Automobile corporations by necessity pollute the environment in order to produce their product. Selling more product pollutes the environment more. Malice isn't required here-- indifference or obliviousness will suffice.

If you're using MPG as a basis for replacing a car, then you aren't replacing the car for the right reasons. First, you're buying a new car when you don't NEED a new car. Otherwise it would be clearly obvious which one to get rid of, and the MPG wouldn't matter. Which means the corporations (and not the environment) have already won. Second, the pollution in creating a new vehicle, from melting and forming the steel, to the creation of synthetic materials in the cabin, to the electronics-- will probably cause more pollution than any MPG increase. For gas-electric hybrids, the batteries alone create a significant negative environmental impact. Which means that while your personal actual output will go down, the results of your purchase causes pollution to go up. Which means the corporations (and not the environment) have already won. Personal carbon emissions are really just a drop in the bucket of the worldwide problem. Even gaining 1000% efficiency when driving won't swing global warming either way as long as we're willing to dispose of perfectly good cars simply because we want to get to pick a new one.

I never knew that. They don't want to take your money because the "adapt your business model or die" mentality. It's that anything on the Internet is disseminated only based on popularity and appeal, as opposed to basis in fact and research. If bloggers, etc. could demonstrate a commitment to fact and research that proper news media should have, then I'd be all for the papers dying. But when those papers die, so will all the reliable information. Because I'm not getting reliable information from TV news, I'm getting reliable spin.

When they are declared a monopoly in the mobile device application sales market, they won't be. Removing apps for silly reasons like this is plainly anti-competitive.

Pac-Man is just his last name. Thus "Ms. Pac-Man", not "Pac-Woman".

I'd argue that it isn't. The "clean room" example is a measure of obviousness: if there is clearly one way to solve a problem, and someone can figure it out simply by being told to produce the outputs, I'd argue that it's obvious. Now, that's not at all what happened with the MPEG_LA. VP8 (or WebM, or whatever) has a ton in common with H.264, which isn't independently likely or obvious given the mature state of the video compression field.

He was fined 100 euro because a single user downloaded a single song illegally. One song. A hundred twenty-five times its retail value. And he didn't even download it. Copyright is out of control.

I think they're related, just not in the way you think they are. A person reads the first story of the lost phone, and realizes that pre-release iPhones are worth a ton of money. Say this person works on the iPhone assembly line for pennies a day. All of a sudden, they figure out they can pocket one little device they work on all day and sell it to any old web site they want and make $4000-- enough money to be worth going to jail for theft over, if that's more than your annual income. Especially if they can argue to pay back the actual cost of the item, roughly $300 worth of parts.

It's breaking and entering, identity theft, and unauthorized access to a computer. Those crimes probably involve a longer amount of jail time, combined, than simple robbery.