The really scary part of this posting is the last part:“While disappointed, we are also pleased that the judge upheld the constitutionality of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the jurisdiction of the United States to bring these cases.” Yeah. What that means is, this is a victory for the enemy: now that a court case has been tried based on the DMCA, even though they lost, it sets the precedent that the DMCA has legal and binding validity. In addition to that minor pleasantry, as the U.S. Attorney was kind enough to point out, it ALSO sets precedent for U. S. judges being able to violate the rights of people and companies in other countries as well, requiring them to submit to U. S. jurisdiction for something that is not properly the government’s business at all. So what does this court case’s LOSS mean? It means: if you distribute, create, or HAVE software that the U. S. doesn’t like, the government can sue you, no matter who you are or where you live, even if you don’t use it. It means the DMCA has the advantage of legal precedent - something which has illegally replaced constitutionality as the standard for judgment on the validity of law. It means that DMCA isn’t going anywhere. In short: California, may the government of said state rot in hell forever, WON the lawsuit, even though they lost the verdict. They can now sue you for whatever they want to, and get away with it, and no-one can protect you; you have no legal recourse, except under the provisions of the same law under which they will be charging you. It means the fix is in. This is NOT a good sign.