Slashdot Mirror

....says that not accepting cash is perfectly fine:

https://www.expertlaw.com/libr...

For myself I wouldn't bother to do business with such an establishment, but hey.....it's a free country.

Ferret

Here's a reference: https://www.expertlaw.com/foru...

And another: https://www.avvo.com/legal-ans...

The second thread suggests retaining a lawyer for legal protection, but at most, based on these threads, three-days' notice is sufficient, and changing the locks is within the parents' rights.

I'd be tempted to tender payment for my debt in any form that the law of the land states is a legal tender. If the restaurant refuses then my debt is already paid and the refused money is returned to me as a gift.

I'd suggest you research that idea a bit more before you find yourself having a problem.

This is a matter of law, not rules.

Fine. Here's some law.

Paper currency in the United States is printed with the provision that it is "legal tender for all debts, public and private", language that flows from the provisions of a federal law, 31 U.S.C. Sec. 5103,

United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues. Foreign gold or silver coins are not legal tender for debts.

The principal purpose of that statute is to ensure the nationwide acceptance of U.S. currency, consistent with constitutional language that reserves to Congress the power to create a uniform currency that holds the same value throughout the United States. While the statute provides that U.S. money is legal tender that may be accepted for the payment of debts, it does not require acceptance of cash payments, nor does it provide that restrictions cannot be imposed upon the acceptance of cash.

That has a blatantly disproportionate impact on protected minorities, and will be very easy to win in court.

Are you sure?

It is a widely held belief that, in the United States, a business must accept cash payments from a consumer. Some people take the argument a step further, arguing that if a business refuses to accept cash from a customer, the business loses its ability to charge the customer. Neither belief is true.

Some exceptions by state:

Although as a general rule a private business may restrict or refuse to accept cash payments, at times states will mandate that a business accept cash or limit any restrictions a business may impose on cash payments. For example, some states require that a landlord accept rent payments in cash. Many states require that a private impound lot accept cash payments by an owner seeking the release of a motor vehicle.

Not if both parties agree and he waives his parental rights to her and she accepts them.

this is a horrible metaphor

That doesn't actually happen. The government doesn't like getting stuck paying for your mistake.

You have to have a step-father officially submit adoption paperwork, so someone else takes the responsibility. Until then, the father is still on the hook until they're emancipated.

Well hold on here. Reckless driving is a criminal matter. He can claim reckless driving all he wants but without some sort of moving violation or other criminal charge against me how can he possibly bring that accusation up in court?

Here.

And also here

Patent and copyright laws have never been about compensating inventors or creators. If they had been, they would be mandating actual payment to them.

This is nonsence. The entire reason for the patent is to bring knowledge into the public domain, to stop that knowledge being hidden as a trade secret.

I think you're both a little off. Patent and copyright laws grant the inventor with court-recognized rights. Such rights are definitely a form of compensation and constitute legal property like other assets.

My understand based on my work with many patent attorneys and agents is summarized by the following statement:

"The purpose of patent law is to encourage innovation, by granting inventors legal rights which permit them to protect their original inventions."
( from http://www.expertlaw.com/libra... )

Bringing knowledge into the public domain may be a secondary goal or was an unintentional consequence of a system that needed to protect these rights (the ability to discover someone is infringing on a patent and litigate against them). Its also a consequence of doing business (putting products into the hands of customers who may reverse engineer them).

Sullivan v Gray, 117 Mich App 476, 481; 324 NW2d 58 (1982) clarified it:

The operative language of MCL 750.539c; MSA 28.807(3) prohibits a person from "wilfully [using] any device to eavesdrop upon [a] conversation without the consent of all parties thereto". As used in the statute, the term "eavesdrop" means to "overhear, record, amplify or transmit any part of the private discourse of others without the permission of all persons engaged in the discourse". MCL 750.539a(2); MSA 28.807(1)(2). We believe the statutory language, on its face, unambiguously excludes participant recording from the definition of eavesdropping by limiting the subject conversation to "the private discourse of others". The statute contemplates that a potential eavesdropper must be a third party not otherwise involved in the conversation being eavesdropped on. Had the Legislature desired to include participants within the definition, the phrase "of others" might have been excluded or changed to "of others or with others".

Plaintiff argues that MCL 750.539c; MSA 28.807(3) must apply to both participants and nonparticipants since it relates to "[any] person who is present or who is not present during a private conversation * * *". We disagree. Although the phrase arguably creates an ambiguity as to the persons affected by the act, the interpretation requested by plaintiff would render inoperative the words "of others" in the statutory definition of eavesdropping. A more logical interpretation may be made that gives full effect to that statutory definition. The words "[any] person who is present or who is not present" merely acknowledge that eavesdropping may be committed by one who is actually in close physical proximity to a conversation or by one who is some distance away but eavesdrops utilizing a mechanical device. Quite plainly, one may be "present" during a conversation without being a party to the conversation and without his presence being apparent to those conversing. For example, the eavesdropping party could literally be under the eaves outside an open window.

Source: http://www.expertlaw.com/forum...

I'm not a lawyer, I don't know the details of libel laws, but I was relatively sure that good faith belief is all that is required.

At least in the United States, the rules for libel are different based on whether or not the libeled party is a "public figure" or not. If someone is Joe Average, the only requirement is to prove that you said something incorrect about them which caused quantifiable damages. "Public figures," however, are expected to have good and bad things said about them as part of normal discourse. (Otherwise Ke$ha could sue someone for saying her album sucked.) So for public figures, the libeled party must prove that not only is the thing you said wrong, you must also have known it was wrong and had malicious intent in doing so. It's a high bar to meet, and that's why you see so few celebrities or politicians suing for libel - there's usually only provable malice in a few cases where a tabloid is printing knowingly false information in order to boost sales, etc.

If Ford knows people are committing crimes, aren't they legally required to report it, otherwise they become an accessory..?

Simple answer? No.

There is no general obligation for most crimes and under most legal systems to report a suspected crime. For *specific crimes* and/or for people in *specific positions* there may be such an obligation.

E.g. See
http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=36912
where post #2 asserts that there may be such obligations but subsequent posts explain why this is wrong (more than just 'failure to report' is required).

From Expertlaw

Generally speaking, defamation is the issuance of a false statement about another person, which causes that person to suffer harm. Slander involves the making of defamatory statements by a transitory (non-fixed) representation, usually an oral (spoken) representation. Libel involves the making of defamatory statements in a printed or fixed medium, such as a magazine or newspaper.

Typically, the elements of a cause of action for defamation include:
1. A false and defamatory statement concerning another;
2. The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party (that is, somebody other than the person defamed by the statement);
3. If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and
4. Damage to the plaintiff.
In the context of defamation law, a statement is "published" when it is made to the third party. That term does not mean that the statement has to be in print.

Looks like this application satisfies 1,2 & 3 with 4 being pretty easy to prove.

Yes, it's only my twisted logic, not ancient and well-established principles of equity, which they are trampling. Got it.

Here is some supporting evidence

http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=119583&page=1

According to http://www.adversity.net/0_PoliceFireMuni/PFM_intro.htm, which explains why he was rejected, he appealed, but lost.

Now, he seems to work as a prison guard ( http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33193&page=1 )

Mr. Jordan, 48, is a life-insurance salesman who had dreamed of a second career protecting and serving, with an eye on the pension.

...

MR. Jordan said he would appeal the ruling if his lawyers are willing to continue the case now that he has used up his savings. In the meantime, he is supplementing his insurance business by working for $26,000 a year -- $15,000 less than he would make as a New London patrolman -- as a state prison guard. ''In those dormitories, there's 110 inmates and one of you,'' he said. ''Your mouth better be connected to your brain.''

I suspect the reason for this is that Google wants to have an enforceable contract with developers. This was the quick and easy way to do it.

I am not a lawyer so this is a genuine question. Does money need to change hands in order to meet the "consideration" requirement of a contract?

If no money changes hands and the contract consists of "you write extensions" and "we provide visibility for them", is it then invalid and unenforcable?

IINAL, but to answer your question no the elements of a valid contract under English common law (the legal system in the England and most of it's former colonies, including the USA) are:

• Meeting of the Minds
• Offer and Acceptance
• Exchange of value - Both sides have to get something out of it.
• Performance or Delivery
• Good Faith (more important in some locations than other, very important in California)
• Not Illegal

A decent intro at expert law.

Google say: http://www.expertlaw.com/library/real_estate/eminent_domain.html#5

WTF are you smoking? "Statue of Limitations" Did you REALLY just write that?

See: Statute of Limitations

More relevantly, the Statute of Limitations in New York for Contractual Disputes is 6 years (see: New York Statute of Limitations for Civil and Personal Injury Actions - An Overview)

-AC

Quote your opponnant, quote his supporters, the issue is the same.

Yes, the issue is the same, and the quoting should be allowed. This is not entirely unlike it being harder for "public figures" to sue for defamation/libel/slander — once a musician publicly supports a politician, using that musician's music to mock the politician is fair game...

In fact, you seem to surrender your point — that Republicans are thieves for using the music of their opponents' supporters — when you agree, that quoting your opponent (which surely trumps copyrights) is the same issue as quoting his supporters (such as musicians).

Political speech can not trump certain things, such as direct incitement to violence, slander or libel, or copyright

Well, that's where we disagree — I maintain, that it should trump even those things. My argument is, limiting political speech on any basis is a slippery slope, because the determination of whether a limit applies will be made by the incumbent power, thus giving them one more undue advantage against the challenger(s). What's your (counter)argument?

and of course the devil is in defining 'political speech.'

Oh, yes, of course... All erring must be on the side of the "yeah, it is political" — for the above-described reason.

The 'copyright is evil' brigade don't exist except in certain people's imaginations.

Really?

The issue is more complex and nuanced than that.

Is it also a living and breathing issue, uhm?..

http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/agency.html

Not to my knowledge. If you know someone is planning a crime, then sure, you are obligated not to help them, but in the general case, you have no duty to report it. Here's some random internet discussion on the subject: link link. Nothing I could find mentions mere knowledge of planned felonies - all refs required concealment or aiding in commission of the crime.

Yes, the terms do say that the copyrights are absconded with. See part 9. It says that if a third party uses your pictures commercially---even without your authorization---you are required to give your copyright to Burning Man so that they can sue the third party. That means that not only does it prevent you from authorizing commercial use of those photos, it also means that your copyright can be taken at any time without notice even if you did nothing wrong. That's an agreement to assign copyright, pure and simple, and according to Title 17, such an assignment requires a signature.

There are a lot of other things dubious about these terms and conditions, too. For instance, this is in effect a perpetual option to acquire (for no compensation) a copyright. Normally, such agreements would only be valid for a certain period of time. At least in business contract law, if a contract does not specify an expiration date, it is considered to only be valid for a reasonable period of time. The definition of reasonable is open to interpretation, of course. In any case, the contract term is nowhere near as clear cut when interpreted according to the legal framework. I've never seen a copyright assignment option that was open ended like that. That is highly nonstandard and should raise a lot of red flags.

The fact that there is no additional compensation for photos confiscated under this clause likely invalidates the contract. By law, a contract requires mutual consideration or else it isn't a contract.

The terms also prohibit descriptive use of their trademarks. I suspect that's a legally dubious contract term, as again it is an open-ended term that binds you forever. IIRC, such perpetually binding terms are generally not permitted in contracts between businesses and individuals.

In any case, read http://www.ehow.com/about_5120969_business-contract-laws.html and http://www.expertlaw.com/library/business/contract_law.html for a better understanding of why this contract likely isn't worth the bits it is written with.

They have a sweet deal? What are you talking about? "Corporate tax" is a misnomer. You don't tax corporations. You tax individuals. Corporate taxes are just another layer of individual taxation. See http://www.expertlaw.com/library/business/c_corporation.html#2

It's probably against their TOS, so their could at least be civil action.
Also, don't forget defamation laws.

Hold on a second. Are you really arguing that if my actions cause the value of your property to decrease, that is equivalent to theft?

Yes, in cases where your actions run afoul of either legal or contractual obligations. I guess you missed the fact that all of my examples were illegitimate, either for legal reasons, or contractual obligation?

If you control the world's only known naturally occurring source of unobtanium, and I invent a process that produces artificial unobtanium your property has been devalued.

There's no law against producing unobtanium, unless it closely resembles certain nuclear-fissionable materials. Unless, of course, you have a legal contract with me involving "insider knowledge" or "non-competition". Otherwise, have at it!

If you buy a meal, and I'm sitting next to you with noisy and annoying friends, your purchase has been devalued.

Depending on the situation, you may be running afoul of local harassment, tresspassing, and/or noise ordinances. For example, if I'm trying to eat my meal in my living room, and I don't want you there? Otherwise, chatter away!

If you buy a HumVee and I write a book about how awful HumVees are, you might find it harder to sell your SUV.

It's usually not against the law to write a book about anything. There are laws about defamation, libel, and slander that you might want to consider.

As a consumer, I will decide what is in my best interest Thank You Very Much.

All the way to jail, if you are on a car lot with lots of shiny, new cars, and you decide that, while you don't want to pay for a HumVee, you are going to get one, anyway.

If my unwillingness to purchase certain media leads to the failure of that market, I'm quite ok with that.

Nobody's arguing with your right to not buy something. What's being argued is your right to have the thing you decided not to buy, anyway.

Of course, if you need hired thugs to convince people to buy your product, "market" doesn't really apply. "Racket" is the word you're looking for.

What about when those "hired thugs" are called "police" and they are inquiring about that shiny red HumVee in your front driveway that was recently found missing at the local car lot? Are you saying the civilization is a "racket"?

There are laws on copyrights that exist to grant rights to content creators. If you create content, you are free to waive those rights, and distribute your content free of charge. (As I am doing now, with this post) But if I don't want to allow free distribution of my created works, I can do so, and there are laws in place for this to happen.

As a programmer myself, I'm free to choose the GNU GPL license to distribute my works. (And I often do) Notice that it's a license: permission to do or not to do something. When I release something under the GPL, I'm limiting your right to use my works to those terms specified in the Gnu Public License, terms that are widely accepted in this particular corner of the Internet. But it's copyright law that gives me the right to limit distribution in this manner, and I bristle at the idea that you feel that these rights should be taken from me.

He can more than claim he has permission, he can actually claim title to the land he's been using. It's called "adverse possession". If you own property (or think you do, anyway) you'd better check your state laws on adverse possession and keep an eye on your property.

http://www.expertlaw.com/library/real_estate/adverse_possession.html

If speed limits were set by civil engineers, I would have much less of a problem with them. The truth is that they are not. There's evidence that raising limits does not lead to increased accident risk, and there is evidence that setting them lower than the speed people would choose if there were no limit DOES increase accidents.

Regarding crosswalks, I don't think anyone would argue removing restrictions on where traffic of any kind may cross or when that traffic can cross would lower accident rates. While not a study, this article seems to suggest that having designated crosswalks and signals decreases the chances of an accident. Of course if you have evidence to the contrary, please provide it.

Finally, it's not a double standard to say shooting someone for no reason is wrong, but shooting them for breaking into your house is acceptable. It's called context.

You should ask your company's own lawyer. Failing that, you might go ask over on the Copyright forums at Expertlaw.com.

I know that the FSF considers patches of 10 lines or less as unlikely to be copyrightable because they're small enough that they're unlikely to contain anything truly creative. Probably doesn't work for 200 lines of code.

Take some time to audit all of this guy's commits.

Gee, that's the exact opposite of every single definition of "defamation" available to check online.

This isn't legal advice, but while in a strict dictionary sense "defamation" might be anything said that hurts a reputation, truth is an affirmative defense. The articles linked above state that no action is called for and no damages occur when someone states a truth. The person whose reputation is tarnished by the truth earned that reputation. Speaking or printing the truth therefore does no damage to the rightful reputation. That seems to this non-attorney to mean you can call the speech or publication by any name you want, but you're not going to get money by suing someone for telling the truth.

Again, I am not a lawyer, but grade-school Social Studies teachers in the U.S. teach their students about John Peter Zenger and the case of New York v. Zenger. That case set forth truth as a defense for slander and libel in the common law of the North American colonies of England.

BTW, where are "defamiation" and "plaese" on any of the above sites? Do I need the latest edition of Black's? I can't find those definitions at all, oh careful and detail-oriented A. Coward. Without resolving those two issues, I'm having trouble following your carefully stated premise and well-reasoned arguments to your no doubt brilliant conclusion.

Hey guess what? There's probably a black box in your car that measures what you are doing. Even though you paid for it, the manufacturer doesn't tell you about it, or give you any information about what it does or how to read it out, but it can still be used to void your warranty or as evidence against you by police or insurance companies. Welcome to the future.

Probable cause in shoplifting cases is generally accepted to consist of 6 things, including seeing someone conceal an item. Not showing your receipt is probably not sufficient probable cause. See http://www.expertlaw.com/library/security/shoplifting.html/This link

It takes more than just showing a judge a notebook and claiming that the date on it is correct. There's a well established practice of sending mail to yourself so you can show the postmark on the unopened envelope and show the court that the USPS attests to the date on it.

From Expertlaw:

Don't attempt a "poor man's patent" - putting documentation of your invention into an envelope and mailing it to yourself is of next to no value when it comes to defending your invention or establishing the date of its conception.

It takes more than just showing a judge a notebook and claiming that the date on it is correct. There's a well established practice of sending mail to yourself so you can show the postmark on the unopened envelope and show the court that the USPS attests to the date on it.

From Expertlaw:

Don't attempt a "poor man's patent" - putting documentation of your invention into an envelope and mailing it to yourself is of next to no value when it comes to defending your invention or establishing the date of its conception.

And yes, I know the disclaimers saying "if one part of this is void, the rest stands". Nu-uh. Sorry, if part of your contract is illegal or "against good customs", the whole contract is void.

Actually, black boxes for vehicles might become a reality in newer car models. Data from a black box and evidence from the accident scene should give the police enough information to recommend charges.

There are laws that deal with free speech going too far - they're called 'libel' and 'slander'. You'd think law students would know about this.

Making statements of fact (i.e. telling the truth) it is not defamation, libel, or slander.

One essential aspect of a binding contract is a so-called "consideration", a mutual exchange of something of value. I don't quite see how a credit card charge of $0.00 could be considered something of value.

http://www.expertlaw.com/library/business/contract _law.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invitation_to_treat

Yes I have. And after doing my own research, I'd still rather incorporate then be a sole proprietor.

And you obviously have no idea what a "close corporation" is. Here's a link: http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/Term/8E1B6E0E-A D70-4EFF-A3BF3EF03E96D60A/alpha/C/

"Piercing the Corporate Veil" is not as easy as you imply. Don't mix your personal and business funds and treat your business like a business and not your "alter ego" and the person suing you won't be able to get to you personally.
http://www.expertlaw.com/library/business/corporat e_veil.html

You are partially correct. Public figures have to prove actual malice. In the case, New York Times v. Sullivan, it was found that with a public figure, there must be proof of actual malice. Actual malice is defined as the statement being false or in reckless disregard for the truth. ref Is the question in malice? In my opinion, yes. This is a political hack attacking a public figure. (Ken Mehlman is the head of the RNC) By falsely 'outing' Ken Mehlman, we have a malicious act. In addition, because of Bill Maher belief that Mehlman would be harmed by this information, the act shows reckless disregard. Ergo, this shows a reckless disregard for the truth, if not true.

as I understand it truth is an absolute defense against charges of libel. If that is the case, then any statement which is worded so as to express an opinion cannot be considered libel, as the statement (the existance of the opinion itself) must be true; the only one who could claim otherwise, in any event, would be the defendant. AFAIK there are no defamations laws regarding opinions, whether true or false, and the statement itself describes the opinion, not the plaintiff.

Though this page on the EFF site probably explains what I'm saying best of all --

Can my opinion be defamatory?

No -- but merely labeling a statement as your "opinion" does not make it so. Courts look at whether a reasonable reader or listener could understand the statement as asserting a statement of verifiable fact. (A verifiable fact is one capable of being proven true or false.) This is determined in light of the context of the statement. A few courts have said that statements made in the context of an Internet bulletin board or chat room are highly likely to be opinions or hyperbole, but they do look at the remark in context to see if it's likely to be seen as a true, even if controversial, opinion ("I really hate George Lucas' new movie") rather than an assertion of fact dressed up as an opinion ("It's my opinion that Trinity is the hacker who broke into the IRS database").

That's insane. You mean I can call you a child molestor, specify dates and times and childrens' names and the court will accept as a defense against libel the fact that I have no idea whether it's true or not? I can't believe any legal system is that bad.

The most important defense to an action for defamation is "truth", which is an absolute defense to an action for defamation. - Defamation: Libel and Slander Law at ExpertLaw

Good grief, in what fascist hellhole do you live? In the United States the police can arrest you without a warrant only if they have very good reason to believe you have just committed, or or about to commit, a crime. Here and here and here are some legal references. "Very good reason" in this context means a reason that will convince a judge not only that you should have been arrested, but also that there wasn't time to get him (the judge) to sign off on it first. Judges really like to be in control, so in practise this means the police can freelance a decision to arrest in only a few well-defined situations.

For example, the police can arrest you without a warrant if an officer has just seen you do something highly suspicious, like run out of a convenience store wearing a ski mask, with a store owner yelling "Stop thief!" in hot pursuit, or a credible witness says they just saw you commit a serious crime -- for example your girlfriend accuses you of slugging her and causing the bruises that appear on her face -- or you match the description of someone wanted for jumping bail on a multiple murder charge, or even if you've been stopped for a minor infraction, like a traffic violation, but proceed to give an obviously false name, refuse to sign the citation, and aren't carrying any valid ID, so they have no way of being reasonably sure you'll appear in Court to answer the summons.

Can the police walk up to you at a public function, where you're doing absolutely nothing illegal, just minding your own business, and showing no indications of fleeing the country -- and arrest you without a warrant? Never.

Do some research on US laws. Police can detain you to determine if a crime committed. Hell just watch the TV show COPS - they do it all the time. "I'm not placing you under arrest, I'm just detaining you while we get some information."

Form the Americal Civil Liberties website - (they happen to know a little about police rights) - http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14528res20040730.ht ml -
. You must show your driver's license and registration when stopped in a car. Otherwise, you don't have to answer any questions if you are detained or arrested, with one important exception. The police may ask for your name if you have been properly detained, and you can be arrested in some states for refusing to give it.

Notice how "detain" and "arrest" are two seperate things? And that you may be detained without being arrested??

Or from another criminal law site - http://www.expertlaw.com/library/criminal/police_s tops.html
Can The Police Stop And Question People Who Are Not Under Arrest?
Yes. The police can stop a person, and ask questions, without "arresting" the person. Upon seeing suspicious activity, the police may perform what is called a "Terry Stop," and may temporarily detain people to request that they identify themselves and to question them about the suspicious activity. The scope of a "Terry Stop" is limited to investigation of the specific suspicious activity, and if the police detain people to question them about additional matters, the stop can turn into an "arrest."

Haven't you ever heard of Guantanomo Bay?? The US is "detainig" hundreds of "suspected terrorist" without arresting a single one of them. Or is that "utter baloney" too?

But strangely, the bus will rapidly gain mass after an accident, from all the people who said they were on the bus and want to file an injury claim. Even stranger, this mass gain happens even when the accident is simulated.

He might have been referring to the onboard instrumentation which stores your driving history. Not the instrumentation that displays info to you, but more like an airplane's flight recorder. Can be used by service stations to tune for your driving habits. Police and insurance companies would like access to these for investigations. For example http://www.expertlaw.com/library/accidents/auto_bl ack_boxes.html

Under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1964 Case, New York Times v Sullivan, where a public figure attempts to bring an action for defamation, the public figure must prove an additional element: That the statement was made with "actual malice". In translation, that means that the person making the statement knew the statement to be false, or issued the statement with reckless disregard as to its truth.

FDCPA DOESN'T apply to third party lenders. i.e.- Your auto finance company.

Seems about the same to me

Not that it makes much difference ... an unenforceable contract is as good as no contract anyway.

You can of course read more about trademark law here, but the real question is precisely what laws that Nintendo feels the SuicideGirls are violating?

Infringing use of trademarks can only occur when the mark of the infringer creates a likelihood of confusion in the mind of the purchaser, as the result of the use of an identical or similar mark in connection with its goods and services. If the purveyors of the website sold Nintendo branded sex-toys, they would have a case, but I think the idea that the mere mention of Metroid in a page on your website creates any such confusion would be a serious stretch of all credibility.