"I'll Take Him In Platinum"

LifeGem, purveyors of synthetic diamonds made from the remains of your loved one, plans to offer a catalogue of tasteful settings. No doubt the print version is on its way toward your mailbox. Trouble is, this is not exactly an impulse buy (where's Hitchcock when you need him?). [Via MSNBC]

Did You Patent The Hyperlink?

Then you're in dwindling company, which, according to a New York district court, does not include British Telecom. More at c | net News.com, InfoWorld, The Register, Law.com and Bloomberg (thanks, Will!).
--Decision (PDF) [Via ILN]

2much2blog

There's quite a bit I'd like to blog at the moment, but time is not my friend. Ideas swirling, cases that deserve lots of in-depth analysis. Sorry to tease but Wait, you must. In the meantime, here are some choice links:

Dorothea Salo has redesigned and is Looking Good.
Jeralyn Merritt has redesigned too and is providing loads of good commentary.
Professor Sorkin created Don't Link To Us! I don't remember noticing that the first time I saw the site; that would make it the good Prof's "other" blog. It also got recent attention on c | net News.com and elsewhere. [Thanks, Ernest!]
Drew Clark, Senior Writer at National Journal's Technology Daily, has a great dual column weblog, with excerpts of his NJTD materal on the left, and his independent writings on the right. Double your pleasure, double your fun, it's two -- two -- two blogs in one. (Ok, I'm invoking nothing but tired pop-cultural references -- time to beat it.)

Pavlovich Argument

The Pavlovich Net jurisdiction case has been scheduled for oral argument before the California Supreme Court on September 5. More about the case is here from InfoWorld, here from the EFF, and here from me.

Checks, Balances, And Bashman

Howard's new Slate piece, Poll-Tergeist -- Why the Supreme Court shouldn't care what you think, reminds us of the fundamental policies underlying the existence of the judicial branch:

Here in the United States—where an unelected federal judiciary is responsible for resolving the most politically and socially divisive issues of our time—it is not surprising that the term "unconstitutional" has become colloquially synonymous with "very, very bad thing." In the public's mind, all matters fervently opposed either are unconstitutional or should be. Yet caution should guide those who approve of having the Constitution's meaning determined by referendum. For public opinion can, and does, change.

Double congratulations are in order: for the erudite essay and the excellent channel in which it appears!