That's an understandable point of view. However, like it or not, if it's become part of our culture, you won't get much sympathy for an attempt to effectively destroy it, and that most definitely isn't what copyright laws were intended for. Don't worry about your reputation, even if you're right that it's potentially damaging (which I highly doubt), you can always say "I was young and foolish." People have been saying that and getting away with it for far worse things than making a game that others still show an interest in after many years.

Yes, I am. If you've got a valid patent, and hundreds of licensees, you wouldn't be able to go after one infringer, just on the off chance that you get a crazy judge and have to pay back the licensees before you even get the chance to appeal.

No, there really shouldn't be, that would be worse than the current situation. That would mean that to go after any infringers at all would be financial Russian roulette, no matter how valid the patent may be.

Do you? Or is it simply in your best interests to do so, since they would otherwise be allowed to use force to get what they need?

If hotmail.com was sold and became a p0rn site

If I move and don't tell anyone, people who are looking for me will continue to ring the doorbell at my old address. If I want people to be able to find me, I should let them know I am going to move. But that's not the same thing. This isn't about what will be happening on the old address, but about what has already happened on the new address.

...if the previous residents of my house liked to decorate the windows with pentagrams? Or do people understand that different people live at the same address at different times?

If porn were illegal, there would not be a story about banning it. If porn is legal, what part of using it to pay the bills isn't?

Their FAQ reads:

The White House plans to respond to each petition that crosses the signature threshold, which you can view on the Terms of Participation page. In a few rare cases (such as specific procurement, law enforcement, or adjudicatory matters), the White House response might not address the facts of a particular matter to avoid exercising improper influence. In addition, the White House will not respond to petitions that violate We the People’s Terms of Participation. In some cases, a single response may be used for similar petitions.

If they do not plan to respond to petitions, they should drop the claim that they plan to. This says nothing about a timeframe, though, so it is possible that they do plan to respond to the petitions, but not until we're in the year 2525.

From the summary:

Unless Xiaomi intends to develop a replacement for the Linux kernel, they need to make their modifications public.

From the article:

unless Xioami wants to develop a replacement for the Linux side of Android, they need to make their kernel modifications public.

The article is correct. Xioami only needs to make their kernel modifications public. The fact that there happens to be a GPL program in Android (the kernel) doesn't mean all of Android is tainted by it. Showing whatever else they've modified is nice, but not required.

Er... No. That's one thing that he gets right. How widespread use of SSL is should be irrelevant. If a patent is crap, and there are less than ten people worldwide claimed to violate the patent, the fact that the patent is crap should still get them off the hook.

No, they weren't ordered to make that statement. They were ordered to make a statement that a UK court had ruled that Samsung had not copied the iPad. It is perfectly clear from their legal judgement page that the UK court had done so. It was a dick move, and I'm not sorry they're called on it, but I don't see how it fails to comply with the court order.

14pt is a fixed size, independent of resolution. 1pt is 1/72 inch (12 points per pica, 6 picas per inch).

What definition of troll do you use? I would consider being abusive as one particular, not necessarily very effective, form of trolling. Just like the messages we both agree on as trolls, being abusive also can be done in order to get you to ignore a rational discussion and just flame me as a response. If that's the goal of the message, why isn't it a troll?

There are several things wrong with that.

• The "binding" in binding arbitration means even if someone doesn't like the result, they still can't take the other party to court.
• If this will cost Youtube money, what incentive do they have to do this?
• If Youtube makes one incorrect determination, would not they themselves become guilty of copyright infringement?

Remember, Youtube doesn't have any special legal status. Any rules that you apply to Youtube apply to everyone. If you run a blog, someone sends you a DMCA takedown notice for a comment posted on your blog, and the commenter sends a counternotice, what do you want to have to do? Leave the comment deleted? That's so wide open to abuse it's not even funny. Make a random guess whether the comment should be restored? Ditto. Pay a lawyer to look at the comment and determine whether it's likely within the bounds of the law? Why should you spend hundreds of dollars on a matter that has so very little to do with you? What other options are there but to restore the comment and leave the matter for someone else to handle?