Slashdot and nobody actually reads the primary sources, but jeez, it gets old.

For a readable primer on how the US patent system works, read Schechter and Thomas' Principles of Patent Law

I suppose it's foot-dragging when you want the patent to be granted, and thoroughness when you don't want it to be granted.

That's the bedrock of trademark law. Here's a classic example from my neck of the woods: A little organic fast-food place called "McDharma's" was sued by McDonald's. McDonald's successfully argued that visitors might be confused and think that because of the "Mc" appelation and the fact that the place served fast food, consumers would potentially be unsure as to whether it was associated with McDonald's or not. Furthermore, if McDharma's made boatloads of money by trading on this confusion, they would be running afoul of trademark law, which is designed to protect consumers from unscrupulous businesscritters.

When someone uses the phrase "It's on like Donkey Kong," there isn't any confusion about what we're talking about. Has anyone else used it in commerce? I don't know of any examples where they have. So Nintendo might be able to trademark this one, as counterintuitive as it sounds. You and I can say "It's on like Donkey Kong" until the cows come home. We can write it, make fun of it, etc., just like we do with any other corporate tagline. We just can't use it to sell something else that is confusingly similar to Donkey Kong.

Then by definition shouldn't Wikipedia be out of operation already, because nobody cares to use it?

It's really only useful for shit no one cares about.

There are boundaries to speech that involve direct legal consequences: libel, slander, trade secret laws, state secrecy laws, etc.

Then how do you explain open source? There is no financial incentive, yet works are free to everyone and they benefit society.

Open source licenses can be used in situations where the licensor wants direct monetary gain. Think of Red Hat distributing GPL'd software – customers pay Red Hat to take the hassle out of putting all the pieces together and making sure they all work properly. It's in Red Hat's interest to contribute to the GPL'd software they sell, because they directly benefit.

Open sourcing software also is used for indirect gain. Many contributors burnish their credentials by contributing source code, which helps raise their profile in the software industry, which helps them get better jobs, which helps them make more money.

Beyond these rationales, it's important to remember that open source licenses work within the copyright system. Copyright is what gives you the right to disallow someone else from distributing your work. It also gives you the ability to tell them how they can distribute your work, under conditions you establish. In a world without copyright, the GPL would also not exist, because you would not be able to form a contract around distribution of source code. No reciprocality could be enforced.

...pricing the product fairly.

I like that idea, but allow me to play Devil's Advocate.

What does "fairly" mean, and who determines translation of that term into actual prices? Price it too high, and the government (or whatever body decides what is fair) is helping Big Media extort consumers. Price it too low, and the government is dragging down profits, thereby dragging down stock prices, thereby adversely affecting all of those organizations and individuals who invested in the various Big Media companies.

Justice is about being fair to everyone - not the opposite.

This isn't about justice.

Tort law is about activity that does harm to one party, but does not rise to the level of criminal activity. The law in these sorts of cases is not seeking "justice" in the Old Testament, evil-deeds-must-be-punished way. It's seeking redress for a harm that has been done, not assigning guilt. When Chemical Co. X dumps pollutants into the river in violation of state law and gets sued into making payments to the victims, unless the company was criminally negligent, the goal is to assign a dollar value to the harm and essentially fix the harm. Sometimes a harm is so massive (children born with birth defects, for example) that assigning a monetary value to it seems repugnant, but it's the only practical means of efficiently obtaining resolution.

Generally speaking, plaintiffs don't go after those who can't pay. That's why in an airplane crash or building structural failure or similar event you'll hear about plaintiffs suing everyone they can find. They do so so the harms done to them can be redressed by someone; they don't really care whom. Again, it's not about intent and affixing of moral blame. It's about distributing resources as efficiently as possible, so the aggrieved party can be compensated and future damage can be avoided.

The damages awarded to a successful plaintiff also serve a signaling function to other parties who might be contemplating the same noncriminal but harmful behavior. The goal is not necessarily to enrich the plaintiff (because, as in this case, the plaintiff will never collect the awarded damages), but to show those who might be tempted to follow in the defendant's footsteps that it's a bad idea to do so.

The rich will still be able to afford enough lawyers to make sure they never loose (sic) if they are ever sued for infringement.

Wealthy individual defendant is sued by wealthy corporate interest group. Magic 8 Ball says: "Outcome is anybody's guess."