... go to the company, literally add code on a case-by-case basis to log a particular set of user's actions.

If I were running an online service I wouldn't want the FBI coming in and adding their own code to mine. If the FBI wants any of the data on my system then let them either get a subpoena that I can execute with a certain degree of deliberation (see here for one example), or a search warrant that allows them access to all of the data named therein. No need for the FBI to install special code that is potentially just as dangerous as a backdoor.

The purpose of wiretaps is to capture information that is transient in nature and therefore lost after transmission. Online services are a different beast altogether, the data being more permanent in nature and therefore better suited to the traditional subpoena / search warrant model. Building surveillance capabilities into online services is like building surveillance capabilities into people's homes: invasive and unnecessary.

Publicly traded companies have a fiduciary responsibility to their share holders to save money and maximize return on their investments. Therefore it is the right thing to do.

I would argue that avoiding taxes through legal maneuvering inconsistent with the law's intent is not an ethical means of satisfying a corporation's fiduciary responsibility to its stockholders.

More profits flow to share holders, who pay taxes on their earnings, at a higher rate than the corporation does.

Corporations are "persons" legally distinct from their owners. As such, the way it's supposed to work is that both the corporation and the stockholders are taxed for their particular incomes as individuals. If that seems unfair, then perhaps corporations should not be treated as persons under the law?

"Tax avoidance ... is legally required of publicly held corporations..."

Citation needed.

Most states make Necessities tax free, so the poor are not hurt. They can still buy the food/clothing/rent they need to survive. It is only the well-off wasting their money on luxury, non-needed goods that pay the sales tax.

The rich spend less in proportion to what they make than do the poor and the middle class, which is why sales tax is generally considered a regressive tax.

As for "luxury, non-needed goods", I feel there should be more to life than mere subsistence, and people shouldn't carry a greater tax burden just from wanting to make their lives a little less miserable. Instead of burdening these people with sales taxes, let's raise taxes on those who make their money off the backs of others.

"... as I understand it Dalvic actually implements all the java VM header profiles. You can't specify those without passing along copyrighted information."

For those of us who are not familiar with Java's internals, what are Java's VM header profiles and how are they subject to copyright protection?

Linux is written to the POSIX standard. The POSIX standard is copyright IEEE and the Open Group.

IEEE holds the copyright to the documents describing the POSIX standard. It doesn't necessarily apply to the particular items being standardized (APIs, utilities, etc.).

The very concept of a programming language that fulfills a particular need (portability, for example) is the idea. The creation of Java, and all the symbols and names of the language, is an expression of that idea.

I think you're confusing the concepts of "product of an idea" and "expression of an idea". Java is the product of a series of underlying ideas, but that doesn't make it an expression of those ideas. For the latter to be the case it should be possible to work backwards from the language to the specific ideas being expressed. Unlike a document describing the language and the rationale behind its creation, one cannot easily arrive at the underlying ideas from knowing just the language.

Besides... if Java were indeed an expression of an idea, its expression is so similar to a number of its predecessors that it would constitute an infringing derivative work.

Most likely, failure to challenge, protest, or send a counter-notice is deemed an admission of fault.

Either that, or an unwillingness/inability to fight an expensive copyright case in court.

The logical move is to actually do a study before announcing that the pesticide is destroying bee colonies.

They haven't announced that pesticides are destroying bee colonies, so your point is moot.