Actually, it might be reasonable to make the case that the coupling of macrovision with the dvd patent technology is illegal. I am too lazy now to look up the specific wording, but there is something about in return for receiving a patent, the patent-holder must then make the patented technology available at a reasonable cost. One might argue that requiring macrovision is unreasonable.

>Am I the only one who doesn't think Intellectual Property is evil?

That's pretty funny. You do understand that if Fraunhofer's patents weren't beeing violated all over the place, that mp3 audio would not be the phenomenon that it is today. The most effective and accurate mp3 encoder, lame, is itself in violation of those patents. WinAmp was too, until AOL bought them and they paid Fraunhofer's license fees.

IP, especially in the form of software patents can be, and is often today, abused in a fashion that is decdidly anti-competitive. The whole freaking music industry is an oligarchy of 5 colluding companies that maintain their control over the market by abusing IP rights. Even Judge Patel, the judge who presides over the napster trial and was so keenly pro-copyright industry has figured things out and is now requiring that the RIAA prove that they legitimately own the copyrights to all the music that they claim. There is a reasonable chance that the RIAA will fail to win that argument too (they'll probably just bribe some congressmen to write a law that fixes things up though).

Not that I believe all IP rights are bad, just that the laws today which were written by the industry itself and rubber-stamped by the governments are far too biased in favor of delinquent corporate interests and against that of consumers and people in general.