This passage is especially relevant:

With the Samsung litigation, Apple is not trying to claim a patent on an idea or a metaphor, it is claiming that Samsung copied specific design elements. And, as was mentioned upthread, there are multiple ways of expressing these things. To the extent that they are actually original to Apple (I don't claim to have an answer to this), then they might actually be on decent footing here. Apple didn't license any of this to Samsung, as was the case with the Windows litigation.

Of course, when ProCD was decided it wasn't easy to return the CDs while retaining a copy of the database—a condition which the opinion seems to require. But, as far as I know, this is still good law.

And I don't think it matters that you can't return the software to Wal-Mart, by the way. You can look at the retail purchase as an option contract: to acquire the option, the buyer assumes the cost of returning the software to the manufacturer if he isn't satisfied with the license terms.

I think you might be misremembering the facts of the case. From the opinion:

ProCD v Zeidenberg, 86 F3d 1447 (7th Cir 1996), look it up.

Yes. My sister-in-law and her high school friends use Twitter as a drop-in replacement for IM/texting. My understanding is that this is pretty common.

I don't know; I guess I'd rather have ER doctors (and the legislators who decided these were the appropriate criteria) making those determinations than "superdave80" on Slashdot.

Agreed.

Most medical conditions make it impossible to go to the bathroom or put your shirt on?

This isn't really responsive. Of course ERs *try* to collect, but the fact is that a significant amount of the costs of treating the uninsured do get passed along to those without insurance.

People who show up in ERs without emergencies aren't necessarily getting a lot in the way of treatment. Unless you have some evidence to the contrary, I don't think the federal government is forcing emergency room doctors to provide comprehensive care.

It might not hurt anyone, but we can't tailor laws for each individual. And I think if society as a whole were able to get together and work this out in advance (that is, before knowing who would be wealthy and who would get leukemia), most people would probably prefer health coverage to be a public service. That's the hypothetical ex ante bargain and it makes sense to use that as the rule. So what if you don't want it? There are a lot of services that I don't take advantage of. That doesn't necessarily mean that I think they shouldn't exist.

Yeah, NASA's budget isn't huge, but aren't moon missions incredibly expensive compared to more routine stuff like shuttle missions?

I get that health insurance is expensive, but given that the costs of the Iraq war have surpassed $700 billion, how is blaming Bush for the money spent in Iraq anything other than a totally valid point?

Well, the doctrinal test for a fourth amendment violation (See Katz v United States ) is:

1. 1. Did the subject of the search entertain a subjective expectation of privacy?
2. 2. Was the expectation one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable?

The availability of cheap technology is relevant to #2. If anyone can pick up a thermal imaging unit at Wal-Mart for 50 bucks, then we really can't entertain a reasonable expectation that these devices won't be used to peer into our homes.

Sorry, that was supposed to read "...maybe what these guys were doing was really dangerous or inflammatory."

Of course, there's that old saw about how the right to free speech doesn't mean you can yell "fire" in a crowded theater. And I think you can get in trouble for making death threats, as well. I don't think a lot of people would argue that the First Amendment should provide a blanket protection for anything anyone wants to say. I need to read the article, but what these guys were doing was really dangerous or inflammatory.

I don't think I missed his argument. I believe the argument is:

1. It doesn't make sense to pay people for doing something anyone can do.
2. Anyone can write anything -- from the smallest child to the oldest Anzheimer's victim.
3. Therefore, it doesn't make sense to pay people to write books.

I responded by attacking #2 (Though #1 is flawed as well. If your time is worth anything, then there are perfectly good reasons to pay specific people to do things any competent person could do.). Not everyone can write moving, original fiction (for example).

I fail to see how Cory Doctorow is relevant to the above. I understand that he distributes free digital copies of his books. He also sells a lot of honest-to-goodness dead-tree books. Could he make a living without being paid at all for his writing? Possibly. Is it reasonable to expect that all authors could pull this off? I don't think so.