The Fourth Amendment only applies to the Federal government, and no state statute can reduce or increase those rights. Of course, the state itself may be limited by the Fourth (through the Fourteenth), and in that case, no state statute can reduce those rights. California may try to pass laws that provide additional protection not governed by the Fourth, provided it does not violate the Supremacy clause, and that's fine, but its unlikely to limit federal activities expressly provided for by federal statute.

There is no real dispute over the right to wiretap without a warrant (although some claim to the contrary, its not the Federal government doing the claiming), at least not since the Bush administration got into hot water over that issue.

As to the applicability of the Fourth to metadata acquisition, the Supreme Court addressed that point more than thirty years ago in Smith v. Maryland. Cases claiming that Smith is somehow inapplicable to the NSA issues are working their way through the courts, and time will tell. But it is still a legal reach to assert
that metadata acquisition somehow violates the Fourth Amendment, without qualification, given the clear Supreme Court law on the subject.

The question whether copyright existed to protect the "look and feel" of an application was open until the Supreme Court affirmed (4-4 en banc without opinion) the First Circuit decision in Lotus v. Borland. That case took decades to litigate, but addressed whether Borland was permitted in Quattro to execute Lotus 1-2-3 macros (the damned "/" tree of letter commands), even though the macro language was not aptentable. The mere "embodiment" of the "/" tree was deemed by Lotus to be protectible copyright. (In my view, Kapor should have been made a pariah for this assertion, but hey, its just me.)

The First Circuit held that when expression (if you can call the letter tree expression) equates to funtionality, it has merged with the unprotectible functionality. That has been the basis of almost all Copyright law since that time regarding reverse engineering and competition in the software industry. Any other rule would yield considerable chill to adopting new technologies, and in implementing imrpovements. The Internet itself might not have evolved as it did.

The most significant example was the Phoenix BIOS, a reverse-engineered implementation of the BIOS for the IBM PC that made clones possible. Under the Federal Circuit rule in Oracle, the Phoenix (and its progeny) would have been infringing, and we would live in a very different world than we do today.

I am cautiously optimistic that the Federal Circuit will take this matter up en banc and reverse, or perhaps SCOTUS will set it right. Until then, the conflict between Oracle and Borland cases will create a chilling uncertainty in the industry that will educate my granchildren's education, but serve little other good purpose.

In my view, an API merges with its functionality and should be unprotectable. That was the law everywhere in the United States, until today.

This. I'm at work right now, and the best I'm allowed to do here is run Chrome (the alternative being IE). No Firefox, no NoScript (which is what I normally use at home).

To other posters: I'm aware of, and sometimes read, Soylent News. Thanks for the other various suggestions as well. Sniff you jerks later!

Seriously, DICE? I'm sitting here looking at the first few comments, hoping for a little clarity and maybe even some insightful discussion - you know, Slashdot style - when the window contents scroll up and a video ad, with sound, starts playing.

I am done with this piece of shit website. How do I delete my account?

What we're dealing with here is a trade secret dispute. Zenimax alleges that Carmack was privy to inside knowledge of Zenimax's work on VR tech while he worked there, and now he's allegedly run off with that knowledge and given it to Oculus VR.

Think of it like the formula for Coca Cola - it's not patented, never has been, but it's protected by trade secrets law. If someone works for Coca Cola and discovers/absconds with the formula, and then sells it to, e.g., Pepsi, then that person violates trade secrets laws by doing so. But if Pepsi independently discovers or reverse engineers Coke to discover the formula on their own, without relying on Coca Cola's inside knowledge, then more power to them.

Perhaps, but there is far more reason to think that Putin is lying, because he's been telling bald-faced lies to the entire world as recently as the past couple of weeks (concerning Ukraine). At least in the US, our politicians tell their lies in a gray area such that fact-checkers give numeric ratings to indicate just how untruthful a statement is. Putin just tells outright lies as if he believed them to be completely true and reasonable himself.

Or, phrased another way: In Soviet Russia, Putin fact-checks you!

Clearly, the Executive chair is just for show, since he'll be out at the golf course all day anyway.

The NSA also plays a counterintelligence role, and they're falling short of that if they don't take action to notify developers of a widely used Internet infrastructure utility that their software contains a critical exploit. If they can exploit it, so can the spy agencies of any other government with the skills to do so.

I just want to say one word to you, just one word.

Plastics.

I mean Kickstarter.

Colonel Mustard in the ballroom with the lead pipe.

It's not non-functional. It makes you sound awesome!

Not true. Gorbachev was scared shitless over SDI, and it was really the only big sticking point in negotiations that could have reduced nuclear weapon stockpiles far more drastically in the 1980s than what actually happened. The Soviets responded to the threat of SDI by ramping up production of ICBMs and nuclear warheads, on the theory that it would be cheaper to overwhelm SDI with ridiculous numbers of targets than to try to devise a technological countermeasure or to produce an SDI of their own.

For reference, I highly recommend this book.

Are you kidding? B5: In the Beginning was amazing, to the point where I'm torn when introducing someone new to the series whether to show them ITB first or just start with the Season 1 pilot.

That said, Legend of the Rangers, with its Tae-Bo based human interface scheme, was horrible.

I would totally buy its brains out. I'm warming up my Kickstarter account as we speak.

No, Saddam didn't want the inspectors there because he didn't want actual evidence to get out that he didn't have WMDs. He was more afraid of Iran than he was the US, and he said as much after he was captured and before he was executed.