Slashdot Mirror

Of course they have SGML/XML support -- and XSLT means supporting XPath. But they weren't happy about it.

Google, "Formatting Objects considered harmful"
http://www.biglist.com/lists/xsl-list/archives/199 905/msg00495.html
http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2005/01/19/print.html

ICANN controls it. The US just gave them its blessing.

No, I think you're wrong there. The US DoC has control. ICANN is simply their agent for exercising that control. ICANN cannot do anything to "." without permission of the DoC. See here for a better explanation than I could ever give.

--Ng

A quick google of 'Leo Stoller' came up with these random links. The first lists the federal Lexus database entries. Seems he is trying to trademark works like "racket" and "tennis". http://www.biglist.com/lists/lists.inta.org/tmtopi cs/archives/0404/msg00092.html What the hay...rather than filter though all these links myself. Feel free to look at the google search yourself. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Leo+Stoller

This lawyer disagrees as does this site.

If it becomes generic, the trademark is unenforceable.

If it becomes generic, the trademark is unenforceable.

Depends what you mean by legitimate. Various search engines, including Google, have gotten into hot water over serving up paid sponsor links to competitors of a given trademarked search term. Dunno if any actually reached the legal arena, the search engines normally cease and desist. And let us not forget the brouhaha over MicroSoft's Smart Tags.

I fail to see how SiteFinder is any less of a trademark infringer than the prolific typosquatter John Zuccarini, who not only has lost repeatedly (admittedly not all of these are typosquats, or losses) under ICANN's UDRP, where he was found to have domain names confusingly similar to a trademark, he's been fined almost $2m, had further monetary damages found against him, and been arrested.

Generally, the usage needs to be within the same industry or product category. It is unlikely that people will confuse SiteFinder with your site.

Most of Zuccarini's 5000 + names don't point to competitors, yet he is repeatedly ruled to be illegitimate by both the courts and UDRP arbitration. Let's take an example given by John Berryhill. If I register a typosquattingly similar variant of a search engine and put up a rival search site, do you think the courts or the UDRP will find that legitimate? If not, what makes VeriSign any more legitimate for doing the same thing, or any more immune? Then again, with faux domains they don't have to agree to a clickwrap that binds them to the UDRP. Hmmm.

Once upon a time there was an argument whether XSLT was turing-complete (this was when the spec was being worked out), so I posted an XSLT "stylesheet" that places N queens on an NxN chessboard so that none threatens the other. You can see the post here: http://www.biglist.com/lists/xsl-list/archives/199 906/msg00289.html and the stylesheet here: http://www.biglist.com/lists/xsl-list/archives/199 906/bin00003.bin. That's a pretty twisted piece of code if I do say so myself :-) Strangely enough it has been actually "used" - to benchmark XSLT processors etc. (e.g., here: http://www.machi.pe.kr/xml/document/xslt/xslt_benc hmark.htm.

Once upon a time there was an argument whether XSLT was turing-complete (this was when the spec was being worked out), so I posted an XSLT "stylesheet" that places N queens on an NxN chessboard so that none threatens the other. You can see the post here: http://www.biglist.com/lists/xsl-list/archives/199 906/msg00289.html and the stylesheet here: http://www.biglist.com/lists/xsl-list/archives/199 906/bin00003.bin. That's a pretty twisted piece of code if I do say so myself :-) Strangely enough it has been actually "used" - to benchmark XSLT processors etc. (e.g., here: http://www.machi.pe.kr/xml/document/xslt/xslt_benc hmark.htm.

which includes xeroxing

Never use the word "xeroxing" in front of an attorney. It's a misuse of Xerox's trademark. Say "making copies" or "photocopying" instead. The "Xerox" mark, like other trademarks, is an adjective and should be used with a generic term: a "Xerox machine" or a "Xerox copier". But anyway, what gives you the idea that four out of five attorneys use Xerox copiers rather than Canon or Sharp copiers?

rape a forest in canada for trees for xerox paper

Does Xerox brand paper come from Canadian trees? Interesting. Got a link?

Considering how Hasbro has been stingy with their circumstantial intellectual property not to mention unhelpful to hobbyist programmers, I'd say they aren't the real "Stella" either!