There's a some more background in this article from the New Yorker. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/05/31/100531fa_fact_groopman?currentPage=all

Exactly what I was thinking. I'd much rather have a few cents deducted from my Google Subscription account for each article I'd like to read in multiple publications than have to pay full price to subscribe to each of the publications when they put their content behind the inevitable pay wall. The alternative, which is never seeing the content, would be very satisfying. Google is becoming quite the content aggregator these days, isn't it...

Sorry, try this link: https://pacer.uspci.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/menu.pl

That's a good point. I did want to point that that PACER doesn't charge for "every page downloaded from it." It caps it at something like 20 pages per document. So, assuming my 20 page cap is correct, if I pull up a 25 page memo of law, I only get charged for the first 20 pages.

I used to think that too, but you're confusing PACER and CM/ECF. If you go to PACER, you can search all districts at the same time. https://pacer.login.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/login.pl

It depends on the jurisdiction. Some courts scan the initiating documents (the complaint, corporate disclosures, etc.) More importantly, it's always the court that posts decisions and orders, which is, arguably, the most important part of what's available on PACER/ECF.

Haven't RTFA, but it seems that this is more complicated. Accepting your argument that an IP address identifies a Network (really an endpoint as indicated below), and the fact that multiple computers may reside on that network, you have to also accept the fact that more than one operating system may be running on each of the computers located on that network (or even more than one OS per computer). Therefore, since the plaintiffs are looking to recover damages from Microsoft, you can't say that you are entitled to a damages award just because you were assigned an IP address on a given date, and that IP address is reflected in Microsoft's logs for that date. What may really have happened is that multiple Win OS boxes may have been affected, or none at all (if the network was populated by computer running only OS X or Linux). You can't look at the IP address and determine what was happening on the network behind that IP, and that should be the reason why using an IP address as a basis for determining damages is flawed.

Here's a thought: Why not structure the pricing differently? Give it away for free or ~$50 to those who want it only to read the paper, and the device is locked down for those users. If you want to read other sources (Gutenberg, other publishers, etc.) you have to pay full price for the device? That way, the barrier to entry for people who might not otherwise want the devise is low, but it is still attractive to those who understand the benefit of an unlocked device.

That's about to change. See this product, for example. It does crowns and veneers the same day. Ultimately, it will likely drive costs down.

Huh. I feel much better now. Thanks for the clarification.