The cosmetics company Lush, which refuses to sell through Amazon, has sued Amazon for trademark infringement because searching for "lush" there finds other products.

I sympathize with Lush's motivation, but I think it is wrong on this case. "Lush" is an English word and everyone has the right to use it as such. If Amazon's search facility searches for any English word, it would be wrong to ban this one as an exception. However, I see no harm in requiring Amazon to present a clear statement that these products are not made by Lush, and that Lush does not sell through Amazon.

In directory.fsf.org, if you search for names of nonfree programs, we don't show them (they don't qualify to be listed); instead we show their free counterparts. It would be unfortunate if we were banned from doing this.

I think Lush is more entitled to prevail in regard to Amazon's adwords articles.

The use of the vague term "intellectual property" where "trademark" would have been clearer added avoidable confusion to the article. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html for why that term spreads confusion.

See stallman.org/amazon.html for many other reasons to refuse to buy from Amazon. See stallman.org/ebooks.pdf for why the Kindle and Kindle ebooks are an attack on your freedom.

Several Latin American countries are working to make the UN accept ending the War on Drugs.

Visiting activists from West Papua were not arrested at the independence rally in Papua New Guinea, but three citizens of Papua New Guinea were charged with "unlawful assembly".

Charging anyone with "unlawful assembly" is a crime by the state. Of course, it is possible for protesters to do things which are properly prohibited. But assembling, as such, must not be prohibited.

Government in the US hasn't gone broke by spending too much. Rather, it has been robbed — by business.

A giant conglomerate, Blackstone, has bought 40,000 houses across the US, using money obtained from a wacky new financial instrument.

The housing subsidiary, "Invitation Homes", bullies renters for "late fees" when it makes a mistake collecting their rents. Many companies do this nowadays. It should be a felony to ask for any sort of extra fee from someone who has a contract for service.

If the new financial instrument goes belly-up, the company could fail. That could knock 40,000 US families out of their rented homes all at once.