How is this different from laws we have in the US where we require people in public protests to be "unmasked"? Example: The KKK used to do their marches in the full hoods and robes. states started passing laws requiring their faces to be revealed during their marches in order to "shame them" into not doing it. Those laws were ruled constitutional because their right to speak is impinged in any way shape or form.

I'm failing to see how this is different. A right to speak is not the same as a right to speak anonymously.

all such a rule would do is 1) force small inventors out of the patent field due to increased costs, and 2) SLAM the USPTO with applications which are virtually identical but have different claims instead of 20 claims in one patent, you'd have 20 patents, each with one claim.

IAAPA

Interestingly enough (from the wiki article on reboot) "On June 1, 2008, it was announced that there will be a trilogy of ReBoot films coming to theaters. Jon Cooksey was assigned to write the script for the first film, but as of August 2008, he was dropped due to Rainmaker deciding to take a different direction with the story. At this time, it is unknown who will replace him.[10] The films are expected to follow a different story from the comic, but the overall plan is to continue the methodology in terms of engaging the fans.[11] The movie is currently listed as in development on the IMDB website. It is currently listed for release in 2010. A teaser trailer for the film was released on October 5, on Rainmaker's official site." The current production company that owns the rights to "ReBoot" bought out Mainframe Inc. (creator of ReBoot) explicitly to get the rights to the show. Although the current crop of movies may be closer to duke nukem forever than is desirable.

what gives "the contradictor"?

you bastards just totally F'd up my productivity for the day.

alternately you could use a better damages analogy and say "can you imagine if I stole 7 pieces of jerky, broke it into bits and sold all those bits to several million people at a price of $1.00 per person"

See, the problem with your thinking is she's not being sued for downloading anything. She is being sued for uploading it to other people. HUGE difference.

WRONG.

If you find evidence of people being tortured the cops DON'T have to go back and get a new warrant. plain sight rule. If the Cops were there legally (IE searching for marijuana with a warrant) and they see evidence of an unrelated crime while they are searching within the scope of the warrant they can seize it for prosecution.

Examples:
Searching for weed in a file cabinet, stumble across credit card fraud documents. OK to seize.
Searching for dead body in a murder case, find weed in a shoebox in the top of the closet. most likely not OK to seize, as a dead body could not have been hidden in a shoebox in the top of a closet, so searching the box exceeded the scope of the warrant. (this presumes the box didn't accidentally fall open during a legitimate search.

IAAL, this is not legal advice, and it is "dumbed down" so all the nuances are not here.

Nitpick: in our society nobody is legally guilty until proven so in a court of law for criminal matters. In reality someone can still be guilty as sin even if they aren't convicted. If you are going to harp on someone's choice of words make sure that the word doesn't have different meaning in different contexts. In the context he used its clear that "guilty" is not refering to "legally guilty of a criminal offense."

I second this, and hope that however *does* buy it doesn't treat it the way WotC did when they owned it and give games made by other companies second class booths / rooms.

Also for the love of jeebus keep it in indy. Its not too far a drive from Mi for me. :-)

You forgot step 8) where the company suing pierces the corporate veil (really easy to do if you followed steps 1-7) and not only sues both your companies for all they are worth, but also sues YOU personally for all you are worth and then some.

Seriously. Giving bad advice to do illegal actions is one thing, but then it gets modded "interesting"?

A ruling came down from the board of patent appeals and interferences (BPAI) allowing Beauregard claims. a Beauregard claim is a claim for the steps of a method stored on a "computer-readable medium." The FedCirc could rule that the BPAI is wrong on appeal, but for the time being the PTO will still be allowing software claims using the computer readable medium language.

Practical effect: any patent using that language will still be enforceable. Since you can't violate a software patent without storing it somewhere, there is no downside to including that language in the claims.

Any first year torts student knows that Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress is NOT an unconstitutionally vague offense, but is a well established tort cause of action.

The elements for IIED are typically as follows, however it varies from state to state.

      1. Defendant acted intentionally or recklessly; and
      2. Defendant's conduct was extreme and outrageous; and
      3. Defendant's act is the cause of such distress; and
      4. Plaintiff suffers severe emotional distress as a result of defendant's conduct.

(see Wikipedia's entry on IIED for more).

... and an innovative new control scheme. For some reason you left that out, even though it is the consoles strongest selling point. It's just as easy to state that the 360 is just an XBOX with an upgraded processor, RAM, and video output, is it not?