I think the expense factor of these drones and the technology they use outweighs the benefits of preventing people from growing weed in their homes. One has to remember that it is legal to smoke weed in the Netherlands, and that there are even coffee shops where weed is a prominent part of the experience. This seems like a huge waste of money to me. I think the Netherlands and every country for that matter have much better things to spend a large amount of money such as this on. In addition, although the police seem to think that this would not be breaking the law, I would have to disagree. I think there must be some sort of privacy law in the Netherlands that would not allow something like this to happen. These planes have no just cause to be scanning the homes of people in the first place.

In my opinion, Google should avoid turning this into some sort of legal fiasco. Android Data may have not used the mark for at least three years, but that does not change the fact that they are the registered owners of the mark. I think Google could save themselves a lot of time and money buy offering to buy the mark from Android Data to avoid taking this to Court. Android Data is obviously just after money as they are not presently using the mark. This would make both sides happy - Google would get the rights to use Android and Android Data would receive money. In terms of similarities of the mark, the USPTO was right to deny Google the rights to the Android mark. Both companies are in the software industry, and both marks have the marks Android in them. This would cause confusion in the market place about the rightful owner of "Android". Interning at an intellectual property law firm has showed me that there have been much more ridiculous and less overlapping reasons to deny a trademark by the USPTO.

I actually really like the idea that the court system is allowing defendants to view the source code of the breathalyzer. In today's time drunk driving is a very serious offense that could affect the rest of a person's life if convicted. It would be wrong to convict a person of drunk driving if there was an error in the way the breathalyzer was functioning.