If you even just read the summary you would see that the school board is buying software which is capable of location based identification, so simple fake accounts should be easy to see through. I suppose a brother or sister in the same household might be able to pretend to be you, but beyond that, I doubt this software is that easy to fool.

Well, the fact that they are paying $13,000 per year in license fees strongly suggests that this software will give them access to information that isn't public.

But there are two separate types of infringement at issue here. First is direct infringement. This occurs when the defendant actually violated the patent him or herself. This is a strict liability offense, meaning that it doesn't matter if the defendant was aware of the patent or not, and it doesn't matter if the defendant was aware that his or her actions infringed the patent or not. And if the patent has not been declared invalid, it is presumed valid and the defendant is liable for damages even if the patent is later ruled invalid. This is well-established law and is not at issue in the Supreme Court's decision.

The other type of infringement is induced infringement. This occurs, for example when a defendant sells a product which would cause the end users to violate the patent. The defendant is not violating the patent directly. According to patent law, for a defendant to be liable for induced infringement, he or she must be aware of the patent and also aware that the usage of the product would be a violation of that patent. So the question before the Supreme Court was in the case of induced infringement, what if the defendant had a good faith reason to believe the patent to be invalid? I tend to agree with the majority here: if the patent wasn't declared invalid by a court, the usage of product would be infringing, so the defendant must have known that such usage would be infringing, since they knew of the patent. The dissenters (Scalia and Ch. J. Roberts) thought otherwise: if a patent is invalid, how can the defendant believe it to be infringed?

Federal employees? I thought they worked for Amtrack.

So 36 is the least upper bound.

Most professional sports teams copyright their games. Even tweeting the score can get you in trouble. I guess this is no different. I'm not sure why the IRS would be involved though. Do they handle copyright enforcement?

No, but selling information on how to break the law is against the law. It's called being an accessory.

Great. I'll open up a terrorism school where I teach people how to fly planes into buildings, assassinate government leaders, sabotage trains, make poison gases, bombs, and other weapons of mass destruction. I'm just teaching so it shouldn't be illegal.

And that by itself is not illegal. But, if one of your perspective students said to you: "I think your techniques might help me to beat a polygraph test for a federal government job that I'm applying for. Where do I sign up?" And you say: "Right here, just give me a deposit check for $50 to guarantee your spot in the class." then you are an accessory to fraud. And because your student has said they are applying for a FEDERAL government job, you've committed a federal felony which carries some serious prison time.

There are a lot of other things that are challenging once you're dead too, like brushing your teeth, combing your hair (and it's a real pain when it starts to fall out), and even scratching an itch. Being dead sucks, actually, and you'll have a lot more on your mind than keeping your WordPress site up to date!

No, the DMCA provides no safe harbor for anyone profiting directly from the unauthorized sale of copyrighted works, intentional or otherwise. As long as the Google bookstore gets a cut of the profit on the sale, there's no safe harbor.

Unless it's the NSA using their computers. Then it is a very serious crime.

Not only that, but if the seat is unoccupied when they're ready to close the doors, they can let a passenger on if the flight is overbooked, saving the airline both a seat on the next flight, and whatever compensation they had to offer the passenger who would have missed his flight because it was overbooked.

If you had read the article you link to (and I just did) you'd see that it does not conclude the same thing you do. Instead the article points out that it is far from a settled question on whether or not a defendant or suspect can be compelled to decrypt files. The Supreme Court has yet to deal with that issue directly, and the Circuit Courts of Appeal that have considered the issue have adopted a standard in which the government must first show they know the location and existence of encrypted data. If they've seized a suspect's phone, they certainly can know these two things, so the Fifth Amendment, under that analysis, would offer no real protection.

I just read the entire article and the author forgot one other solution: the British solution Instead of putting the burden on app developers to include backdoors, or on Google to block apps that don't, put the burden on end users to turn over their keys to police when asked. I'm not saying I like this solution, but it is a solution the author of the article didn't consider. If you make the sentence for non-cooperation long enough, it doesn't really matter if the police find what they're looking for: they can just lock you up for not handing over the keys.