It all hinges on what intellectual property Arrington has. I mean, a web tablet... is that innovative? Really? Web only devices have been around for some time. Making an oversized PDA that only does web browsing does not equal innovation.
So if all the IP he has is trademarks that Fusion Garage is not using, well, game over. Take it as a life lesson and move on.

Obstruficates? Is that like encapsulates, or abstracts?

Where do individual authors get off thinking that their incremental improvements on the ideas of other inventors which they released out into the world as a working product get to keep other people from making incremental improvements on top of it and distributing their own products?

Where do authors get off thinking they are doing more than riffing off someone else's chord?

And where do they get off thinking the government needs to enforce a monopoly for them on these derivative ideas?

No it doesn't. Read it again... it says "Krause says Matthew Krippen advertised online and had a large clientele."

That's presumably a fact, but it doesn't say anything about advertising specifically to run pirated games.

I'm not a journalist, so I don't have an obligation to write an unbiased summary. I added my interpretation intentionally. If you want an alternative bias, just read TFA.

Doing something that should be legal, in a country that loves liberty, for profit, doesn't make it more or less wrong.

It is quite popular to make homebrew games for consoles. Just, say, google for "homebrew wii games"

Here's a

Linux distro for the Wii:

To run it, you would have to mod the console violating the DMCA.

QED.

Seriously? Are there legitimate applications for modifying an odometer other than cheating people?

There are legitimate reasons to jailbreak an iPhone, or a game console: running unsigned binaries on equipment you own.

The government shouldn't take your liberty to protect a business model.

Yes... so are you arguing that the government has a right to control how we do everything because we permit it to control some things? Where does liberty come into the equation then?

The general idea is that your right to swing your arms stops at your neighbor's chin.

The Supreme Court may have found a corporation to be a person, but I don't.

All these examples you gave are pretty weak. Disable your catalytic converter, and you have a fairly direct effect on air pollution which impacts you and your neighbors health. Roll back your odometer... there's really no reason to do that ever except to cheat someone. That's effectively interfering with an official measurement. Remove seat belts in a car... again, a safety issue.

Now, a game console. There is a legitimate purpose to doing that: running unsigned games on hardware you own (did you sign a contract saying otherwise when you bought your console?). That shouldn't be illegal, if you believe in liberty.

Well, it sounds like you have an opinion. But I'm not really sure since you didn't say anything substantive.

I understand you were correcting another poster, but if you agree that this is an issue of the government intruding on personal freedom, it shouldn't matter whether he was modifying the consoles for profit. The owners were exercising their own freedom in getting the console modified. They paid someone else to do it. That doesn't bear on the question of whether it is right to imprison someone for taking a soldering iron to some computer equipment.

So it falls on us to explain it to anyone who will listen.

Pick one person to explain it to today while you are fired up.

Where does it end? Where does it start?

Sweet baby Jesus... there are rules to rational discussions. Here's an important one: you can't just make shit up.

More charitably, you just demonstrated a particular variant of the logical fallacy known as the "slippery slope argument." You can't or won't argue on the merits, so you say this could lead to this which could lead to that made up remotely possible thing. You saved some time I guess and skipped right to making up the remotely possible thing.

Hey buddy, what do you call it when my premiums go up because *you* decided you could go without insurance?

It shifts the costs to everyone else. Is that fair? Is that the conservative way? Don't pay your fair share, and then when you get sick, screw your creditor (the hospital) and pass the costs along to the rest of society. Real nice.

The system is actually more efficient if the government administrates that. At least I will have the peace of mind that, along the way, if you made enough to pay in, you did, because you had to pay tax.

RFID is very appropriate for this. It's short range... you just need to walk your reader by the stack it will tell you if it's there or not. That is, it's a heuristic that tells you whether you need to bother looking closer, which presumably would save time.

Also, the reader + database could tell you if you are near a book which is in the wrong place, and which book it is. Then you look closer, pull the problem book for re-shelving.