Yes, go update your browser so you can get a test of the latest ultra buggy, ultra shitty web 2.0 experience from the slashcode monkeys that will bog down even the fastest browsers running on quad core systems. Oh but don't expect unicode support because that would just be far too much effort to implement.
Sorry, it's not my job to disprove something you yourself can't even prove. Once you show us an actual phone that shipped with those files we can talk. Until then you're just making shit up.
George Lucas was ever creative? The only reasons why the first 3 movies didn't suck was because George wasn't doing it solo. Episodes 1-3 suck so much because he thought his shit didn't stink and he surrounded himself with nothing but yesmen and all he churned out was schlock.
And as a final response to show you are totally full of shit. this is the actual registered trademark of the NYSE. The picture used in the article is not the same as the registered trademark thus the NYSE is even more full of shit. Once again, a trademark is a "distinctive sign or indicator of a business" and the picture in the article is not of their trademark.
Those things are all true, except the last (and only with a contrafactual assumption there). If it were the case that Coke did not, in fact, have high-fructose corn syrup in it, then they could complain about your picture of Coke. Just because it is a soft drink, and popular, doesn't give you the right to print a picture of the trademarked Coke logo when that has nothing to do with the story. (In the real world, Coke is full of HFCS, and it would be fine.)
Says who? I assume you have case law and/or statutory law to back this up, right?
No, only if you take a photo of something that is already trademarked and then publish it yourself for profit.
Sorry, that's not how trademark law works. You seem to be confusing trademark with a copyrighted image. You can use trademarks in articles that are published for profit without needing approval of the mark holder.
And only if the trademark owner considers it worse publicity than "bad publicity".
That's completely irrelevant. A newspaper can write a negative article about McDonalds and use the trademarked McDonalds logo in the article without needing approval from the company and they could do nothing against it.
And yet, it's the most recognizable image of the NYSE.
Irrelevant. A trademark is a distinctive mark. Secondly, if this were such an issue where are the C&Ds over all the other articles that use stock photos of the NYSE trading floor that aren't about the NYSE in particular? Oh right, there are none and thus the NYSE's 'trademark' has been diluted through their own lack of enforcement and thus been made generic. Basically, the NYSE has fucking failed at their own statutory duty.
Oh and if we are going to use wikipedia then maybe you should actually read what a trademark is?
A trademark, trade mark, or trade-mark is a distinctive sign or indicator used by an individual, business organization, or other legal entity to identify that the products or services to consumers with which the trademark appears originate from a unique source, and to distinguish its products or services from those of other entities.
A generic stock photo of the NYSE trading floor is not a "distintive sign or indicator" and thus does not fall under a trademark. You can't claim trademark on every single stock photo of the trading floor just as Subway Restaurants can not claim trademark over any sign that says "Subway" in it. The Subway trademark is a distinctive sign of the business.
The article in question isn't about the NYSE, though. It's about an FBI investigation. Attaching a NYSE trademark implies that NYSE is involved.
So what? Care to cite any statutory law that makes this remotely relevant? If that were true it would be a case for a defamation suit, not a trademark suit especially when the article in question is from November of last year which shows a clear lack of trademark enforcement. This is also ignoring the fact that the use of this supposedly 'trademarked' image has been used in generic articles about stock trading, investments, etc for years and years and years without the NYSE doing anything basically does nothing but show that they've allowed their 'trademark' to become generic and unenforceable. The NYSE is intentionally abusing trademark law.
There are hundreds if not thousands of stock photos of the NYSE trading floor that are used in stories about investing, stock markets, etc in stories that aren't about the NYSE specifically. They've already made their 'trademark' generic through lack of enforcement.
Gee, maybe I'm wrong. Let's go look it up real quick [wikipedia.org]...
Gee, maybe you could have read all of my posts where I even add a clarification that provides examples of true trademark dilution.
So there's this news article about the FBI and investment companies, and TPM threw NYSE's trademark on there because... um... why, exactly?
Because it's one of numerous stock photos of the NYSE that are used in stories about stock markets, investing, etc.
Well, maybe because it's a generic "stock trading" image that people will recognize, but it's not generic. It's a trademark. Putting the NYSE image on an unrelated article reinforces the idea that the NYSE is generic, and that certainly would "lessen its uniqueness".
So then where are all the other C&Ds to cover the numerous amount of other articles that use similar stock photos of the NYSE? Oh right, they don't exist. And since the NYSE has let all those other stories go, they've already diluted their trademark by lack of enforcement making their case even weaker.
Looks like dilution to me. Reading the actual C&D letter, the NYSE is not at all requesting censorship of the article. They just want the picture removed so they aren't directly associated with an insider trading investigation.
So what? That's not dilution. Dilution is an attempt to disassociate the product and the trademark whereas the article in question even makes sure to point out that the 'trademark', the trading floor, is of the NYSE, the product. Writing an article about the London Stock Exchange and using that picture with a caption that attempted to suggest that the NYSE 'trademark' in the picture is of the LSE would have some merit of dilution.
This is where the minuscule, niche group of users who make up less than.5% of all your customers will go when their current contracts expire or when they just get fed up with all of the great options on everyone else's phones other than yours.
FTFY. Seriously, most users don't know what a bootloader is let alone whether or not it's locked or unlocked.
Only two weeks behind? That's not bad for Slashdot. We've had stories posted based off blog postings that have been anywhere from 6 months to more than a year old by the time it hit Slashdot.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, go update your browser so you can get a test of the latest ultra buggy, ultra shitty web 2.0 experience from the slashcode monkeys that will bog down even the fastest browsers running on quad core systems. Oh but don't expect unicode support because that would just be far too much effort to implement.
Yes, but needing 3 movies to do that. Pfffft. Avatar made more than that on it's own. And by your logic it has to be the better movie.
Sorry, it's not my job to disprove something you yourself can't even prove. Once you show us an actual phone that shipped with those files we can talk. Until then you're just making shit up.
He isn't getting any younger. I mean how many yachts do you need, anyways?
Yes, but he has to think of all the yachts his children might need in the future.
George Lucas was ever creative? The only reasons why the first 3 movies didn't suck was because George wasn't doing it solo. Episodes 1-3 suck so much because he thought his shit didn't stink and he surrounded himself with nothing but yesmen and all he churned out was schlock.
Once again, point out a phone that actually shipped with those files.
Great. Who actually shipped those files? Oh right, no one.
Did Apple also obtain a license on that patent? If not, how is that even remotely analogous to the situation at hand?
Until the last few years? Preorders at game stop STILL are $5 down payments on the game.
Literally free 3g everywhere in the world.
Sure, if you ignore the fact that 3g isn't available everywhere in the world. Hell, I can drive through parts of major cities in the US and lose 3g.
And how many people were lugging FM radios on planes?
All consoles makers use OpenGL
While they may come with OpenGL-like APIs no actual developers use them.
And as a final response to show you are totally full of shit. this is the actual registered trademark of the NYSE. The picture used in the article is not the same as the registered trademark thus the NYSE is even more full of shit. Once again, a trademark is a "distinctive sign or indicator of a business" and the picture in the article is not of their trademark.
Those things are all true, except the last (and only with a contrafactual assumption there). If it were the case that Coke did not, in fact, have high-fructose corn syrup in it, then they could complain about your picture of Coke. Just because it is a soft drink, and popular, doesn't give you the right to print a picture of the trademarked Coke logo when that has nothing to do with the story. (In the real world, Coke is full of HFCS, and it would be fine.)
Says who? I assume you have case law and/or statutory law to back this up, right?
No, only if you take a photo of something that is already trademarked and then publish it yourself for profit.
Sorry, that's not how trademark law works. You seem to be confusing trademark with a copyrighted image. You can use trademarks in articles that are published for profit without needing approval of the mark holder.
And only if the trademark owner considers it worse publicity than "bad publicity".
That's completely irrelevant. A newspaper can write a negative article about McDonalds and use the trademarked McDonalds logo in the article without needing approval from the company and they could do nothing against it.
And yet, it's the most recognizable image of the NYSE.
Irrelevant. A trademark is a distinctive mark. Secondly, if this were such an issue where are the C&Ds over all the other articles that use stock photos of the NYSE trading floor that aren't about the NYSE in particular? Oh right, there are none and thus the NYSE's 'trademark' has been diluted through their own lack of enforcement and thus been made generic. Basically, the NYSE has fucking failed at their own statutory duty.
Oh and if we are going to use wikipedia then maybe you should actually read what a trademark is?
A trademark, trade mark, or trade-mark is a distinctive sign or indicator used by an individual, business organization, or other legal entity to identify that the products or services to consumers with which the trademark appears originate from a unique source, and to distinguish its products or services from those of other entities.
A generic stock photo of the NYSE trading floor is not a "distintive sign or indicator" and thus does not fall under a trademark. You can't claim trademark on every single stock photo of the trading floor just as Subway Restaurants can not claim trademark over any sign that says "Subway" in it. The Subway trademark is a distinctive sign of the business.
The article in question isn't about the NYSE, though. It's about an FBI investigation. Attaching a NYSE trademark implies that NYSE is involved.
So what? Care to cite any statutory law that makes this remotely relevant? If that were true it would be a case for a defamation suit, not a trademark suit especially when the article in question is from November of last year which shows a clear lack of trademark enforcement. This is also ignoring the fact that the use of this supposedly 'trademarked' image has been used in generic articles about stock trading, investments, etc for years and years and years without the NYSE doing anything basically does nothing but show that they've allowed their 'trademark' to become generic and unenforceable. The NYSE is intentionally abusing trademark law.
Wow, another Packt publishing review that gets a 9/10. What a coincidence!
There are hundreds if not thousands of stock photos of the NYSE trading floor that are used in stories about investing, stock markets, etc in stories that aren't about the NYSE specifically. They've already made their 'trademark' generic through lack of enforcement.
Gee, maybe I'm wrong. Let's go look it up real quick [wikipedia.org]...
Gee, maybe you could have read all of my posts where I even add a clarification that provides examples of true trademark dilution.
So there's this news article about the FBI and investment companies, and TPM threw NYSE's trademark on there because... um... why, exactly?
Because it's one of numerous stock photos of the NYSE that are used in stories about stock markets, investing, etc.
Well, maybe because it's a generic "stock trading" image that people will recognize, but it's not generic. It's a trademark. Putting the NYSE image on an unrelated article reinforces the idea that the NYSE is generic, and that certainly would "lessen its uniqueness".
So then where are all the other C&Ds to cover the numerous amount of other articles that use similar stock photos of the NYSE? Oh right, they don't exist. And since the NYSE has let all those other stories go, they've already diluted their trademark by lack of enforcement making their case even weaker.
Looks like dilution to me. Reading the actual C&D letter, the NYSE is not at all requesting censorship of the article. They just want the picture removed so they aren't directly associated with an insider trading investigation.
So what? That's not dilution. Dilution is an attempt to disassociate the product and the trademark whereas the article in question even makes sure to point out that the 'trademark', the trading floor, is of the NYSE, the product. Writing an article about the London Stock Exchange and using that picture with a caption that attempted to suggest that the NYSE 'trademark' in the picture is of the LSE would have some merit of dilution.
5%? You're easily an order of magnitude off.
This is where the minuscule, niche group of users who make up less than .5% of all your customers will go when their current contracts expire or when they just get fed up with all of the great options on everyone else's phones other than yours.
FTFY. Seriously, most users don't know what a bootloader is let alone whether or not it's locked or unlocked.
Only two weeks behind? That's not bad for Slashdot. We've had stories posted based off blog postings that have been anywhere from 6 months to more than a year old by the time it hit Slashdot.
Making money off a madman/criminal seems wrong.
And by "making money off of a madman/criminal" you mean selling his stuff to pay restitution to his victims, right? I see nothing wrong with that.