This particular case actually didn't address the mercury issue. There are other ongoing cases which do.
However, the current scientific consensus is also that the mercury used as a preservative in some vaccines (thimerosal) is not linked to autism. Of course, thimerosal was also phased out of vaccines several years ago due to all the hoopla.
Er... not quite.
The use of the phrase "derivative right" is a bit misleading. Under copyright, there's the right to create a derivative work. For a work to be derivative, there needs to be fixation of that work in some tangible format, including electronic. There's no fixation here.
Similarly, not all performances are infringement. Copyright law covers *public* performances. This is not a public performance. If there is a public performance, it is the user of the device that is making that performance public, not any aspect of the device itself.
Even if that performance was somehow contrary to the ordinary rights of the author, I can't really argue that a private performance would not be a fair use.
I'm curious, on what grounds?
It seems that more and more mathematicians are using a new, high level language named "research student".