Well bugs can be created at the code level, such as with typos or indirection mistakes, but otherwise I think your point is sound. I would still reword it to better apply TFA by saying it this way:

More interested observers ("eyeballs") can make flaws ("bugs") in every part of the development process shallow, not just code.

A more valid point can be made than what is in TFA by talking more about process transparency and documentation, in terms of making all those "eyeballs" more effective than they are now. TFA utterly fails to make any such points. Instead, they go on a diatribe against a hand-picked list of OSS projects, on the false assumption that any flaws in the example competing systems makes their own system better.
        I think the counter-point to the "shallow" rule, that better applies to the claims here, is that projects that lack "eyeballs" (i.e. proprietary projects, which automatically lack transparency to the interested consumer base) leave open the existence of "deep bugs" at every process level. If any of the few eyes deigned worthy of access to the project misses those bugs, the ability of nefarious third parties to exploit these bugs after release goes up significantly. Lack of transparency at every process level, including code, means that these bugs will be exploited before helpful interested third parties can discover them (i.e. white hats). This simple fact about disparity in process transparency makes proprietary development inherently flawed, and the "eyeballs rule" is a method of simplifying the reasoning behind this fact.

Copy rights don't exist -- they are complete legal fictions, currently designed to make sure the Disney Corporation can keep profiting from any configuration of 3 intersecting circles.

The only valid concern here is attribution rights, which are natural in a social sense, and act as a consumer protection against fraud. Plagiarism is usually defined more in terms of proper attribution than "copying", because uses of the terms with the root "copy" are so ambiguous and problematic (esp. in the digital age) as to make it unusable in enforcement, even when limited to enforcement of social norms. Quotes, citations, footnotes, bibliographies, and now hyper-links are all valid methods to lend attributions to originating sources. None of these attribution methods were used in this case, which makes finding of fault very simple.

Please don't let this debate devolve into "fair use" definitions, which are still ambiguous after centuries of contradictory court findings. Defining fair use as less than 140 characters, a few sentences, a chorus, a bar, a frame, an act, or a page are all equally subjective and ambiguous. The variety of potential valid reuse contexts are just far too great to simplify by numerical means. Copyright laws in the U.S. have always been in conflict with the First Amendment, and "fair use" has never been a sufficient work-around.

Let's talk about attribution rights and forget the copy right fiction.

I think you may have accidentally buried the lead here. All the wikileaks.org URL sub-paths are failing, except for their secure submissions page, and their home page where they plead for financial help. One of the lines on http://wikileaks.org/ says this:

"Even $10 will pay to put one of these reports into another ten thousand hands"

So I take it from this that you could probably get access to their ACTA leaks for a measly $10, and share it with 9,999 fellow Slashdotters to boot. You can request bank information for electronic transfer donations at wl-supporters@sunshinepress.org. Speaking of Slashdotters... everybody here should think deeply about this section on the wikileak.org plead page:

I would say they are perpetually suffering from the "Slashdot Effect." I would be very surprised if no one here could help them out a bit with their technical issues. This seems like an excellent opportunity to test a new International distributed cache system, kind of like what Coral Cache was supposed to be. I wonder if my local hosting company would get mad if I actually took them up one their "unlimited storage and bandwidth" offer...

No, it's not even a linear development of an existing invention -- it's the SAME invention, just done over TCP/IP now instead of the pre-ARPA network he described. Here's the part you must have missed:

"A company I worked for over 30 years ago had just such a PBX phone system. They routed phone calls along with other data over their own microwave system, leased telco lines and various other media in what looked very much like an Intranet."

This describes prior art in voice data being sent over a network of mitigated circuits. It doesn't matter whether the network is circuit switched, packet switched, or delivered on a bicycle. Voice data over (choose-any-delivery) has been done, it's obvious, it's the opposite of novel, and it has never deserved patent monopoly status.

The USPTO is supposed to work by non-subjective evidence of things like obviousness to those "skilled in the art", novelty, and exhaustive prior-art searches. It shouldn't matter who anyone agrees with.

      This is another case that shows that reality of the bureaucracy inverts the stated ideals: these judgements within the USPTO are completely subjective, based on lack of effort toward finding prior art, and most often completely wrong in favor of validating patents for old and obvious "ideas." They are far more interested in handing out synthetic monopolies than protecting the public [domain] interest.

The data has to get there in some form, whether in UDP or TCP packets, so any need to resend does affect session latency. One way to work around packet drops in games is to send absolute positions instead of motion deltas, but that takes more data and affects transmission speed. Latency IS affected.

Another related issue is any ISP can suddenly decide to privilege their own VoIP service packets in congestion cases, over any other latency or drop sensitive data, like voice chat or other non-ISP VoIP services. Network Neutrality affects fairness in all forms of competition online.

"It's foolhardy to use this statistic to infer that American firms are losing ground to foreign competitors because with patents, it’s important to consider quality, as well as quantity."

It is also foolhardy to infer that ANY of these patents are worth spit, domestic or otherwise, given the quality of modern USPTO examinations. The 51% number is interesting, in that it shows how the Clinton-era push for saving the doomed American economy by policing IP rights around the world was doomed from the start. The nations who went along with the scam are now fighting back by collectively gaining more patents than domestic sources.