Did you read the claims? Because that's what defines the scope of the patent. Not the abstract or title.

What is with that URL? http://blog.netflix.com/2011/05/normal-0-false-false-false-en-us-x-none.html

You made the right move. I am a lawyer and I can tell you his inaccuracies -- both legally and, frankly, logically -- continue well beyond the first argument.

I think you've got the law right, but I don't think that'll help prove fair use here.

Taking an article that is used to generate advertising revenue and reposting it somewhere that the author will not receive any revenue from goes firmly against the "commercial value of the original work" prong of the fair use defense.

Consider the equivalent: let's say I run a "non-profit" website, hypothetically just a blog where I generate no income, and I repeatedly copy articles from behind the NY Times paywall onto my site. That's copyright infringement and is substantially depriving the NY Times of their income for the articles. I believe I would lose a fair use defense there. I think the situation is the same if I copied NY Times articles that were not behind the paywall because they would be able to show that they were losing ad revenue.

There is nothing in copyright law that prevents two people from independently copyrighting ideas they have written down. It doesn't even have to be simultaneous; just independent and without obvious copying or access.

You may be confusing copyright with patent.

A Mac is an additional device. :-)

The OP's priorities seem a little odd.

The big update of iOS 4.x is multitasking. Its far from being a "minor" update.

And since AirPlay requires the purchase of an additional device, I doubt its a high priority to the majority of ipad users.

I probably am just thinking about this too simply, but can't something go faster than the wind if it stores some of that energy and uses it later?