So how about we just not allow Steve Jobs to hold any Apple stock?

Nothing I said suggests that Steve Jobs should not be allowed to hold any Apple stock. Apple shareholders should benefit if the fortunes of Steve Jobs' are tied with their own. However, as an officer and director of Apple, Steve Jobs cannot act on proprietary knowledge in his purchases/sales of Apple stock. He is also required to notify the SEC of changes in his ownership of Apple stock. Feel free to peruse his filings.

Who else here thinks both this and non-violent drug use should be NON CRIMES because in either case there is no victim and no injury?

You think that there are no victims and no injuries caused by insider trading? How about the people at the other end of those trades? What about the former shareholder who sold stock early, not having had access to information showing that the stock was undervalued? Or how about the new shareholder who did not have the information to know that the stock was overvalued? Those who have access to proprietary information, or who are in a position to manipulate the value of an organization, have a fiduciary duty of loyalty to shareholders. Insider trading violates that duty and is a subtle, but very real, method of stealing from them. For another perspective, click here.

For some reasons, the Business Software Alliance filed their pro-affirmance amicus brief around the same time that those filing in support of Bilski, or in support of neither party, all filed. Perhaps the BSA lawyers misinterpreted that deadline requirements. Or perhaps the BSA had previously considered supporting Bilski or supporting neither party.

The BSA brief is interesting too, with positions such as:

Although the Federal Circuit sought to provide clarity through the opinion below, the early response from the Patent Office suggests that, not only was the decision based on faulty reasoning, but confusion reigns. Accordingly, even if the Court decides to affirm the Federal Circuit's adoption of the machineor- transformation test, it is critical that the Court make clear that software-implemented inventions are protected by that framework.

Both the BSA and Hollaar/IEEE briefs were filed really early for amicus briefs supporting affirmance. It will be interesting to see what others file.

It seems to me that is a different thing than the original statement, "Attorney's eyes only". . . . "Attorney's eyes only" either means what it says, or it does not.

I can't disagree with you there. What the original poster didn't mention is that "Attorneys' eyes only" means what the protective order says "Attorneys' eyes only" means. You have to look to the protective order itself to see what exceptions exist to allow outside experts to view the material.

In this case, the exception is found in paragraph 9 of the protective order (PACER access required; the cost for the document is $1.92 - goes to $0 if you don't download $10 worth of documents by the end of the year):

9. For purposes of this Protective Order, a consultant or expert shall be defined as a person who is neither an employee, agent or representative of a party, nor anticipated to become an employee, agent or representative of a party in the near future, who is not involved in the application or prosecution of patents for the party, and who is retained or employed to assist in the preparation for trial in this litigation, whether full or part time, by or at the direction of counsel for a party. The procedure for having a consultant or expert approved for access to confidential material designated as CONFIDENTIAL, HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY or HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY - SOURCE CODE under this Protective Order shalI be as follows:

a. Outside counsel for the receiving party shall (1) provide the consultant or expert with a copy of this Protective Order, (2) explain its terns, and (3) obtain the written agreement of the consultant or expert, in the form of Exhibit A hereto, to comply with and be bound by the terms of this Protective Order. Before providing information designated CONFIDENTIAL, HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY or HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY - SOURCE CODE by a producing party pursuant to this Protective Order to a consultant or expert, the party seeking to disclose the information to a consultant or cxpert shall identify the consultant or expert to the producing party in writing and provide the producing party with (a) an executed Exhibit A, and (b) a written statement setting forth the consultant's or expert's residence address, business address, employer, job title, curriculum vitae, and past or present association with any party, as well as a list of litigation matters for which the consultant or expert has provided any professional services during the preceding five years;

b. Five (5) court days following the identification specified in the preceding subparagraph, the identifying party may disclose the information designated CONFIDENTIAL, HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY or HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY - SOURCE CODE under this Protective Order to the identified consultant or expert unless the party receives a written objection to the identification, served by facsimile or electronic mail, setting forth in detail the grounds on which it is based. Failure to object within five (5) days of the identification shall be deemed a waiver of the objection. If an identifying party receives such an objection within five (5) days of the identification, the consultant or expert shall be barred from access to any information designated CONFIDENTIAL, HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY or HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY - SOURCE CODE under this Protective Order for fourteen (14) calendar days commencing with the receipt by the producing party of a copy of the executed Exhibit A and accompanying information required in subparagraph (a) above;

c. If within fourteen (14) calendar days, the parties are unable to resolve their differences and the opposing party moves for a further protective order preventing disclosure of information designated CONFIDENTIAL, HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY or HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY - SOURCE CODE under this Protective Order to the identified consultant or expert, then the confidentid material shall not be provided to said consultant or expert except by further order of the Court. Any such motion by the opposing party must describe the circumstances and reasons for objection, setting forth in detail the reasons for which the further protective order is reasonably necessary, assessing the risk of harm that the disclosure would entail, and suggest any additional means that might be used to reduce that risk. The party opposing the disclosure to said consultant or expert shall bear the burden of proving that the risk of harm that the disclosure would entail (under the safeguards proposed) outweighs the seeking party's need to disclose the confidential material to said consultant or expert.

A judge could establish a protective order which allows only the attorneys to view discovered materials, without exception. But I doubt many judges would do so (at least not intentionally). They want input from experts who can understand the technical details.

An attorney is bound by ethical standards and whatnot that a random "analyst" wouldn't be and could conceivably be disbarred (and thereby lose his livelihood) for breaching a confidentiality order. This "incentive to do the right thing" is not present with the random analyst. There may be other sanctions that would apply to both the attorney and the random analyst, but my point is that the attorney has an additional incentive to be, for lack of a better word, trustworthy.

An expert who signs off on a protective order and has access to confidential material has plenty of incentive not to violate the protective order. Being fined or imprisoned for perjury wouldn't be much fun. Plus, any use of the confidential material could lead to a lawsuit for misappropriation of trade secrets.

If the sanctions that apply to the ordinary citizen are sufficient, there would be no need for the additional obligations that attorneys are required to undertake as officers of the court.

Sorry, I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Protective orders are issues as part of the discovery process in order to establish duties that the attorneys have to the other party. Attorneys do have certain ethical duties to persons other than clients (see Rules 4.1-4.4 of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct for typical examples), but protective orders generally create new duties specific to the case.

If the outside experts you mention are not attorneys, what good does it to to hire them to review something that they aren't allowed to see?

They are allowed to review the source code. But they have to abide by the protective order too.

And having a bunch of attorneys reading a bunch of source code is a great way to get a really definitive and correct interpretation of the ramifications and effects of that source code.

One of the nice things about the U.S. is that our law schools are graduate schools with no pre-law undergraduate requirements. That means that many U.S. lawyers have an education in math, biology, physics, medicine, computer science, electrical engineering, etc. Thus, it is possible to find a lawyer who really can read and understand source code.

But even when a firm has a lawyer with the right background and experience, it is common to hire an expert to provide support (and possibly testify on findings). Professors with relevant expertise, but without a stake in the outcome of the case, are typically brought in to fill this role.

Even better (at least from the perspective of whoever wants to understand some bit of code, especially code that says "/* you're not expected to understand this */"), the organization itself can be deposed under FRCP Rule 30(b)(6). The lawyers provide notice to the organization that it is being deposed in order to explain the workings of various pieces of source code. The organization then has to provide people who can explain the workings of the identified pieces of code.

Of course, it still helps to have a lawyer who knows enough technology to be able to ask the right questions and who can understand the answers (or know when the answers are obtuse). Otherwise, you could end up with an six hour explanation of how a linked-list works.

Just like a software developer can provide a detailed critique of the Criminal Code and the Income Tax Act...

You don't have to be a lawyer to read statutes and cases and have an opinion regarding the law. Statutes and cases have their own vocabulary and historical nuances that can lead to some opinions being misguided (e.g., tax protestors who argue that income tax is unconstitutional or illegal are severely misguided). But, a lot of policy implications can be readily understood and fairly critiqued, at a surprisingly detailed level. Legal nuances can also be learned without committing to three years of general legal study. I once had a fascinating conversation with a software developer who, in the course of expressing his views on criminal punishment, unwittingly outlined many of the principles behind the United States Federal Sentencing (advisory) Guidelines.

And yes, their company name is a reference to what you think it is.

Palin + Tar?
Hmmmm

These are the same nutters who think we are enslaving the honey bees. No kidding. http://www.vegetus.org/honey/honey.htm

Social retards? Uh, yeah. That was me. :P

There have been many studies linking and many disproving a link between EM radiation and cancer. Even at extremely high levels, most people don't get cancer. In fact, one theory posits that exposure to low-level radiation at early stages can boost the immune system. No one can say either way for certain, because this is all scientific heresy until someone credible crunches the numbers and they are significant. This is happening all the time as science constantly evolving, but at this time 'most' don't recognize this link. Anyone who does is likely a crackpot... reads popular science, orders blueprints, that sort of thing. Now, devil's advocate, imagine the potential ramifications if some credible scientific study came out rigorously pointing to a link between even high-level EM radiation and a carcinogenic effect... The lawsuits would block out the sun. Pandemonium. Economies would fail, and people would starve. Seriously. The world economy could not afford to take that gut-check at this time. It would destroy us. So then, it would be in the best interest of the 'powers that be' to deny, discredit, obfuscate, and in any way DISPROVE a link between EM radiation and cancer. Well-heeled corporations can afford LOTS of 'science'. With as much as they've invested in cell phones, radio, radar systems... imagine asking them to turn it off? Yeah. Suddenly the link is a possibility again. Let's crunch those numbers one more time.

I would like to add to your excellent and highly accurate post, Good Citizen dangitman, as opposed to bothering with some of the idiotic and moronic criticizing posts which follow it: If Wall Street could ever come up with anything remotely as successful as Social Security (an insurance program for the majority), we would all be mightily impressed.

Instead, they keep coming up with an infinite amount of securitized financial scams (or as they call them, "instruments") to continue The Great Financialization.

The absolute best gaming experience I've had when it comes to immersion is definitely Metroid Prime. The game completely blew me away the first time I played it. It's just you, nobody else, on a planet fighting against ETs and Space Pirates while trying to figure out what the heck is going on. Retro Studios never made the game too unlike the previous games in the series as well; this isn't an FPS, it's a First Person Adventure. The puzzles were innovative, expansions were well hidden and fun to find, and the controls, while awkward, worked surprisingly well. The graphics were absolutely beautiful to look at; your HUD would show things like raindrops hitting it or condensation appearing from steam/heat!

The reason why I think the game was so immersive was this: Retro never made players care about the story! The game went on without any real "story" happening. You had to figure out for yourself where to go next, how to beat certain enemies, and everything! You had to "scan" items and enemies to figure out parts of the story and how to defeat enemies. The game gave you this feeling like the world in the game was going on without you animal-crossing style; go to an area one time and something happens, go there another time and different enemies/sequences are present. I was only a pre-teen when I played the game first, so you can imagine how thrilling it was to watch a metroid breaking out of its casing to attack me, and after wondering where to go next for a split second a space-pirate jumps through the window and attacks me.

If more shooters want to be successful, make the design choices that Metroid Prime made.

Can't you hear how they are crying out "No, his antenna is too small. It will never carry low enough frequencies. Die, you small antenna!"?

Why do you believe Kubuntu is a terrible KDE distro?

What would you call a "good" KDE distro?

I've used both Mandriva and Kubuntu...