The author of the article has overlooked something ancient and obvious. Jury nullification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification) is exactly for laws such as this one. It's been part of English-based common law for many centuries. If the Swartz case had reached trial and I had been a juror, the chances of me nullifying the "worst law in technology" would have been near 100%. I'm sure most of us feel the same way. If I'm right, the problem is not as bad as the author makes it seem.
Yes, but my point was that one team member uses HH & TT, while the other team member uses HT & TH. This is always a loss for the team regardless of how the flips turn out.
Dysfunctional teams never can agree. By that I mean, if A decides to use the strategy "guess what I flip"; B decides on the strategy "guess opposite what I flip". And vice versa. These teams can never win! So for dysfunctional teams, C can play the game no matter the payout.
I see no difference in a visual representation of a crease pattern and a photograph of one. So I would treat the suit just like any case where a photographer believes an artist has made a derivative work from his photograph. Usually, an abstract painter would not be concerned with such things, and so maybe that is why she is having a problem understanding the crease pattern author's complaint.