I disagree.

Selling medicine for your usual price is not exploiting a misfortune. The customer might be only slightly ill, or might be deathly ill. It does not normally have any bearing on the price. a generic drug sold to a person who is dying could cost 50 cents. Whereas totally elective procedures such as laser hair removal cost thousands of dollars.

If the supplier took note of the fact that you're going to die if you don't get your medicine right now and jacked up the dispensing fee to exploit your vulnerability then yes, this would be EVIL.

Raising the price of medicine to exploit a disaster or local outbreak would be bad (and in particular where there is no actual shortage, but you are simply withholding the supply for more money). In fact it would be illegal in many areas.

However, yes, to a certain extent many people do consider the for profit selling of medicine to be immoral, and they do see a moral hazard, and that is why those people support socialized universal healthcare.

funeral directors who raise their prices in response to the the degree which the death was unexpected would be exploiting misfortune. Funeral directors who charge their usual fixed rates at the normal market rates, are simply providing a service. Someone has to do it.

The price of Whitney's music didn't increase because of a shortage of bandwidth. There was no actual market justification for it. It was an attempt to exploit the free advertising caused by her death. It is exploiting her misfortune for personal gain.

By the time that happened, the country is already having a major crisis and is probably on the brink or already engaged in a civil war. It would take a lot more than a petition by a few concerned citizens.

But yes you are right.

I would say that trying to profit off the pain and suffering of others is evil. It creates a moral hazard. Record labels will be incentivized to murder their artists to boost profit.

Theoretically the citizens can petition for anything they want to and the government can simply ignore it. The opposition can't succeed in a vote of non-confidence unless they get a majority of MPs in parliament to agree, which they wont, since the majority is already in power.

so if the first happened it would achieve nothing. And the 2nd will not happen in a majority government unless the PM loses the confidence of his own party. The confidence of the opposition is moot.

The validity of a patent may depend on ones interpretation of the law.

One might be arguing that congress or the constitution never intended to give a private party the power to wreak havoc on the entire telecommunications and thus any interpretation of law which ends in that effect must be erroneous somehow. Perhaps you are demonstrating the possible harm that an over liberal interpretation of "non-obvious" could cause.

you might also be going for jury nullification.

In any case the opposing side has the right to object to the introduction of this evidence, if they believed it was irrelevant. The burden of establishing relevance is on the side wishing to introduce it. The court is responsible to ensure the trial proceeds efficiently and the judge would also question the introduction of any seemingly irrelevant evidence, even if the opposing side didn't. Occasionally testimony is given, only to be excluded AFTER THE FACT due to non relevance as well, because sometimes it is impossible to gauge the relevance until after the evidence is actually heard.

thank you for ruining the Borg for me.

People who were convicted of "crimes" we now understand should never have been crimes in the first place should not be given "pardons" they should be given APOLOGIES.

An Apology should fully strike the conviction and even the indictment from the criminal record and furthermore should open the door for a lawsuit for reparations.

Because nobody knows how the tides work!

It is irrelevant how many square miles exist: the question is the distance of the customer from the nearest point of presence of the ISP and how many customers are served from each POP.

the Greater Toronto Area alone, has over 3 times the population of all of estonia concentrated in an area about 1/7th the size.

When you add in the population of the immediate vicinities of the largest cities in Canada
Toronto 5.5 Million
Montreal 3.9 million
Ottawa, 1.1 million
Edmonton 1 million
Calgary 1 million
Vancouver 2.4 million
Quebec City 750 thousand

you have over 50% of the population of the entire county living in cities with large populations larger than 50% of the entire country of Estonia. And much denser than Estonia's average population density.

I think he's also famous for being the target of the first assassination attempt against a US President.