. . . Teleflex, a Pennsylvania company whose patent for an automobile gas pedal assembly was challenged by KSR, a Canadian firm.

The ruling favored a Canadian company in a dispute over an adjustable accelerator pedal for cars and trucks.

involved a dispute over adjustable automobile gas pedals. Teleflex Inc. of Limerick, Pa., developed the pedal and got a patent. Then its Canadian rival KSR International Co. created a similar pedal. Teleflex sued.

The disputed patent in the KSR case was held by Teleflex and involved an adjustable gas pedal that combined two established elements, the pedal and an electronic sensor. KSR, a Canadian company, challenged the patent, and a lower court agreed.

The most important of yesterday's cases involved an almost textbook example of old industry -- the design of an accelerator pedal built for General Motors Corp. trucks. KSR International Corp., Ridgetown, Ontario, designed the pedals by adding an electronic sensor to a previously developed system. Rival Teleflex Corp., Limerick, Pa., had made a similar device for Ford Motor Co. trucks and claimed that KSR infringed its patent. A federal district court dismissed Teleflex's suit on obviousness grounds, but the Federal Circuit reversed the decision.

In 2002, patent-holder Teleflex of Limerick, Pa., sued competing Canadian company KSR in federal court, alleging infringement. KSR's gas pedals supplied to General Motors Corp. can be adjusted for a driver's height and when pushed, the pedals send an electronic signal to accelerate. Teleflex alleges KSR infringed by combining the adjustable gas pedal and the electronically actuated fuel system in a way that Teleflex had patented. KSR said the Teleflex approach to adjustable gas pedal technology was obvious and that the patent should be invalidated.

At issue was an adjustable gas pedal for use on cars and trucks equipped with electronic engine controls. How could the vehicle’s computer tell the pedal’s position? A Canadian company, KSR International, under contract to General Motors, solved the problem by mounting an electronic sensor at the pedal’s fixed pivot point in order to communicate the necessary information.

A rival, Teleflex Inc., demanded royalties, claiming the device infringed its patent on an adjustable gas pedal equipped with an electronic sensor. KSR refused to pay on the ground that Teleflex had combined existing elements in an obvious manner and that its patent was therefore invalid. KSR won in Federal District Court in Detroit, but that decision was overturned in 2005 by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Of 10 detainees publicly identified by military prosecutors as targets of possible war-crimes charges, many, if not most, either have refused American lawyers or are now uncooperative or uncommunicative, four of the lawyers involved in the war crimes cases said. Some of those detainees face possible life sentences.

. . . the criminal complaint that details the plot describes an effort that was alternately ambitious and clumsy, with the men at turns declaring themselves eager to sacrifice their lives in the name of Allah and worrying about getting arrested or deported for buying weapons or possessing a map of a military base.

The men, ages 22 to 28, held jobs ranging from roofer to cabdriver to pizza deliveryman, and had no clear motivation other than their stated desire to kill United States soldiers in the name of Islam. They considered a variety of targets, including the annual Army-Navy football game and warships docked in the Port of Philadelphia, but ultimately dismissed Dover Air Force Base in Delaware as having too much security and picked Fort Dix largely because one of their fathers owned a restaurant nearby that delivered to the base.

The authorities first caught up with the men in January 2006, when personnel at a video store alerted the authorities after the suspects requested that he transfer onto a DVD a videotape of the group shouting about jihad as they fired assault weapons at a range in the Pocono Mountains.

We were both intrigued by the passion that is stirred by the mere mention of Clarence Thomas’s name. There are no soft opinions about him, particularly among African Americans. We were once at a going-away party for a black professional friend and Justice Thomas’s name was harmlessly invoked. Just like that, a raging debate was kindled, drawing people from across the room. That gave us the idea that Justice Thomas would be a great subject to explore in a deep way, not only because of that interest but because of his place as a powerful figure in our society and someone who is likely to be a historic figure. Also, we were interested in the question of racial authenticity and why it is that so many people question Justice Thomas’s racial bonafides based on his conservative positions. . . . [W]e try to assess Justice Thomas largely through a racial lens, because for Thomas -- like all African Americans -- race is an inescapable fact of life. We deal more directly and in more detail with Thomas’s estrangement from broad swaths of the African American community.

As the case goes forward, the role of the main informer will almost surely be contested. Over the years, informers in terror cases have become the focus of efforts by defense lawyers and others to call into question the legitimacy of the investigations. They have often sought to show that informers engaged in entrapment.

“The police are allowed to use some enticement in cases,” said Troy Archie, a lawyer for one of the six men charged, Dritan Duka. “But it depends how far they go.”

is neither a journalist nor an impartial legal expert. “Closing Arguments” is not about judicial process, it’s about summary judgment, a breaking-news version of pseudo-reality shows like “The People’s Court” and “Judge Judy.” Ms. Grace also breezes past due process and good manners to voice populist indignation.

Stallman insists that "GNU/Linux" is the proper name [for the operating system commonly called Linux], and he refuses to give interviews to reporters unless they promise to call it that in every reference. In part for that reason, he was not interviewed for this article.

Judge Cooke has not issued a formal rule barring the press from asking questions, according to members of her staff. But, they say, she supports the unwritten rule being enforced by the court security officer.

Media interviews conducted in the courtroom — even during recesses — are disruptive and distracting, they say. Interviews conducted in the lobby outside the courtroom might be overheard by jurors or witnesses and taint the trial.

"We are not keeping you from talking to anybody, you just cannot do it on this floor," says Tamara "Tammy" McIntyre, an assistant to Cooke. "We are all for freedom of speech and for you getting whatever story you can, but there have to be boundaries to protect the rights of these defendants."

Prosecutors across the country are seeing fallout from the Duke case, as defense attorneys use it to discredit other criminal cases and paint them as overzealous prosecutors with something to prove.

The gap in understanding between many of those who cover the law and many of those who practice it is universal. The most common complaint I heard from Russian judges and lawyers about journalists was that they did not understand the law or the legal process. The most common complaint I heard from Russian journalists was that judges and lawyers did not understand or appreciate the process of reporting news. These are the same complaints I hear from their U.S. counterparts.

[The Bill Maher show] was just one stop on the Iglesias media tour. In embracing the collective lens, Iglesias racked up televised appearances with, among others, Chris Matthews, Larry King, Katie Couric, Tim Russert and Chris Wallace. Strong-jawed and clean-shaven, said to have inspired the dreamy prosecutor played by Tom Cruise in "A Few Good Men," a White House Fellow during the Clinton administration, he's become both the handsome, charismatic public face for the sacked attorneys and a genuine media star. And damn if he hasn't enjoyed it.

"I've loved it," he says. "It's a good fit. It feels really natural. I'll tell you what, from an exposure point of view it's been incredible. Had I stayed a U.S. attorney and not gotten forced to resign, no one would know who I was outside of New Mexico. In a perverse way this has already put me on the national map. My own test is: If it's a show I've heard of, I'll probably do it."

* * *

"If you were me would you write a book?" he asks a reporter while driving one afternoon with his 16-year-old, Claudia, in the back seat.

Then: "If I did it," he says, "would I do it myself or have somebody else do it? Or not do it at all?" And: "I'm really surprised we haven't been contacted by magazines like Vanity Fair or the Atlantic for a larger story. I like them."

“No improprieties took place on the part of the juror,” Fidler said. But he termed the actions of the reporter “questionable to say the least.”

The selection process that Goodling described also appeared at odds with Gonzales' own stated efforts to reform the trouble-plagued immigration-law system by bringing in experts and establishing tougher performance standards for judges.

barred by the court’s interpretation of the requirement in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that employees make their charge within 180 days “after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred.”

Congressional Democrats said Wednesday they would try to reverse a Supreme Court decision that limits the time that workers have to sue their employers for pay discrimination. . . .

Under the court's decision, an employee must sue within a 180-day deadline of a decision involving pay if the employee think it involves their race, sex, religion or national origin.

To read a dissent aloud is an act of theater that justices use to convey their view that the majority is not only mistaken, but profoundly wrong. It happens just a handful of times a year. Justice Antonin Scalia has used the technique to powerful effect, as has Justice Stevens, in a decidedly more low-key manner.

The oral dissent has not been, until now, Justice Ginsburg’s style. She has gone years without delivering one, and never before in her 15 years on the court has she delivered two in one term.