Audio detection isn't nearly as broken as the article pretends. Sure if all you have is a single mic, then you have no hope. OTOH, with multiple mics, you can *localize* sounds, which means you don't need to recognize the sounds of a drone, just realize that there's some noise coming from something in the air where there shouldn't be anything. With a microphone array, you can actually pinpoint sound sources much weaker than ambient noise. It's certainly not trivial, but within the realm of what's realistic (assuming there aren't simpler solutions).

At least it's no longer flying in restricted airspace... :)

Meddia is not the same thing as software, so your examples really don't apply in this case. Better examples are:

ASHTON-TATE CORP. v. FOX SOFTWARE, INC. -- NO. CV 88-6837 TJH (TX).

Lotus Development Corp. v. Paperback Software International. U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts. June 28, 1990. 740 F.Supp. 37, 15 USPQ2d 1577

The interpretation that the federal government is holding forth here is that both of these cases were adjudicated incorrectly.

If the Supreme Court fails to hear the current case, both of those previous cases are defacto overturned.

You can effectively say "goodbye" to the software industry, if companies are allowed to enforce interface copyrights. At least in the U.S.. Obviously, other countries will just ignore the U.S.'s idiocy, and continue on their merry way, and quickly surpass the U.S. in software development, just as they have in other economic areas.

Easy detection method #48:

(1) Send out a large electromagnetic pulse

(2) If it falls out of the sky, it was a drone

Another one who doesn't bother to read terms of service.

The only way to come to your conclusion is to ignore facts. You can go read the original decision and evidence which accompanied the decision. No, you don't need to be an attorney to figure this out.

No, again you can go read the decision and evidence (which includes the charges from Oracle against Google). It was one of the most open Civil cases I have ever seen.

At best a straw man, at worst complete horse shit. IBM does not run around suing people over bullshit like this, and _IF_ they had bought Sun they _Might_ have done something fools nobody but you. Fighting pretty hard to hold that delusion that Oracle is right aren't ya? Well, you did say you worked there so...

An opinion which completely ignores facts is worth very little. An opinion that counters facts and relies on events that never happened... absolutely useless.

This.

It's pretty obvious that this is a punishment for adding encryption to Android devices, and for going to SSL for all web transactions, making it much more difficult to spy, despite administrative objections.

The recommendation is clearly punitive because Google has pissed the executive off, and consistently opted on the side of data protection, and has disclosed many of the recently discovered OpenSSL and SSSL protocol flaws which made eavesdropping easier.

Your point of something being retarded is aimed in the wrong direction. "Securing" would mean that they originally owned it, but they didn't. They purchased Sun and immediately started legal actions which Sun was never going to pursue because they knew they had open sourced Java. In fact in the Google vs. Oracle case numerous messages from Sun came out expressing exactly that, which is why the first Judge ruled for Google. The Judge also understood the sheer idiocy of Oracle claiming patent and copyright on things like function names and how arguments get passed to them, and all the other crap that Oracle claimed was stolen by Google.

I still have no idea how the first decision was overturned.. oh wait.. money and Larry's personal lobby group.. nevermind.