I am actually really looking for an answer to the question posed. Not trolling. Though maybe you mean poetmatt? The question is, would this trial settle the issue for good, or are there other legal time-bombs awaiting developers?

If the APIs turn out to be non-copyrightable, does this mean we can really all enjoy/suffer Java for free?

I think I found a loop hole. They have to discard all the failed attempts of the entanglement swapping (75% of the time). Not to mention a 4.4% efficiency of even getting photons through the long fiber to Victor. I don't have Nature Physics, but from the preprint on arxiv.org:

"The probabilistic nature of the Bell-state projection with linear optics decreases the success probability to 1/4." page 15

Though a more honest way to say this might be, that only when Alice and Bob have correlated photons, would it be possible to get the entanglement swapping to work. If we tried to swap the entanglement based when Alice and Bob did not get correlations its clear it would never happen. Their interpretation relies on a strange post selection of the data. If their experiment checked to see if Alice and Bob first got a correlation, and only then tried to do entanglement swapping, I think the experiment would not appear to violate any sense of causality. Its only because they throw away 75% of the data (the failed attempts at entanglement swapping) that the experiment appears magic. I think those 75% contain most of the uncorrelated results from Alice and Bob as there is a reason those attempts failed. Ie. its not chance if Alice and Bob have already performed the measurement. Its only "chance" if we pretend that we don't know.

In the description, they write "by exploiting the corrosion-resistance of copper with the conductive properties of steel". But this is copper clad *telecom* wire, so at megahertz or higher frequencies there will be no current in the steel core. Its all in the skin (effect) and the wire will have just the same conductivity as copper wire, minus any magnetic losses. I assume that they have made nice controlled impedance telecom wire, which is, to my knowledge, something cool and new. Kudos to the company that made it!

While the supply of Bitcoins is limited. There is no reason I see, that someone else could not come up with another bitdollar, bitpeso, digifranc, or other such digital "money" with the same properties. In this sense, these digital monies are not unlimited, and I fail to see why they would have any inherent value. With raw metals, like gold there are alternatives too, paladium, platinum, silver... But the periodic table, chemistry and physics have assured us that there is a limit to the alternatives. The US dollar is backed by a giant military and the strategic resources it controls (also limited). What makes Bitcoins worth having, when tomorrow someone could invent another digital currency? Is this just a popularity contest? What value could you add to bitcoins to make them unique or worth having?

The study is highly suspect. Because it looks like the area they are referring to is the temporal lobe. This is the area involved with hearing and I would not be surprised if putting a muted telephone on one side of the head would increase my brain activity as I strain to hear something. They need to show that if they move the antenna, that the increased activity follows it. This would have been very easy to do, but was not done. Why?

from http://www.neuroskills.com/brain.shtml:
Temporal Lobes: Side of head above ears.
Functions:
        * Hearing ability. Memory acquisition. Some visual perceptions
        * Categorization of objects.

OK. I will bite even though I will most likely regret it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Elemental_abundances.svg

Shows that lead (Pb) is roughly 10000 times more abundant than gold (Au) in the earth's crust.

What reference were you using? Trollpedia?

The technology is there. I think it is time we finally start to encrypt information stored on web servers. Keeping the contents of email on servers encrypted is fairly do-able. But keeping facebook information private is a bit of an oxymoron. Someone could also produce a USB key which decrypts data (assuming a public/private key system) so that the private keys of individuals could be somewhat limited in how many copies need to be made. Still the headers of email, would be public, but if the account is anonymous and at least one reliable anonymizing mail relay is used, the system could work. I myself don't see my privacy as a big deal. Its the fact that the total privacy of all individuals is being compromised. That means any goverment or corporation able to access and search the data of Google or Facebook could quite easily suppress dissent or stop negative publicity. The email accounts of journalists are especially a concern.

For social networks, I think the solution, is to decentralize the system, encrypt it, and open source it, so it cannot so easily be searched and stored. Diaspora, while still in alpha, seems like a good direction to go. If the user's data is stored encrypted, then the user could issue and revoke public keys associated with the data. In this way "friends" could be managed instead of a simple binary flag in a centralized type system. The issuance and revocation of public keys would also allow for white lists to finally be made to combat spam. If one large internet mover (hear me Google?) started this initiative, then it would start to gain some real traction.

No system is perfect, but the the current system can be very much improved upon.