The bill actually does touch on the style of patent litigation used by big tech companies:
But a number of voices, most with vested interests, have been scrambling to protect the trolls even with the concerns of the big trolls taken into account with the reduction of the bill's impact on "covered business methods." This part of patent law is used more by large corporate patent holders and thus opposed by the likes of IBM, Microsoft, General Electric, and Adobe.
At the time the story was fresh, it seemed likely that even if she were deemed competent, the punishment wouldn't be all that severe, very much because she wasn't likely to harm anyone else, yes. (As long as she doesn't have another roommate, anyway.)
I believe the (healthy) rationale behind the prosecution of cases where another attempt is unlikely or impossible (say the target died) is that the perpetrator has been shown to be unbalanced enough to attempt to redress one problem with murder and could potentially try to solve other problems the same way.
That being said, there aren't too many criminal justice systems that completely extricate themselves from being vengeful instruments of state violence.
As a general rule, to prevent further attempts. That counts as preventing harm!
(Although note my other post, which expands the definition to include redressal as well.)
There was a story a few years ago of an elderly lady with dementia who strangled another nursing home resident. Despite being an actual murder, it wasn't clear whether or not she'd actually be sentenced to any punishments.
The core issue I was trying to highlight is that the summary says "in all countries," which is misleading. It might be better to say "in a little over half of the countries" or even "in the majority of countries." The PISA 2012 results document uses the wording "many countries and economies" to describe the situation—never "all."
However, there's another problem with the summary sentence I quoted. The PISA 2012 results has this to say about reading:
By contrast, girls outperform boys in reading almost everywhere. This gender gap is particularly large in some high-performing countries, where almost all underperformance in reading is seen only among boys.
So the other part of that same sentence from TFS, "boys generally perform a bit better than girls, but this applies only to math," is extremely misleading due to its incompleteness, in addition to being horribly structured. (I trust you understand why this is a problem for journalistic honesty.)
TFS: "The study shows also a slight gender cap: in all countries, boys generally perform a bit better than girls, but this applies only to math."
PISA 2012 Overview: "Boys perform better than girls in mathematics in only 37 out of the 65 countries and economies that participated in PISA 2012, and girls outperform boys in five countries." (For the curious, they're Jordan, Qatar, Thailand, Malaysia and Iceland.)
The Guardian article didn't get this wrong. What the hell, submitter?