This is probably going to get negative mod points tossed at me but WTF. Someone has to argue for our system of law...

Our system of law only works when both sides of the argument are on equal footing. Neither side can produce "surprise" evidence without the other side having an opportunity to challenge either the results or the procedure to get the results. Both sides have a duty to see that all the evidence available is presented to the opposing side to allow for that challenge.

Imagine if the shoe was on the other foot here. Imagine if the prosecution had evidence which showed the defendant is innocent. It is just as much a crime to withhold that discovery as is the case in this instance.

Refusing the other side the discovery they are due in a court of law, no matter which side does it, is cause IMO for the case to go against the offending side. It is the same as spoliation, the willful destruction of evidence.

First off, making jokes like that are without taste and quite dangerous in airports especially ones to the US. They post signs all over about it. Anyone stupid enough to joke like that should be sent packing given the number of attempts made post 9/11. If they don't take it seriously, and it turns out to be a valid threat, then the press would have a field day with DHS. Stupid is how I see these people...

Hardly anything new came to light in the NYT article; the only real revelations of late have been from Apple executives themselves, as they dig their hole deeper and deeper.

That and the fact that Apple still has done nothing to correct the issue regardless of their current statements. That is what I get out of it. Also, NYT is far more read than wired or any of the other trade rags. Getting this into the "mainstream" is what Apple fears because once NYT has it, it gets echoed all around the world and Joe Blow may, just may, start thinking about how that gizmo in their hand was made.

it wasn't that long ago that they put in those hand scanners at the grocery store that let you scan the items in your cart as you put them in and then do nothing more than swipe your credit card as you walk out the door. I'd bet a fair number of checkout clerks lost their jobs over that one.

Nope. They are the ones standing at the heads of these mechanical monstrosities preventing the pissed off customers from beating them to pieces.

Personally, I never use the silly things and will ask for a human if they don't have a human line open. If not, I will leave that store and go elsewhere letting the management know why.

And publicly admitting guilt. One thing about corporate out of court settlements is the "no admission of guilt" they get the victims to sign. No, for once I want to see a corporation that settles admit their wrong.

Yes, the MPAA and RIAA damage estimates to copyright infringement are ideas of sheer lunacy, but attitudes like yours are just as polarizing i.e., it's acceptable to share and distribute films from mega corporations because they are mega corporations.

Let's see, the copyright cartels have managed to get countries like Canada to implement a charge on blank media with the idea that that blank media will be used for piracy. So they have been not only paid for the infringement that may have occurred but for legitimate content they do not own. So how does your statement hold water there?

Not defending Ron Paul on this but...

How about Iran can have a nuclear bomb. Really? you think that's a good idea?

Considering that the US is the only nation on Earth to use nuclear weapons against another nation, twice, do you think it is a good idea that the US has nuclear arms?

While it should be illegal for any patent licensing agreement to be covered by a NDA

Why do patent licence deals have to be public knowledge? I might not want my competitors to know what technology I'm using in my product.

WTF?!?!? Your "competitors" already know your technology BECAUSE you filed for the patent. That is the whole point of patents. You tell everyone what your invention is and everyone agrees that you get exclusive rights to it for a limited time.

seeing as we already know that the patents are bogus

No you don't. All you know know is what are in the B&N case. They may not be all patents. But in the end even those are in fact patents legally granted to MS, and no matter how "bogus" you consider them you can't just violate them outright and not expect to be sued.

I see a better way around it. Do what Red Hat was trying to do in Delaware with SCO and have Google take the Android code base to a judge and have it declared "non-infringing". That ought to wake Microsoft up.

Then maybe you shouldn't be biting the hand that feeds you. It is the only solution to a court order that is impossible to comply with fully. What is to say that the removal of the offending word won't cause another equally offending (in the eyes of this company) word from popping up automatically? No, the only real solution is to delist them totally to comply with the order totally.

I'd hate to be the poor bastard in Downtown Crossing with the beard and backpack about to get the body cavity search...