Well, as I understand it, a losing plaintiff pays only up to their own legal costs. Sort of a double or nothing. Say an individual plaintiff spends $15k to prosecute, and the corp defendant spends $XX million. If the individual plaintiff loses, the plaintiff will have to cough up the lesser of the two costs, $15k, to partially compensate the corp defendent legal costs.

So the camera can do this?:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZZpsSOwxcw

My only problem with HFCS is that it's subsidized to the point where it is used in preference to almost all other sweeteners. I actually prefer the taste of sugar cane and other sweeteners, especially in drinks. It used to be very hard to find drinks sweetened with anything other than HFCS, though that is changing with "premium" drinks.

Also, of course, it would be nice if we didn't have to use taxpayer money to support the subsidies.

...in contrast to other farm crops or any other agriculture? Is it just because the first primaries are in Iowa/Idaho?

The corn lobby is very powerful, as the rather expensive ethanol subsidy was extended for another year in the tax cut deal, adding another $7 billion to the deficit. Kudos to Senator Dianne Feinstein who at least tried to cut the ethanol tax credit slightly to save about $2 billion, but she was rebuffed. Hopefully she won't be overly punished for defying the corn lobby.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/the_tax_deal_corn_lobby_kickback_FhJ8HlZFoMmg1ZQg1aZr0L
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6BE4XY20101215

The FCC can add regulatory conditions to all cable companies, which is what the commissioner is proposing now. The regulation is specifically aimed at Comcast so that they don't abuse their position after the merger.

But I don't think the FCC has the power to actually block this specific merger, at least on anti-trust grounds. That might require the Dept of Justice. Does anyone know exactly?

Based upon what I've read about his proposals on this merger and the Net Neutrality issue, Genachowski seems to genuinely care for the public interest, even when it causes problems for himself. I wish we had more officials like him; he might not go far enough in his actions, but his heart seems to be in the right place.

Finally! A soundbite for the Internet Freedoms that the average person can understand quickly. Frankly, the names and slogans supporting internet freedoms have been very poor. The literal name, "Net Neutrality," for example, is confusing and buys zero support. Look at the ill-considered provisions that quickly made it through Congress, they have emotionally charged meaningful names like "Patriot Act", "No Child Left Behind"

Even Cerf's quote (from the summary) "... we don't believe that governments should be allowed to grant themselves a monopoly on internet governance...," sounds rather weak. To the average less-informed person on the street, this is not compelling. If not the government, who should govern the internet? Why should one care? While it's truthful, it's unconvincing without additional context. Not a good soundbite.

Governments will always be tempted to censor or control the internet directly for their own self interest. (ex. Wikileaks) Having a central authority such as the UN do it would be a horror. The temptation to somehow tweak the traffic "to protect " worldwide would be unbearable. At least now, any national government doing so needs to establish some sort of "Great Firewall" to wall out the free internet.

Oops, my mistake, the post referenced above is from http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1678028&cid=32488480

This is a excerpted from http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1678028&cid=32489738 (not my post) which I think is very relevant.

Before the United States government forced aircraft manufacturers and patent holders into the Manufacturers Aircraft Association there was a patent war that resulted in lots of litigation in the United States but no aircraft manufacturing or innovation once the patent war started.

When a real war broke out, WW1, the United States had to buy aircraft from France because the United States business ventures were more interested in lawsuits than making aircraft.

After ending the patent war by forcing everyone into a patent pool the aircraft industry in the United States took off.

There are other similar cases that plainly show how the patent system has been a failure from the beginning in serving the Constitutional requirements. To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.

Note that the aircraft industry had to be forced into a patent pool by the US Government. This is another patent pool, but unfortunately controlled by a few giants. It's totally necessary to get business done, but excludes everyone else.

IANAL, but I believe that the objective is not to have an ignorant jury, but to clearly document all the information available to the jury in court records.

If jurors depend on sources that no one knows about, justice may be subverted without anyone realizing. But if all information flow to the jury is clearly recorded, then supposedly all unfair influences on the jurors are available for further review, allowing for either a mistrial or an appeal.

In this case, it seems to be an honest mistake on the juror's part. I'd think that the best thing to do would have been to present the wikipedia definition to the two opposing attorneys, and if they both agreed that it was an ok definition, let the trial continue.

While I think that patents can sometimes be a good thing, (e.g. pharmaceuticals where new drug development is extremely risky), the current patent system is so bogged down scrapping patents entirely may be better than what we have now: a gradual continual strangling of tech innovation. The cost and legal risks of tech innovation in America keeps on going up.

There will be no sanity from the Patent Office while they directly benefit from patent renewal fees, fees that are the bulk of the PTO revenues. The patent office is proud to be the only government agency that operates in the black. Er, isn't that raising a red flag? That is not necessarily a good measure of success. They are selling the country's future competitiveness for their operating budget and bragging rights amongst the other agencies.

Patents are inherently restrictive. It's as if the FCC sold "radio rights" to sue anyone else using a small part of the radio spectrum for a specific marketing purpose. Or the post office sold "mailing rights" to sue anyone delivering mail of certain topics to a small region.... um, this might not be a good direction to continue speculating.

The TSA no-fly list can also be used to harass citizens without a warrant or oversight. Another possible chilling effect on journalists and the like.

Totally agree! Net Neutrality is needed only because of the lack of competition in the last-mile. Regulation is almost mandatory because, like a gas company or electric utility, the internet provider has a near-monopoly position for each individual customer.