This case deals in the realm of copyrights, not patents. It's important to note that this is also the rule in the U.S. - neither ideas nor systems/processes/procedures can be copyrighted. The problem, however, is drawing the line between "ideas" (which aren't protected by copyright) and "expression" (which is protected by copyright). As in many areas of law, there is no easy way to determine what exactly is an idea and what exactly is an expression. That's what this case dispute's hinges around. In conclusion, not allowing copyright protection for ideas is nothing new and is absolutely not newsworthy. [DISCLAIMER: I am NOT a lawyer, and I am NOT offering legal advice.]

Then you would potentially face penalties for spoilation of evidence in which case you could potentially face imprisonment and a jury would be permitted to "assume the worst." Good job. (Note: I am NOT a lawyer and I am NOT offering legal advice)

You do realize that we're talking about college textbooks here, right? The library isn't going to store 100+ copies of the same book for everyone to use. And a lot of the time, you can't simply check out a coursebook for an entire semester - it's seen as unfair to other students (and people who aren't taking the course but may need to use the book). Amazon seems to have adopted a pretty reasonable solution, as many schools already have textbook rental programs of their own. Now, you can rent the book in digital format, which is going to be very convenient for obvious reasons.

Michael Bolton: "You think the pet rock was a really great idea?" Tom Smykowski: "Sure it was. The guy made a million dollars."

Motorola just posted a $89 million loss for Q1. However, they sold a good bit of Xooms: 250,000 to be precise (recall that some estates predicted they would sell less than 15,000 of the devices). http://www.mobileburn.com/news.jsp?Id=14488

The article says that the researcher's developed a "novel" method. However, I'm pretty sure the Salem Witch Trials used this first. If the majority called "Witch!" off to the fires she went.

Discovering the Higgs Boson would be a huge confirmation of the Standard Model, but it seems like the only reason popular culture cares about it is because of its stupid nickname. Can we just agree to stop calling it "The God Particle?"

$7 million FEDERAL dollars to give these kids iPad 2s, while some inner-city schools in Detroit can't even afford teachers. Ridiculous.

By having these drug laws, we provide incentive for criminals to circumvent them. It's no surprise that these drug rings have used more sophisticated methods to smuggle their products into the U.S. The more we ramp up "protecting" our population from drugs, the more drug lords ramp up their methods of importing drugs. Now that these methods exist, there's no reason why terrorists can't use it to piggyback dangerous devices. In summary, add another "+1" to the long list of negatives stemming from our War on Drugs.

FTA: "ITC Judge Paul Luckern on Jan. 24 agreed with the companies on both issues." The first judge was a judge on the ITC. Essentially we have a judge reviewing his own court's decision. It's not like the ITC is trying to reverse a federal Court of Appeals or something along those lines.

Honestly I've never even heard of the Slingbox before. But it looks really cool. I might have to pick one up, thanks.

It seems like it would be difficult to determine whether a Chinese company is using pirated software, unless there is some term in the software's EULA which requires all corporate entities to register their products (which there very well could be). But even with that potential exception, it can't be assumed that the company is using a Microsoft product - there are a ton of various (some free) spreadsheet editors that the foreign company could be using. Furthermore, a Chinese company is outside of the US's jurisdiction and won't be subject to discovery proceedings and we can't subpoena any witnesses from the company itself. While I definitely think this law is a good thing - and that we shouldn't allow foreign companies to unfairly cut costs by stealing software - the practical implications of this law don't seem as massive as initially presumed.