They think it is invalid and yet use it as a reference in multiple patents? If they want to use it without paying a license fee, file a declaratory judgment suit claiming invalidity. Don't just use it and then act pissed off when the patent holder comes asking for some compensation.

Anyone else notice the large number of forward citations by Microsoft itself? They were clearly on notice of this patent, and Windows Phone and the tiled surface interface pretty clearly does exactly what claim 1 requires. Setting aside arguments of validity, does it really seem like Microsoft is behaving very ethically by doing exactly what the claim requires and not licensing (or outright purchasing) the patent, while they were very much on notice of its existence?

1. Take out battery 2. Throw phone into body of water.

OR tie all the students together like they do in urban elementary schools!

Really? This is insightful? You people just really be high to think that back in 1787 everybody was just sitting around being like "heheheheh yes Mr. Burns, we'll write all these laws so that the plebeians can't understand it and will have to hire us lawyers! We'll all be rich!" Lawyers are there to help people when their legal rights are threatened.

Agreed. If this is supposed to be a news site, at least present things as news articles, not as unqualified statements of opinion.

Yes, because lawyers can raise the rights of others on their own. They're not hired by patent holders at all. Any person is able to represent themselves 'pro se.'

Theoretically, yes, looking at the text of Art 1, sec 8, Congress could completely do away with the patent system in its entirety. They also are supposedly granted the power to completely do away with all federal courts except for the Supreme Court, though this interpretation has been challenged numerous times. Also, as noted below, Congress is unlikely to want to strip itself of a constitutionally enumerated power, and will therefore necessitate a constitutional amendment, which will be the real obstacle.

I think an enormous non-aristocratic portion of the population would disagree. Plenty of constitutional clauses empower 'normal' people. You know, like the 14th amendment, the bill of rights, the 15th amendment, etc.

its common knowledge that the elves patented "the method of imbuing magical qualities within compositions of matter," (see M.E. pat. '108). Sauron then proceeded to manufacture the rings of power, and the Elves filed a willful infringement claim in King's Court. Meanwhile, the elves got an injunction against Sauron in a Valinor court (which is commonly known to be an easy place to get an injunction), but a Gondor court held that it was unenforceable. Settlement negotiations quickly fell apart, leading to the War of the Last Alliance in SA 3434.

20 years. 20 years. 20 fucking years from the date of filing, not 17.

the constitution may be a pretty substantial roadblock, just sayin'.

This is not Google's problem. And it makes no sense to issue a court order to Google to take down the video. Issue a court order to the uploader. How will this get their attention? What is the point? Get their attention and say "you're right Brazil we should individually pre-screen all of the millions of videos we handle every day," really? Go firebomb a US embassy because of this already.

Sure, except, in the smartphone market, by banning the sale of iPhone you also eliminate the entire iOS mobile platform. Talking mobile platforms, the MAJOR choices are iOS, Android, and BlackBerry(sortof). If you roll in Windows Mobile, that throws the calculation to 25%. If you include symbian, 20%. The various flavors of Android implemented by the makers you listed aren't exactly much of a choice.

in each market. But sure, it won't impact US consumers.