Combined with the evidence destruction by Samsung, they've really been screwing this one up.
In the US, it is up to the jury to decide who is right. Not the judge.
I think it would help for you to understand the law better. In jury trials, judges determine issues of law and juries determine issues of fact. Whether or not evidence should be barred because Samsung failed to produce it (their own design they had for years) during a months-long discovery period is an issue of law determined soley by the judge.
Palm for whatever reason doesn't want to write its own software to access the iTunes library. (I think it's because they recognize how bad they've been at writing desktop software for their devices.) Palm instead has decided to improperly copy the USB Vendor ID in a way that violates agreements it's already made as a USB IF member and also violates Apple's iPod trademark. And they aren't doing it out of nobility or commitment to open access principles. At this point they're doing it because they know a big, fat class action lawsuit is coming from all the clients who bought Pres knowing Palm promised (stupidly) they could sync with iTunes.
Worse - with Wave *entire conversations* will be converted to chinese link spam, because it lets anyone edit anyone elses posts
Actually, users can only edit waves they've been invited to. This means you'd need to invite a spammer to the discussion before they could make changes to it.
If they convert blogger to this (which I expect they will at some point) I'll give it 24 hours before there's no an unmodified posts on it.
Personally, I doubt this will happen. The Blogger functionality was just a Wave extension you could use if you wanted to. To replace Blogger, they'd have to do all the other stuff Blogger does in the Wave interface (elements management, rights management, templates, etc.). I just can't see all of that working in a Wave client.
Isn't that abridging the freedom of the presses that want to make political statements endorsing candidates? It basically says, "Don't make political endorsements, or else we'll tax you."
The same basic argument has already been made by churches many times. The answer by the Supreme Court has always been, "Endorse anyone you want, just don't expect the Federal government to subsidize it with a tax expenditure." Seems like a reasonable outcome to me.