Perhaps that is the first problem. Perhaps they should do a better job of estimating how many people will actually use it. There are only 100,000,000 households in America. Roughly half can't use the website, as their state has their own site. And then how many of these people also have insurance through their work? Throw in the fact that the users will use it over several months, and will most likely only use it a few times, and then never again... $6 per user is pretty excessive.

Probably not as dangerous as having all the dinner trays (still used on international flights) flying around... or anything else for that matter.

What was it the report told you, and what did you KNOW or suspect? The report appears to say that the people who pirate spend more than those who don't pirate. But what does that tell us? Not a whole lot really. Perhaps those who don't pirate don't consume very much. Based on the article we don't really know anything more than we did before.

That's like saying everyone who watches the World Series of Poker on ESPN is cheating. The Casino isn't really playing, so its ok for them to know what your cards are... doesn't mean they are cheating.

I'm struggling to understand what BSA and their trademark has to do with copyright law?

How are Tesla's claims misleading? It lists "EFFECTIVE MONTHLY COST" and "ESTIMATED PAYMENT" The effective monthly cost is calculated based on data and numbers you provide... What is misleading?

Why? Is something only non obvious if only ONE person in the world can figure it out? History is rife with two or three people racing to an invention. that doesn't mean the invention is obvious. I would think it would take more than two or three geniuses figuring something out to claim it as obvious.

If I own a hamburger patent, and you own a carwash that does not serve food. Can I threaten you with a lawsuit? Can I threaten you with charging you for a crime if you don't settle the lawsuit? Can I then file a fake lawsuit and make you spend time and money to get it thrown out?
Just because you own a patent, doesn't mean you can threaten people with lawsuits, and when they don't cave in, doesn't mean you can file a lawsuit incorrectly.

I'm not sure what you consider a completely legal activity. Is it legal for me to threaten you with a lawsuit, and then file what is shown to be an illegal lawsuit? Is it legal for me to claim that I will have you charged with what sounds like a legitimate crime, if you don't comply? What the troll is doing might be legal, but if it is it sure skirts the boundaries of legalities. Makes the RICO claim much more likely.

they aren't wasting the courts time with absurd charges (well they are, as the original patent lawsuit turns out was absurd) but they are threatening the defendant with the absurd charge. And that is the whole issue here.

Actually it doesn't. Patents are supposed to protect the implementation, not the idea. For example the one click patent, I should be able to implement one click patent myself, if I do it differently than the way Amazon does it. But I don't really know how Amazon does it, cause I can't see their code. Nor can I truly understand the patent itself.
The other issue with software patents is the majority of them are not really patent-able, as they are not novel or they have prior art.

Current patents are 20 years from the filing date. This was extended in the 90s, up from 17 years, not sure why. But 20 years isn't much longer than 14 years. I expect someone was thinking of Copyright lengths.

It isn't so much as forcing you to attacking the speaker. It is about inciting a mob to violence. According to Mr Wiki: "Under the imminent lawless action test, speech is not protected by the First Amendment if the speaker intends to incite a violation of the law that is both imminent and likely" If you have an unruly mob next to a bonfire and you shout "lets burn the courthouse to the ground" you can be arrested. But saying "let us join together and burn the government down" is probably protected.

How about the privacy of their fingerprints. Their employer does not need a record of their fingerprints.
Another problem with using biometrics for authentication, is one they are compromised, they are compromised forever.

Of course it was an obvious thing. but any idiot who brought it up, would get shot down with "you can't just charge someone's card because they clicked a button"
That doesn't mean it wasn't obvious.