You are apparently unfamiliar with the first sale doctrine. Such "license agreements" date back at least a century (when book publishers tried similar things to keep people from selling used books), and have been shot down by the courts pretty much every single time.

I believe the dispute was mainly of the distribution of money.

Which is to say, just like most other church schisms.

If you agree, publicly, that the vast majority of theists aren't wingnuts, sure.

If I do, it's because that's what I see from pretty much everyone who calls themselves an atheist. I can only comment on what I see.

Perhaps you're confusing cause and effect. Maybe being a cunt magically transforms you in to an atheist.

Which is not the same thing as denying they exist. My question stands.

Do you feel manly when you make fun of people on the internet? Does it make your dog horny to see you so masculine and shit?

I'm not Christian. Never claimed to be. So stop lying about what other people have said. Atheists seem to do that a lot. Just like the wingnuts at the other end of the spectrum. Honestly, I can't tell them apart. Since I can't be bothered to take either seriously enough to actually listen to their drivel.

There is a recognized atheist church in the United States. Tax exemptions and everything. In fact, they've recently had a schism, so technically, there's two atheist churches. At least.

I'm curious. Are you saying that you can point to, say, love, beauty, or freedom? Or are you saying that they don't exist?

What a sad, empty life it would be, to live in a world without abstract concepts.

And they say atheists can't be fundamentalist extremist asshole, too.

Well, at least it wasn't Bennett Hasselton.

And while they may, indeed, somebody be able to get rid of them, it won't be for a generation or more, and that has far more to do with insurance and liability than safety.

The order isn't against any person or entity in Ireland. It is against a US company, and US employees, who can access the data from their desks in the US. Under US law, it is certainly a valid order. Under Irish law, it is not. There is a conflict that the US prosecutor (and judge) do not want to (or can't, under current law) address. No matter what Microsoft does, they will break the law somewhere.

This is a surprisingly (for the source) thoughtful account of things so far, and explains the reasoning behind the order.

I doubt you will bother to ready it, and likely won't understand it if you do, and certainly won't care, but there it is.

There are provisions that the Irish government has apparently said would be the right way to go. But the US courts are a lot more lax on standards of probably cause, apparently, and for reasons unknown, prosecutors do not want to show their cards to the Irish courts.