Some examples are difficult to scrutinize.

Take the case of Maxi Sopo, a wanted fugitive who escaped to Cancun, Mexico. Things were looking up for Sopo, and his Facebook status reflected the same. On June 21, Sopo’s status read, “LIFE IS VERY SIMPLE REALLY!!!! BUT SOME OF US HUMANS MAKE A MESS OF IT…REMEMBER AM JUST HERE TO HAVE FUN PARTEEEEEEE.”

The trail had gone cold, until a Secret Service Agent spotted Sopo’s Facebook photo, in which he sported a black jacket decorated with a white lion as he stood in front of a party backdrop featuring logos of BMW and Courvoisier. Surprisingly, Sopo had unwisely “friended” a former Justice Department official, and with the click of a button ensured his eventual arrest. [1]

It is this blogger’s opinion that utilizing social networking sites to track wanted fugitives and lure sexual predators represents a positive, creative, tech savvy use of the same. Yet, what began as an innovative tactic seems to have evolved into an alleged misuse of taxpayer dollars, which creates ample opportunity for the ever-popular Orwellian “Big Brother” analogy.

For instance, “AB” was your typical beer drinking 19-year old College student with a Facebook profile at the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse. Upon adding what he described as a “good-looking girl” as his Facebook friend, AB discovered quickly that when mixed these two attributes can get you in trouble with the law.

Not long after his recent “add,” AB was invited to the La Crosse police station, where an officer issued him an underage drinking ticket due to Facebook photos in which AB was pictured drinking beer. AB is among a growing number of students who have been targeted by law enforcement over the internet for underage drinking and similar violations.

There are two sides to every argument, and this one is no exception. UW La Crosse law enforcement officials believe on the one hand that, “Law enforcement has to evolve with technology . . . It has to happen. It is a necessity – not just for underage drinking.” Conversely, another UW La Crosse student who also received such a drinking violation believes that, “I feel like it is shady police work and a waste of taxpayer money to have him (an officer) sit on the computer on Facebook when he could actually be doing police work.” [2]

Clearly there is a social disconnect here that extends far beyond the issue of underage drinking on a college campus. The real dilemma is that many of us living in this ever-shrinking digital world maintain an inherent desire for privacy while sharing an irresistible urge to manage a Facebook profile. It is truly the Catch 22 of the modern age.

Regardless, the unfortunate reality is that Sun Microsystems CEO Scott McNealy probably said it best back in 1999 when he commented, “You have zero privacy anyway, get over it.”

The bottom line today is that posting a picture of yourself breaking the law on a social networking site invites any potential liability associated with committing the unlawful act in the first place. Nevertheless, as the Facebook-obsessed student bodies of this generation become parents, professors and/or law enforcement officials themselves, perhaps social networking sites will help to shape social norms for the future.

That said, whether or not an incriminating Facebook posting could result in a criminal conviction – as was not the case for Olympic Gold-Medalist Michael Phelps after he was spotted ripping a bong in an online photo – It is clear that everyone should try to limit exposure of their private lives on the internet. Remember that those pictures will be out there forever.

Along those lines, here are a few tips:

(1) Don’t post pictures of yourself committing a crime on your Facebook profile (or allow your friends to do the same);

(2) If you are a wanted fugitive, don’t invite Federal Agents to be your Facebook friend; and

(3) Create a social networking alias!

[2] http://www.lacrossetribune.com/news/local/article_0ff40f7a-d4d1-11de-afb3-001cc4c002e0.html

Thus, what began as a business model morphed into a landmark decision that has since rocked the business, legal and software worlds. State Street, for the first time, rendered, “a mathematical algorithm, formula, or calculation” eligible for patent protection where it could be applied practically to, “produce a ‘useful concrete and tangible result.’” [1] Although the Supreme Court in State Street maintained that mathematical formulas alone were not eligible for patent protection, since computer algorithms are nothing more than the math upon which all software is based, the State Street decision essentially rolled out the red carpet for the age of software patents – An era that may well be nearing its close.

Math has always been applied practically in a multitude of ways that produce, “useful, concrete and tangible results.” However, before software, math has been specifically excluded from patent protection, and the fairly recent determination that software algorithms are a patentable medium represents a highly criticized departure from a fundamental concept of intellectual property law upon which the patent system was once based.[2] Nevertheless, as a consequence of State Street, software patents have become an industry standard.

Fast-forward to 2009, and in a shaky economy value is king. For a tenth of the price online shoppers can download the meatiest portions of the now “retro” Chumbawamba album for a mere $.99/track. In the spirit of these bleaker economic times – Eleven years and perhaps twice as many billions of taxpayer dollars later – the Supreme Court may be set to reverse the very precedent it set in State Street.

The legitimization of software patents that resulted from State Street caused a literal tidal wave of patent applications. The current backlog at the U.S. Patent Office is greater than 600,000, and patent litigation now totals more than $2 billion per year. [3] Each new software patent granted to Silicon Valley giants is one less algorithm available to open source software developers, and every new online product or service is now estimated to infringe thousands of existing software patents. All of these dilemmas have given Today’s Supreme Court cause to reevaluate the reasoning behind the State Street decision.

By granting certiorari to the case of Bilski v. Doll on June 1, 2009, the Supreme Court will soon decide whether the types of patents enabled by State Street will remain as such in the next decade of the 21^st Century. While this issue remains in flux, it will be interesting to see whether the Supreme Court will reverse precedent in favor of substantial practical and economic concerns. Moreover, the fate of the software development industry hangs in the balance, as any modification from State Street may ultimately shape the course of software development in the foreseeable future.

[2] Id.

[3] http://www.thebigmoney.com/articles/judgments/2009/11/09/can-you-patent-cat-and-laser-pointer