Except that there are trademark issues involved. It may be a violation of trademark for Facebook to allow Merck KGaA to use Facebook.com/Merck in the U.S. and Canada AND a trademark violation to allow Merck U.S. to use Facebook.com/Merck in Europe (and other parts of the world). While it is not clearcut as to whether it is a trademark violation, Facebook decided they wanted no part of the legal battle over this.
As I pointed out in another post, I believe that Facebook chose to go this route because they did not want to get in the middle of this battle between these two companies. I do not believe that either company can afford to let the other have the Facebook.com/Merck link if there is any legal basis to prevent it (although there may be a way, as another user suggested, to use something like Wikipedia's disambiguation page to allow both companies to share it. Which I would think might be acceptable to both).
I am pretty sure that the lawyers would argue (and I believe successfully) that if Sanofi was promoting pharmaceuticals using Facebook.com/Merck that Sanofi was implying that their pharmaceuticals were Merck pharmaceuticals or were endorsed by Merck, which, as you say, is a violation of trademark.
Perhaps, but if Sanofi had a page at Facebook/Merck that was used to promote pharmaceuticals, it would be a violation of trademark and Facebook could not legally allow that. So, Facebook cannot do whatever they like with Facebook.com/Merck, even though it is their domain.
Pretty sure Facebook has all the rights to Facebook.com/*anyname* and always will.
If they want to sell/give it to the highest bidder, or the american branch of a company, or the Mars Rover, they can.
I am pretty sure that if Facebook had given it to another pharmaceutical company (say Sanofi-Aventis) there would have been a trademark infringement lawsuit that they would have lost. Which I suspect brings up why Facebook made this decision. In the U.S. and Canada, the trademark "Merck" belongs to Merck, U.S.. In most of the rest of the world, the trademark "Merck" belongs to Merck KGaA. Since Facebook is a U.S. company that operates internationally, their lawyers may have concluded that Facebook could only lose if this became a court battle.
However, since there is something to the point you made, Facebook is perfectly within their rights to say, "This is too complicated for us. We do not want to be caught in the middle. Until the two of you hash this out in a way that will keep us (Facebook) out of the courts, neither one of you can have it." That is something that Facebook can legally, and ethically, do.
At this point, it does not obviously belong to the German company because we do not know how control ended up in the hands of the U.S. company. It is possible that someone with the German company who had been designated to Facebook as the "administrator" did so. Obviously, it is more likely that someone at Facebook turned administrative control over to the U.S. company (probably because they did not realize there were two pharmaceutical companies with the same name and assumed that the representative of the U.S. company was the representative of the company that originally registered the name--it is even possible that the representative of the U.S. company did not realize that they were taking control from the German company when they did this).
The psychological barrier to sending an email is lower.
Really? I find it to be the other way. I only send email when it is important to me that the other person read it. If it is just an off the cuff comment, I will send it via IM. Phone calls are used for exchanges where I am not sure that the other person and I will use technical terms in the same manner (there are certain terms that my co-workers and I understand in one way, the end users tend to understand in another way and our peers in other IT units use in yet a third way).
Many flowering plants also reproduce sexually. For example, holly bushes are either male or female. The berries only appear on the female holly bushes and only if there is a male holly bush within 12 feet or so.
Actually, if the anti-vaxxers were around in full force then like they are now, they would probably have been lynched (or, at the very least, strapped down and vaccinated against their will).
As someone touched upon, the problem was not that the Romans built roads that the barbarians used to move their troops on to defeat Rome. The problem was that the Romans trained the barbarians as soldiers and in military tactics and then gave them the option of selling their children into slavery or starving to death. The barbarians demonstrated to Rome that they had a third option.
There are two problems with your comparison. The first is that evidence suggests that Al Qaeda would be perfectly happy to exterminate the same populations that Hitler wished to exterminate (it is even its goal to exterminate several of them). The second is that Hitler would not have been interested in this virus because it would not have selectively targeted the populations he wished to exterminate. It would have also exterminated to the same degree the population that he wished to promulgate, especially considering that most of the populations he wished to exterminate were mixed in among the populations he wished to advance.
You are claiming that the guys who say that the stimulus is bad did not predict the current situation, yet, all of the ones I know who did predict it (in 2005 and their logic explains what happened very well) said in January of 2009 that the stimulus would not reduce unemployment.
The only places that fire teachers en masse are places where, when times are good and tax coffers are full, they hire more "administrative" staff. Then when times are bad and tax coffers are empty and the voters refuse to approve higher taxes, they fire teachers rather than those extra "administrative" staff. By "administrative" staff, I am not referring to janitors, cooks and such, I am referring to people who make 3-4 times what a teacher makes to "make sure that the children get properly educated", although they rarely, if ever, actually interact with the children.
The ARRA of 2009 was rushed through Congress at Obama's urging (and based, loosely, on plans drawn up by Obama's transition team) because it was "vitally important" and there was no time to debate whether the various provisions would be effective or not. Any aspects of ARRA that were worked on without Obama's input were done so by the Democrats who controlled Congress even before Obama was elected. While the Bush Administration supported excessive spending, they had no hand in ARRA. As for "90% of economists" thinking that ARRA was too small, the group of economists composed of former Enron advisor Paul Krugman and other lackeys of George Soros does not make up 90% of all economists (in other words, any economist who resides in the real world, and is not willing to lie for their political masters, recognizes that ARRA made things worse).
The way that shareholder is typically defined, a sole proprietorship does not have shareholders. A corporation may have only a single shareholder who owns 100% of the shares. The other distinction is that there is no separation between the assets of a sole proprietorship and those of its owner. For example if a person is running a business as a sole proprietorship out of property that they purchased with money from that business that person owns the property. On the other hand, if a corporation owned by a single shareholder is run out of a property purchased by that corporation the property belongs to the corporation, not the shareholder.
You are incorrect, the owners of privately held corporations are known as shareholders. The fact that in most cases those who own shares in a private corporation, also, have other stakes in the company (founder, employee, etc) does not mean that they are not shareholders and that they are not known as such. Adding to this is the fact that most privately held companies generally have strict limitations on the conditions under which shareholders may sell shares.
ALL companies have shareholders; even privately held ones.
This is not true (although it is closer to true than the original poster who thought that a privately held company would automatically not have shareholders), some companies are sole proprietorships and some other companies are partnerships. That being said, ALL corporations have stock holders and Valve is a corporation.
If this universe is all there is, then everything you will accomplish in this life is meaningless and it cannot be of lasting value since it will all end in the heat death of the universe.
The only way to compete with an NFL coach is to be hired by an NFL owner, at which point you have the same access to the films that every other coach has.
So, how does an atheist, who does not believe that anything lasts (current scientific theory says that the universe will end in heat death), find lasting meaning?
Slashdot Mirror
Except that there are trademark issues involved. It may be a violation of trademark for Facebook to allow Merck KGaA to use Facebook.com/Merck in the U.S. and Canada AND a trademark violation to allow Merck U.S. to use Facebook.com/Merck in Europe (and other parts of the world). While it is not clearcut as to whether it is a trademark violation, Facebook decided they wanted no part of the legal battle over this.
But ideas are not supposed to be protected by patents. Patents are supposed to protect the design of a device, not to protect an idea.
As I pointed out in another post, I believe that Facebook chose to go this route because they did not want to get in the middle of this battle between these two companies. I do not believe that either company can afford to let the other have the Facebook.com/Merck link if there is any legal basis to prevent it (although there may be a way, as another user suggested, to use something like Wikipedia's disambiguation page to allow both companies to share it. Which I would think might be acceptable to both).
I am pretty sure that the lawyers would argue (and I believe successfully) that if Sanofi was promoting pharmaceuticals using Facebook.com/Merck that Sanofi was implying that their pharmaceuticals were Merck pharmaceuticals or were endorsed by Merck, which, as you say, is a violation of trademark.
Perhaps, but if Sanofi had a page at Facebook/Merck that was used to promote pharmaceuticals, it would be a violation of trademark and Facebook could not legally allow that. So, Facebook cannot do whatever they like with Facebook.com/Merck, even though it is their domain.
Well there is a rule 34 I would love to see.
Well, I am pretty sure that I would not.
Pretty sure Facebook has all the rights to Facebook.com/*anyname* and always will.
If they want to sell/give it to the highest bidder, or the american branch of a company, or the Mars Rover, they can.
I am pretty sure that if Facebook had given it to another pharmaceutical company (say Sanofi-Aventis) there would have been a trademark infringement lawsuit that they would have lost. Which I suspect brings up why Facebook made this decision. In the U.S. and Canada, the trademark "Merck" belongs to Merck, U.S.. In most of the rest of the world, the trademark "Merck" belongs to Merck KGaA. Since Facebook is a U.S. company that operates internationally, their lawyers may have concluded that Facebook could only lose if this became a court battle.
However, since there is something to the point you made, Facebook is perfectly within their rights to say, "This is too complicated for us. We do not want to be caught in the middle. Until the two of you hash this out in a way that will keep us (Facebook) out of the courts, neither one of you can have it." That is something that Facebook can legally, and ethically, do.
At this point, it does not obviously belong to the German company because we do not know how control ended up in the hands of the U.S. company. It is possible that someone with the German company who had been designated to Facebook as the "administrator" did so. Obviously, it is more likely that someone at Facebook turned administrative control over to the U.S. company (probably because they did not realize there were two pharmaceutical companies with the same name and assumed that the representative of the U.S. company was the representative of the company that originally registered the name--it is even possible that the representative of the U.S. company did not realize that they were taking control from the German company when they did this).
The psychological barrier to sending an email is lower.
Really? I find it to be the other way. I only send email when it is important to me that the other person read it. If it is just an off the cuff comment, I will send it via IM. Phone calls are used for exchanges where I am not sure that the other person and I will use technical terms in the same manner (there are certain terms that my co-workers and I understand in one way, the end users tend to understand in another way and our peers in other IT units use in yet a third way).
Many flowering plants also reproduce sexually. For example, holly bushes are either male or female. The berries only appear on the female holly bushes and only if there is a male holly bush within 12 feet or so.
Actually, if the anti-vaxxers were around in full force then like they are now, they would probably have been lynched (or, at the very least, strapped down and vaccinated against their will).
As someone touched upon, the problem was not that the Romans built roads that the barbarians used to move their troops on to defeat Rome. The problem was that the Romans trained the barbarians as soldiers and in military tactics and then gave them the option of selling their children into slavery or starving to death. The barbarians demonstrated to Rome that they had a third option.
There are two problems with your comparison. The first is that evidence suggests that Al Qaeda would be perfectly happy to exterminate the same populations that Hitler wished to exterminate (it is even its goal to exterminate several of them). The second is that Hitler would not have been interested in this virus because it would not have selectively targeted the populations he wished to exterminate. It would have also exterminated to the same degree the population that he wished to promulgate, especially considering that most of the populations he wished to exterminate were mixed in among the populations he wished to advance.
You are claiming that the guys who say that the stimulus is bad did not predict the current situation, yet, all of the ones I know who did predict it (in 2005 and their logic explains what happened very well) said in January of 2009 that the stimulus would not reduce unemployment.
I have never watched Fox News. You should perhaps not watch so much Democratic Party propaganda pretending to be news.
The only places that fire teachers en masse are places where, when times are good and tax coffers are full, they hire more "administrative" staff. Then when times are bad and tax coffers are empty and the voters refuse to approve higher taxes, they fire teachers rather than those extra "administrative" staff. By "administrative" staff, I am not referring to janitors, cooks and such, I am referring to people who make 3-4 times what a teacher makes to "make sure that the children get properly educated", although they rarely, if ever, actually interact with the children.
The ARRA of 2009 was rushed through Congress at Obama's urging (and based, loosely, on plans drawn up by Obama's transition team) because it was "vitally important" and there was no time to debate whether the various provisions would be effective or not. Any aspects of ARRA that were worked on without Obama's input were done so by the Democrats who controlled Congress even before Obama was elected. While the Bush Administration supported excessive spending, they had no hand in ARRA. As for "90% of economists" thinking that ARRA was too small, the group of economists composed of former Enron advisor Paul Krugman and other lackeys of George Soros does not make up 90% of all economists (in other words, any economist who resides in the real world, and is not willing to lie for their political masters, recognizes that ARRA made things worse).
there's not much interest in setting up sharia courts at all...
Which explains the group that is setting up a system to apply Muslim law in neighborhoods in Britain where Muslims are the overwhelming majority.
You demonstrate a very common misunderstanding of Christianity and the basis for its moral code.
The way that shareholder is typically defined, a sole proprietorship does not have shareholders. A corporation may have only a single shareholder who owns 100% of the shares. The other distinction is that there is no separation between the assets of a sole proprietorship and those of its owner. For example if a person is running a business as a sole proprietorship out of property that they purchased with money from that business that person owns the property. On the other hand, if a corporation owned by a single shareholder is run out of a property purchased by that corporation the property belongs to the corporation, not the shareholder.
You are incorrect, the owners of privately held corporations are known as shareholders. The fact that in most cases those who own shares in a private corporation, also, have other stakes in the company (founder, employee, etc) does not mean that they are not shareholders and that they are not known as such. Adding to this is the fact that most privately held companies generally have strict limitations on the conditions under which shareholders may sell shares.
ALL companies have shareholders; even privately held ones.
This is not true (although it is closer to true than the original poster who thought that a privately held company would automatically not have shareholders), some companies are sole proprietorships and some other companies are partnerships. That being said, ALL corporations have stock holders and Valve is a corporation.
If this universe is all there is, then everything you will accomplish in this life is meaningless and it cannot be of lasting value since it will all end in the heat death of the universe.
The only way to compete with an NFL coach is to be hired by an NFL owner, at which point you have the same access to the films that every other coach has.
So, how does an atheist, who does not believe that anything lasts (current scientific theory says that the universe will end in heat death), find lasting meaning?