Let's stick to science here... (Score 1)

I've got a few points based on posts that have already come in.

1) After giving the PEAR and IBM patent sites a quick read, it is not clear to me that anyone involved is prepared to claim that the influences that these folks have observed of human observers on mechanical systems have anything to do with quantum effects. That is not to say that they are not doing valid science, but rather that they do not seem to have a clear explanation for the effects they are reporting. They are reporting observations of effects that may have applications (with our without explanations) in human-machine interfacing. This is how lots of applied science, particularly medical research, is done.

2) The physics community is by no means certain as to whether inanimate apparati such as computer driven data acquisition systems are or are not observers. That is, physicists do not agree on whether you have to be conscious to be an observer. In fact, it is unclear that this is a question that can be answered.

3) The current theoretical understanding of quantum entanglement, backed up by a host of experimental observations, holds that it is not possible to construct an instantaneous (faster than light speed) communication device with these systems. That is, the data at both ends of long path length quantum entanglement experiments is correlated event by event, but the observers at both ends do not control the character of the data. (Try designing an experiment that would settle the question.)

Those interested in understanding quantum entanglement experiments should read a great (15 year old) article that gives a clear, accessible introduction to the area:

N. David Mermin, "Is the moon there when nobody looks? Reality and the Quantum Theory," Physics Today, April 1985.