Slashdot Mirror

Ample recedence? How? A civil court cannot convict anyone of anything. It can only award damages.

From a legal dictionary:

http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=34 9&bold=||||

convict
1) v. to find guilty of a crime after a trial. 2) n. a person who has been convicted of a felony and sent to prison.

http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=35 0&bold=||||

conviction
n. the result of a criminal trial in which the defendant has been found guilty of a crime.

Tell me, how excatly can someone be "convicted" if the judgement is vacated? Actually, i did misspeak. It's the judgement that determines "guilt" or not.

Re GTA, I meant if the car was $5k. I should've used grand larceny as it covers both.

Hehe, I wish I had enough time and an xbox for San Andreas to be affecting my brain.

I am getting annoyed because most of the people bitching about GPL violations are the same people that think the Microsoft EULA's are non-binding, and Copyright infringement is A-OK. It doesn't go both ways, either honor licenses or don't.

But your argument is really baseless. phpAdsNew isn't making money from the software. There is no way, no matter how you twist the laws around in court, that the VX30 people would be compelled to "pay damages". They would have to give their source to people that paid for the product, end of story. There are no damages being wrought here that have any monetary impact whatsoever.

By all means, talk down to me some more -- but use an argument that MAKES SENSE before you do.

Now, to pick a random operating system, the MS Windows trademark is for: G & S: computers and components therefor, computer peripherals, and computer programs in the field of graphical applications, and manuals therefor sold as a unit.

That is, if it was marginally more likely that you did it, based on the IP log, than that someone else did it, it is proof that it was you.

I thought it was all about convincing the judge and/or jury, and if I honestly knew that the odds were 51% that the guy was guilty, I'm not so sure I'd say he was `guilty' (though this is a civil thing, so I'm not sure that `guilty' is the right term.)

Absolute proof is not required.

A 51% change of being guilty is far more than a `reasonable doubt'. Apparantly the definition of the phrase preponderance of the evidence is rather subjective as well.

I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.

Wrong. As has been mentioned upthread, there is the doctrine of laches, which prohibits exactly the kind of tactics you describe.

The rules covering libel against a "public figure" (particularly a political or governmental person) are special, based on U.S. Supreme Court decisions.

You don't say. Well that's great, since that would make absolutely perfect sense and all. You know, right not meaning anything even close to write, and thus the past tense copywritten would make much more sense.
Usagecertainly ageees with you, doesn't it?

Don't worry lad, no one is going to take away your writes.

The **AA suing people is no different than what DirecTV has been doing for a few years.

The "problem" with these lawsuits is that it will cost you more to defend them than to settle.

Additionally, both the **AA and DirecTV typically sue you civilly where your guilt or innocence is based on a "preponderance of the evidence", not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That is, if their heavy-handed attorneys can make some jury full of idiots think it's 51% likely you did it, then you lose. You get no court appointed attorney and you don't get to plead the 5th ammendment without any negative inference. These **AA attorneys have these cases cookie-cuttered/boiler-plated out and don't care whether you are guilty or innocent. They care about billable hours and whether they think there is enough evidence for them to win.

And when you lose under the DMCA, you lose big time. You not only risk hefty fines, but attorney fees that are often in the tens of thousands. Look at the PACER reports of those people who try and fight these corporations in court -- the defendent typically has one attorney while the plaintiff often has four to six attorneys on their side. Is it NO WONDER nearly everyone settles, even if they are innocent?

So learn from the mistakes of those poor slobs, many who were innocent, but settled anyways.

BE ANONYMOUS.

Because if you get sued by one of the above, you always lose.

If you are gonna do anything that even remotely has the risk of you getting targeted for a lawsuit by one of these big corporations that could care less if 10% of the people they sue are innocent, make sure there is NO WAY it can get tracked back to you.

Just because someone says something you don't like doesn't mean they have to tell you where they got their information. Sure, the guy who told you may have violated a contract, but that is not a criminal matter, it is a civil matter.

Obstruction of justice is interference with the courts or a law enforcement officer:

obstruction of justice
n. an attempt to interfere with the administration of the courts, the judicial system or law enforcement officers, including threatening witnesses, improper conversations with jurors, hiding evidence or interfering with an arrest. Such activity is a crime. link

I understand where Apple is coming from (they have a right to try to find out), but this doesn't tie in with obstruction of justice at all, as far as I can see. There comes a point when private companies that are pursuing civil matters are trying to get the criminal justice system to do their work for them (like having an FBI task force dedicated to online music piracy). This is not nearly that bad, but it is moving in that direction. Apple has resources other than simply suing someone for information. This just seems wrong, to me at least.

This Article might be interesting... apparently there is some trouble with the lawyers in the case...
The named plaintiff in the suit was an attorney with one of the firms.

I don't think that would qualify as fraud. Additionally, if there were a law in place which allowed for ISPs to be the man in the middle, it would exempt them from such claims against them much as wiretap laws exempts the FBI from being charged with eavesdropping related offenses.

"At least you don't smoke, then we'd refuse to insure you at all."

In a 1987 case, a 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision that upheld an employer's right to ban off-duty smoking; a firefighter trainee sued the Oklahoma City Fire Department and city over a rule that prohibited smoking, on and off duty, for one year. The court found that the no-smoking rule had a legitimate purpose in promoting health and safety and did not violate due process. Grusendorf v. City of Oklahoma City, 816 F.2d 539 (10th Cir. 1987).

We have freedom of speech, which usually means freedom of expression. Many programs, especially P2P apps are all about communication and expression. Really, without the right to distribute opinions and ideas, the right to have them and repeat them to yourself every morning is meaningless. So yeah, I think the Constitution does have something to say about us having the right to bear software.

The fact that the primary expression of that particular right is illegal shouldn't mean that the right itself does not exist.

Outlawing P2P because people will probably do something illegal is about as appropriate as prohibiting someone from publishing some secret and embarassing papers because somebody swiped the originals and it might be a crime to reveal said secrets. It's called "prior restraint," and the Supreme Court of the United States has already spoken to this issue more than once. Our UK friends and other handle these issues in a completely different, and if such a thing is possible, scarier way than we do.

IANAL and all. There are whole rafts of people that spend their lives puzzling this stuff out. Hopefully one of them will grow a pair and shut this law down.

It doesn't matter what the dictionary says. It matters what the law and the courts say. Running to a dictionary to prove a point only proves that you don't understand the law.

ok then, let's look at a law dictionary (via Law.com dictionary)

Monopoly: n. a business or inter-related group of businesses which controls so much of the production or sale of a product or kind of product as to control the market, including prices and distribution. Business practices, combinations and/or acquisitions which tend to create a monopoly may violate various federal statutes which regulate or prohibit business trusts and monopolies or prohibit restraint of trade. However, limited monopolies granted by a manufacturer to a wholesaler in a particular area are usually legal, since they are like "licenses." Public utilities such as electric, gas and water companies may also hold a monopoly in a particular geographic area since it is the only practical way to provide the public service, and they are regulated by state public utility commissions.

http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?typed=monop oly&type=1&submit1.x=54&submit1.y=8&submit1=Look+u p

Whether or not they are a legal monopoly would be a good argument to have, but frankly, I'd let a court decide that, if it is even worth the cost.

Besides, I've already discussed robot rights with at least one judge (name withheld for obvious reasons, but suffice it to say he's important enough for this discussion). He said it isn't going to happen anytime soon, and I believe him. His argument: property rights aren't rights between a person and their property. Property rights are between a person and other people, the subject of which happens to be property. The property itself has NO rights, even in rem .

For example, even if you have my computer with some incriminating evidence on there, how can you prove beyond reasonable doubt that I put it there?

If many people have access to the computer, it may be difficult to apply constructive possession. Here is where encryption might work against you. If you have encrypted illegal materials and only you have the decryption keys, it is easier to make the case that you and you alone had dominion over the illegal materials and intended to use them.

Of course, when you have a technically illiterate judges, lawyers, and juries, all bets are off.

Credit companies sued over porn IP: "A Beverly Hills pornographer is ... filing a copyright and trademark suit against Visa International Service Association and MasterCard International Inc. The porn company says that without the support of these financial institutions, infringers wouldn't be able to steal their stuff."

Which failed: "U.S. District Judge James Ware tossed out a copyright and trademark infringement suit brought against Visa International Service Association and MasterCard International Inc. by Perfect 10 Inc....`A lot of copyright [litigation] is being pushed by pornographers who are trying to take advantage of cases brought by more mainstream media,' Bridges [representing MasterCard] said."

More file swappers in the US than voted for either Bush or Gore in 2000

(I've said this before and I'll say it again, even though IANAL)

Law ultimately comes down to "legality vs deviance." File sharing is extremely popular, reguardless of its legality. There are over 60 million file-sharers in the US alone. That means it's not really deviant, so doing it has no moral repercussions.

For example, my father haranged me for years (6 to be exact), about downloading music illegally. "You're breaking the law!! You're going to get sued!!." Last month he began downloading oldies off the net ("stuff you'll never find in the stores"). He does NOT believe he has done a single thing wrong. Something (in the course of the 3 months I was away) has convinced him that there is nothing wrong with grabbing some songs off the net. And my father is by far, the most pro-corporation, hard-core, right-wing Republican I know (except maybe my mother, who believes that every third party falls under the category "communism"(and yes, my own mother has called me a communist for supporting badnarik)).

The courts WILL take deviance into account when making decisions (too lazy to find extra sources for a late grandchild post). If violating the law isn't deviant, the court will lean towards striking it down (oral sex, anybody?).

And when it comes down to it... How do you show that a law is a bad law? Writing letters to your congressman? More often than not it yields a response which effectively says "It's nice you want to participate... but I stand by my opinion and yadayadayada" (I've done it for DMCA, Patriot, FCC, to 3 different PA representatives). The only way to make politicans listen is to vote against them. (and don't be fooled... your senators and representatives are FAR more important than the prez).

No, in orer to show your disapproval of the law, the most effective way is to break it. This is doubly true if you can think of a way to do it while gaining massive media coverage that mocks the law (like the RIAA suing granny).

By the way, insurance is meant to protect you against "acts of God"

Actually, no. Read your insurance policies and you'll usually find out that there is a clause that exempts "acts of God". http://dictionary.law.com/definition2.asp?selected =2318&bold=%7C%7C%7C%7C

DC Comics filed suit alleging infringement, unfair competition and dilution of the trademark, as well as state law claims that Kryptonite Corp. was using kryptonite and other words containing "krypto" to confuse consumers into believing there was a connection between its products and the Superman legend.

The judge ruled against a summary judgment motion, which means that DC does make a case that should be allowed to go to trial.

from a legal dictionary.

murder
n. the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought (prior intention to kill the particular victim or anyone who gets in the way) and with no legal excuse or authority...

No worries, spammers don't qualify as human.

It is implied on this page that they don't HAVE to give you the day off. It reads:

All county employees who are not Hurricane Frances mission-critical should not report to work on Friday, September 3rd in order to prepare themselves and their families. Private employers are urged to provide their employees the same flexibility.

Judging by that, it's more of a suggestion than a requirement... But I also found this on this page:

South Florida's labor and employment lawyers got some unexpected business, thanks to Hurricane Frances and Miami-Dade State Attorney Katherine Fernandez Rundle. As the storm threatened South Florida over the weekend, Rundle and County Mayor Alex Penelas publicly warned employers that they could face criminal prosecution for forcing employees to work during the hurricane.

So, it sounds like people are suing for being forced to work during the hurricane, which might be a slightly different situation than yours.

Sounds to me like your employer is just a major league ahole, and you might not be able to do anything about it.

ObIANAL; but law.com does define publication as:

3) in the law of defamation (libel and slander) publication of an untruth about another to at least one single person. Thus one letter can be the basis of a suit for libel [...]

the legal definition of "corporation" is given here. it says nothing about a corporation's right to levy taxes or to pass legally binding ordinances. while a city shares many traits of a corporation, it is not a corporation proper, but is a "municipal corporation," and its status under the law is much different than that of other corporations. i'm sure there is a law in place to address what this guy did (in fact, you found it, it's the next in your list!), but this one ain't it. i said nothing about it being okay because it was public property, i just said this particular law doesn't apply.

as for my house and what gets chalked on it, therein lies the distinction. it's MY house. this man did what he did in public space. also, you bring up the definition of damage, so let's run with that: 1.loss of value? nope. it's just chalk, and it washes away. 2.impairment of usefulness? nope, unless it's some crazy kind of chalk i've never seen, you can still walk on it.

as for your point that this is an issue of enforcement, not necessarily letter of the law legality, makes me have two thoughts: first, why have such poorly written laws that their applicability is up to the personal judgement of the guy with the gun? isn't that what codified law is intended to avoid? and second, if a child playing hopscotch outside their home is given wide leeway, why isn't political speech outside of a political convention? it seems to me that this, of all places, is where if it were going to happen, it should happen.

The court decision is there.

Interview (fr) of Joel Reidenberg (internet legal issues expert, law teacher at Fordham university.)

...
La cour d'appel le dit clairement: ce n'est pas parce que le site est heberge aux Etats-Unis qu'il est exonere de respecter les lois dans les pays ou il diffuse un contenu qui vise les utilisateurs locaux. En precisant ce point, le juge effleure en effet une question de fond. Il laisse sous entendre qu'un site americain ne peut pas faire n'importe quoi a l'etranger.
...

...
Court said plainly: An american hosted internet site can not do anything abroad. It has to respect the law, where the targeted business users are.
...

Yahoo!, Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme et L'Antisemitisme
169 F. Supp. 2d 1181 (N.D. Cal. 2001)

Comity: ...the principle of comity is outweighed by the Court's obligation to uphold the First Amendment...
Accordingly, [Yahoo!'s] motion for summary judgment will be granted. Clerk shall enter judgment and close the file.

So the French lost already. Why are they trying again?

(Taken from CyberLaw: Text and Cases, 2nd Ed. by Ferrera et.al.)

Go through all the source they are currently distributing and mark that which they claim copyright to. This, of course, would require that they identify the code which a) they have refused to do (IMO, because it doesn't exist) and b) would provide the Linux authors exactly the information they need to write around it.

If a GPL author presses them to cease and desist distributing GPL code commingled with their precious un-GPL'ed IP, then to comply with the GPL they must either stop distributing Linux or un-un-GPL their precious IP. The bottom line is that if their claim to intellectual rights in Linux is true, all distribution of Linux must cease, including theirs.

If SCO really wanted to protect their IP, they would have served proper notice as to what it was and demanded it be removed. If SCO really wanted to kill Linux, they would have un-GPL'ed "their" pieces and gone back to their "pure" SCO UNIX product line. Neither of these is what they want. SCO UNIX has failed in the market against Linux. Linux is what customers want. SCO wants to own Linux.

Failure to do anything at all to prevent further infringement is likely to be considered estoppel.

What do you expect from a state that bans dildos?

Not only do I play an attorney on TV, I am an attorney in real life as well.

Stick with playing an attorney on TV. Because you're a poor attorney in real life.

The cited definition for res judicata is entirely correct. Res judicata bars a party from relitigating an issue that has already been litigated between BOTH parties to a suit (as an actual issue, or as a compulsory claim that someone failed to raise in the initial suit) on the theory that judgements should be final absent an abuse of discretion or an error of law. Res judicata is useless in a subsequent suit brought against or brought by a different party. [Plain english: A sues B. A loses and the judgment is not vacated or reversed on appeal. A sues B again on the same facts. The suit is dismissed due to res judicata. A sues C on almost identical facts. If B and C are not related to each other, the suit goes forward.]

The concept that you're looking for is called collateral estoppel. Definition. But the name is not the important error. The important error is that collateral estoppel can only be used DEFENSIVELY against a party that participated in the original suit. That pesky constitution thing requires that a party actually have the opportunity to litigate a claim. Thus if SCO loses a decisive issue in a case, it has had the opportunity to litigate the issue, and other defendants in subsequent cases can use the ruling against SCO under collateral estoppel. However, if SCO wins a decisive issue in a case, SCO cannot use collateral estoppel to prevent other defendants from relitigating the same issue in their own defense.

Summary: From a legal point of view, it's all downside, no upside. From a business point of view, a good win will change the other defendants' or potential defendants' perception of the risk of losing a suit, and encourage a settlement.

Thank you for playing the remedial Civil Procedure law school game. God help your clients.

"I think right now we've got the claims in front of the various courts that we need in order to get our complaints heard and to get them argued and to get resolution. With respect to being more vocal or going after new targets at the customer level, we don't see the need for that. We had the need to get the basic issues on the table, but we're fine to argue the merits of what we have out there right now (in) the current litigation setting."

There's something in law called "res judicata," (incorrect definition here) which means if something is decided by one court, it's binding on a court in another jurisdiction. The definition given is incorrect in stating that it applies only to the parties in the original suit. It can be used against a party in the original suit, if it's the same facts/situation, and the original party had ample and adequate opportunity and reason (motivation) to provide a full defense in the first case.

If there is going to be a lot of cases, usually a company will do several, in different forums/jurisdictions, and see if they get a good result. If they do, such as SCO getting a ruling that all Linux violates their copyright/trade secrets/whatever, then they can use that in subsequent cases when suing. The inverse is also true. If a court finds that SCO is a bunch of mindless jerks that will be the first against the wall when the revolution comes (e.g. their claims are totally without merit), then they really cannot go after anyone else without overcoming some really large hurdles.

Not only do I play an attorney on TV, I am an attorney in real life as well.

Click here to read about a patent case involving Rockwell and a lawsuit generating company called Solaia. They decided to go after Rockwell's costomers and not just Rockwell. The customers sued Rockwell and Rockewell is now going after the Solaia's lawfirm for making the suit. This thing makes the SCO case look like a picnic, but in this case only proprietary software and technology and licensing is involved. Now of course these end-users are actually big corporations like Clorox and Shell which is probably one reason the suits were filed. I have not heard of patent suits where customers at a department store or mall get sued for their purchase, but do not rule out that possibility. It could happen. The point is using proprietary systems and licenses with big corporations does not put you in the clear of liabilities.

Just as Michael Jackson's Beat It is to Weird Al's Eat It, the music is not changing but the words are. Yes, Al got permission but he was not required to. If you look up the legal definition of what a parody is you'll find: According to law.com parody is "the humorous use of an existing song, play, or writing which changes the words to give farcical and ironic meaning." Given that JibJab's lyrics (Read them for yourself) did not use the song in it's original state, and unless the definition of a parody has changed, Jibjab should be in the clear.

I'm sorry, but you're mistaken.

If I have agreement A, which says, "You may have these apples if you give them away for free," and then I have agreement B, which says, "If you give these apples away for free, you agree to pay me $5,000,000," then agreement B places restrictions on rights given by agreement A.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

I'm sorry, but you're mistaken.

If I have agreement A, which says, "You may have these apples if you give them away for free," and then I have agreement B, which says, "If you give these apples away for free, you agree to pay me $5,000,000," then agreement B places restrictions on rights given by agreement A.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

A good release will often contain the phrase:
'For valuable consideration, I hereby give the above photographer permission to use...'

In some locales, and some rulings this has been enforced and the photographs you thought you could use without consideration may not be 'all yours' without some form of payment.
Some judges require REAL VALUE to be exchanged for the contract to be binding.

Your contract could show that you subtracted $1 (the typical amount accepted) from the total charges for the job, or if it's just a single model shoot then you could make it a pics for trade and assign the value of the pics as $1.

It's not universal but if you want to be safe there's never any doubt if there's a signature, copy of id and valuable consideration.

Who knows what future celebrity might be in your files.

A court will not award damages to a party that has 'unclean hands'. The scammers are attempting to negotiate a contract by which they have no itention of abiding--indeed, by which they cannot abide (they don't have eighteen billion dollars, now do they?)--and which would be illegal even if they could carry through their promises. Loosely speaking, the terms: Scammer gives Baiter $80, Baiter gives Scammer $18000, Scammer gives Baiter $millions.

Consequently, the doctrine of clean hands (Link, Link) would tend to preclude successful legal action by the scammers. No court would enforce the contract, and trying to get the original $80 back would expose the scammer to far more costs and probably criminal prosecution.

The problem is that, in the absence of law, the company has the market power to dictate the terms of the contract, to the detriment of the customer. Many companies will abuse this power, and it often becomes "standard industry practice". That's why there are laws about consumer credit, installment loans, warranties, rental housing, etc.

Police occassionally use illegal methods of finding criminals and then must ignore the evidence obtained illegally until evidence can be legally obtained.

Malicious prosecution?

Consideration does not have to be something received of value.

However, consideration must be mutual, and each additional user is a cost, not a benefit, for the hosting service. I don't see how the user's promise to abide by the TOS puts the hosting service in a better position than if no service were provided at all.

As others have mentioned, there's probably a better argument for reliance here, but action in reliation is actually an alternative to consideration, not a form of consideration.

Consideration does not have to be something received of value.

However, consideration must be mutual, and each additional user is a cost, not a benefit, for the hosting service. I don't see how the user's promise to abide by the TOS puts the hosting service in a better position than if no service were provided at all.

As others have mentioned, there's probably a better argument for reliance here, but action in reliation is actually an alternative to consideration, not a form of consideration.

Anything else is like respondonding to a murderer by going after the company that manufactured the gun.

The original seller made an honest offer. He had the real product, and it was a legitimate auction.

He only decided to send the dummy laptop after it was established that the buyer was using a false name, phone number, and escrow site, with the intent to defraud the seller. If the buyer has no intention of holding up his end of the contract (paying for the laptop) then the seller is not bound to send a real laptop.

If the buyer attempts to recover the import duties through civil court, then he exposes himself to criminal prosecution. Further, his claim in civil court would likely be easily denied based on the doctrine of unclean hands--that is, "...a party who is asking for a judgment cannot have the help of the court if he/she has done anything unethical in relation to the subject of the lawsuit."

Man, I knew some judges were sticklers about proper decorum in the courtroom, defendants wearing suits, etc. but this is pretty extreme, don't you think?

Wrong. You're making up words

I haven't made up anything, nor am I pulling words out of the air. I said the definitions supported the common legal definition. I'm using well established, well known legal definitions. Look up "contractor" and "independent contractor" at law.com.

Active duty military does not meet the legal definition of a contractor. It meets the legal definition of an employee. (Look up employee at the same site to see the difference.) And if you think the difference in those two terms are merely semantic, you've obviously never dealt with business income taxes. The IRS is quite picky about which of the two definitions a person falls under.

There's nothing illegal about an employee at lunch-break using a corporate-licensed Microsoft Office to write a personal letter.

MS Office is distributed under a completely different license. You seem to be uninformed on certain basic legal issues, but surely you're aware that what's legal under Microsoft's licensing terms has absolutely nothing to do with what's legal under the GPL! Among a great many other differences, MS licenses Office by machine (unless it's being hosted on a server, in which case it's licensed by the connection). MS doesn't care what how you use that copy of Office so long as you have a license for each copy. The GPL is quite different. You can have as many copies as you like but fall under other restrictions that are triggered when you distribute a copy of the software.

But if for the sake of argument that were true, the giant loophole still exists. Simply define the organization as a "Software of the year club" (analogous to "book of the month") and then any use of the software is covered.

Uh, the purpose of "Software or book of the month" clubs is to DISTRIBUTE software or books.

Oh really? But NMCI will change everything to Microsoft Windows, where Perl will do no good.

Uh, just what the heck have you been smoking? Are you trolling me or are you really that unaware of the state of the industry?

I'm an admin for two networks consisting of four servers, all running WinNT, and around 120 machines, most running NT with a few copies of Windows 2000. We're already all Windows. Perl runs just fine on Windows, it has for years, and I use it on a daily basis. Once we're cut over to NMCI, howver, I'll no longer have admin access. EDS will own and maintain our network. That's why I'll no longer be using Perl there, because that will no longer be my job, not because it can't be used with MS.

There is a great deal of contract law and case law that lies behind the GPL. There are a number of issues that have yet to be tested or clarified in a court of law. However, there are a number of other issues that are standard fare in contract law and aren't controversial at all. The aspects of the GPL that we've been talking about, such as what constitutes a distribution, are well known and quite well established. Anything is possible in a court of law, but if these aspects of the GPL were succesfully challenged, it would surprise a great many experts in this area of the law. I'm not pulling this out of thin air. It's well known, well discussed, and well understood. It's not an issue. You, of course, can believe what you like.

$25 million of the award was punitive damages, so presumably, the other $40 million was compensatory (lost profits) and legal fees (probably mostly legal fees).

Interestingly, those damages were awarded by a judge, not a jury. Here's a link. I would've expected a smaller judgement from the bench.

"Thank god it is or you'd be living in scam land."

Look man I already gave you an example where two companies that have same name and the same product clashed in court and the smaller company won. You seem to think that if the names rhyme then it violates trademark. This is simply not the case.

"He can't throw the trademark out. What he can do is say "Let's let a jury decide." Frankly, I doubt it'd go even that far. Microsoft's position with their trademark is considerably stronger than it has been made out to believe on Slashdot. Putting it to a jury makes it even easier for them to sell. It's not going anywhere, sorry."

It's usually best not to open your mouth when you are so ignorant. Here are a couple of links you should read before you go around saying such things in the future.

From law.com"

Linuxworld
eweek

The windows trademark is clearly at risk.

"Doesn't matter. It looks like Windows, it acts like Windows, but it isn't Windows. Far too easy for somebody to end up with that without realizing what they really got."

Yes it does matter. No it does not look or act like windows. No it's not easy for somebody to end up with it because it's not available via retail and you have to go to a special area of the walmart web site to get it.

Maybe it's easy for you to get confused but a reasonable would not get confused and end up with the wrong product.

"Microsoft risks very little other than money and a slim chance that they lose the (R) next to their name. Thing is, they still own that mark even if the judge throws it out. Nobody's going to forget what Windows is. Frankly, it wouldn't be hard for Microsoft to cook up a new trademark to stand behind."

If microsoft loses the windows trademark it would be devestating to them. They will not risk it and if looks like they will (and it's looking like that) they will pay big bucks to get this case settled.

"Yeah maybe. What MS is doing to them is excessive. Then again, they opened themselves wide open to it. Are you really sure this was a brilliant move by Lindows? Sounds like you're telling me that MS's wrath is killing them. At least that's what I read in the various articles on this topic."

I don't think you know how to read. It's not going to kill them, it not going to devestate them. They have changed the name of their product (temporaririly) but their corporate name is still lindows. That's because in the US they can still use lindows as a name. In europe they have (temporarily) lost the right to use lindows as a product name. The whole lawsuit is probably going to cost them less then a million dollars and the potential rewards are in the tens to hundreds of millions of dollars because MS would pay anything to hold on to that trademark.

But this is getting us nowhere. You have this odd idea that companies own common words and all words that rhyme with them. You haven't read up on the case, you don't really know what you are talking about. You just keep repeating the same old mantra that an average person would would somehow be confused into buying a lindows PC thinking it's windows. That's just an idiotic statement to make and I guess there is no way to convince you otherwise.

Because the GPL does not require any promises in return from licensees, it does not need contract enforcement in order to work.

The record industry may be many things, but it's not a monopoly

The fact that tiny competitors exist doesn't mean the 5 major labels acting jointly as the RIAA isn't a monopoly. They claim to their sales account for 90% of all music sales in the US.

monopoly
n. a business or inter-related group of businesses which controls so much of the production or sale of a product or kind of product as to control the market, including prices and distribution.