I note you're not willing to pay for the security clearance process yourself.

In your vision of a "free market," what would prevent large players from buying legislation?

The web is a pull medium. Barring advertising and the like, nothing crosses your screen that you didn't already indicate some interest in.

One slight problem with this idea...

Why would you?

People only contribute to articles on topics that interest them (witness all the video game and anime/manga articles). How many topics are there that actually interest you, but for which you hold no bias?

I'm neither a Dish subscriber nor do I watch Fox programming (or, if I do, I wait until it's available on DVD/streaming regardless). In comparison to Netflix and the like, current DVR offerings from cable and satellite companies (the ones who carry these networks) are a poor substitute.

Let them blow their legal budgets on rearranging deck chairs on sinking ship. That in and of itself is both more entertaining and less expensive to watch than either company's offerings.

We're talking about a broadcast network and a digital broadcast satellite system. The internet is not involved.

The Betamax decision hinged on the VCR having substantial non-infringing uses, specifically time-shifting (watching a program at a time other than its broadcast).

This particular feature has no non-infringing use.

This assumes that the wasted product is worth more than the packaging it's stuck in. In other words, this assumes that the winner is the product manufacturer rather than the container manufacturer.

General Ripper claims prior art.

Because people are keeping their natural teeth longer, and old people have trouble squeezing things. Increasing the diameter of the nozzle reduces the necessary pressure to get the same mass flow, making it easier for people with reduced manual strength to get some out of the tube.

What's a little asbestosis between friends?

What did you expect from a company whose primary source of income is advertising?