If a company files a motion against you to for a declaratory judgement that it is not violating your patents, that motion would only be able to cover the material that it disclosed to the court. A judgement could never cover anything that they refused to disclose to the court.

You can't get a court to rule that something it has no knowledge of was legal. It has no jurisdiction to make such a ruling.

The burden of proving they infringe may rest on you, but only in terms of the subject material they are trying to get a declaratory ruling about. Perhaps a specific device or product or component. Presumably you would understand your own technology enough to be able to find the infringement or else be able to make a request for disclosure for whatever document you need to show it was infringing. And there is no principle that says that an adverse party requesting disclosure from the other side must pay costs.

I am not a lawyer, but any sane judge would refuse to make rulings about facts not in evidence before the court.

Actually not quite. The American Constitution is a contract between american citizens (aka The People) of what you promise not to do to each other. The US Government is not conceived of as an independent entity with its own identity but an emergent property of The People consenting to collect their rights together for the benefit of all The People, based on the pooling of their individual sovereignty. 'We The People' refers to American citizens.

Consequently, since people in other countries didn't sign on to The American Constitution, they haven't made any promises to you of which of your rights they wont violate and you have absolutely no expectation of your contract with your fellow Americans being honoured, also you are not bound by the Constitution to respect the rights of foreigners.

There is however an expectation that anything the American Government has promised to do towards foreign nations it will honour, because The People of 1 nation can freely enter into an agreement with The People of another nation, which is why American Treaties actually form part of the law of the land (and it says this in the Constitution). This, for instance, means the US government must honour the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights inside the borders of any nation that is a signatory to it because the US is a signatory to it.

The bottom line is that the Constitution is a written contract between The People. The US government doesn't claim to be bound to always respect inalienable rights, but only whatever it expressly agreed to respect.

At the very most some foreign government can violate your so called inalienable rights and you could launch a civil lawsuit (or a revolution) against it for being wronged and a US court might agree with you. But nothing in the Bill of Rights claims that all of the rights contained therein are all inalienable rights.

We'll learn that there are some things that are simply too expensive to fund by voluntary donations and advertising dollars.

I think at the time the age of consent was 14. Are you sure he was having with sex with anyone below the age of consent?

It is a determination that the previous conviction was in fact NOT perfectly correct by the law.

There is no specific reason why humanity has to worship the stupid choices of past generations and pretend our ancestors knew everything. We can abolish old laws and declare that they were always unjust from the start. That isn't the same thing as punishing people for past technically legal actions.

Federal Law only pre-empts state law when there is a contradiction. Is there a federal law that specifically says cell phones must not have a remote killswitch?

1. they don't fire the laser at the reflective side of the mirror. the non-reflective side of a mirror is usually tarnished and pretty dark colored.
2. the metal in a mirror is very thin.

not saying it is impossible, but it strikes me that the development cost of a laser resistant mortar would be far far less than the cost of a laser system that can reliably destroy such a mortar.

I don't think mylar is a good material to use either.

intelligence is not the ONLY reason we give 3 year olds rights.

the other reason is that 3 year old grow up into 4 year olds, then 5 year olds, then 20 year olds etc. Chimps never grow up into adult humans.

the differences don't stop there.

Nope. I didn't have a right to embed myself into my mother's body when I was conceived, nor when I was 4 months a fetus, 4 months a baby, or 40 years old.

I think nobody has the right to be embedded into any woman's body without her continuing consent EVER.

The instant a mother wants to retract her consent from a fetus is the instant she has a right to an abortion and it absolutely trumps any claims the fetus has.

So - go ahead and call a fetus a human being or a person or whatever you want. I'm still pro choice.

Not so. Because humans have empathy and you can't torment a "retarded child" or a dog or an ape without indirectly tormenting yourself.

the child or animal would exhibit symptoms of distress which you can understand on an instinctive level because you are a human being and you would want to provide assistance to relieve the suffering. If you didn't feel such motivation then arguably it is YOU who don't understand respect and can not return it.

Furthermore there is an entire legal process that would be triggered by such an action which necessarily entails a great deal of unpleasant labour by other people to deal with your actions, perform a criminal investigation, etc and so you are tormenting other moral agents as well.

The rest of us, having every reason to believe you have empathy and understand the consequences of those acts would judge your acts as immoral. And if you proved you felt felt no empathy or understanding of the concept of law we would judge you as being criminally insane and thus not a moral agent yourself.

As a general rule you are not the owner of property sent to you in error.

If someone _deliberately_ sends unsolicited property to you, then the usual rule is this is presumptively a gift.

If someone _accidentally_ sends property to you then the usual rule is that ownership is not transferred automatically.

However if you reasonably assumed it was a gift then you might have lost it or sold it thinking it was your own, and since the error was not yours, you would not be liable. On the other hand, it is unreasonable to think a store would send you a video game system for no reason. And a reasonable person who orders something from a store, and recieves the wrong product would first suspect an error on the stores part. If you contact the store and they say "nope it is a gift!" then you can keep it.

How is protectionism racism? I have to live with the people in my community and they are the ones who are going to cry on my shoulder when they lose their homes. It has nothing to do with their race.

refusing to allow immigrants into my community might be racism, but that is NOT what an import tariff is about. Import tariffs only refer to products and services, not people.

refusing to allow cheap imports is just a method of helping my neighbors have a competetive advantage (even if unfair) so they can continue to do something productive rather than sit around being unemployed.

when they have money in their pockets they are more likely to buy stuff from me. far more likely than somebody on the opposite side of the planet.

This keeps us both busy and feeling happy about our lives. We feel like we are working together with out immediate neighbors. this is the source of much happiness in the world.

More over - there are certain labour and environmental practices that I consider to be immoral and should be banned regardless of the cost. Doing business with my neighbors allows me to ensure for myself that they are behaving in a way I consider to be ethical. If products come from mystery factories overseas then I have no clue who is being exploited or how much pollution is being created.

strange because I use my PS3 to play off a my Netgear router/media server almost every day. I even used it to play off my Acer tablet. And MP3s are no problem at all.

not at the expense of "everyone else". That is an over simplification.

For instance, If the price of imported electronics goes up (via an import tariff), this creates an opportunity for local electronics producers to benefit. The local cost of electronics increases, and the profit margins of local electronics producers increase. But the only people who have any increased expense are those who buy electronics.

If you don't buy electronics then your costs are unaffected. And if you buy electronics your costs are affected only in proportion to that specific item.

However the local manufacturing of electronics creates jobs, and creates demand in many sectors, not only electronics (for instance a factory requires construction and machines which are not necessarily made exclusively of microchips). the people with those jobs are now going to spend their money throughout the entire local economy, which in turn benefits everybody locally. In turn this creates more incentive for local investment and even greater local prosperity.

Protectionism has a proven history of working. And every wealthy powerful nation started off as very protectionist. There is not 1 single example of a country becoming wealthy and powerful by starting as a completely open free trade zone.

yes. just like being able to play a musical instrument is irrelevant for composers.

( that was sarcasm)