Two questions:

Is there any impact to IP? The pull quote indicates the Court directed that if an invention is similar in intent and impact with no seeming differences once the facia is intact, despite whatever technological underpinnings, then it’s not novel and should be ruled as an infringement. That seems to be a diametrically opposed to patent rulings time immemorial.

Can you update to include your opinions on Aereo’s Compulsory License gambit. That is a hot button bit of legislation that the Broadcasters have been lobbying Congress for several years to kill off. It primarily protects rural and small cable companies (not sure how many even exist anymore). The major Broadcasters want Retransmission Consent, which they have successfully leveraged in negotiations, to be the sole path to legality.

Thank you.