"In order to be inherently distinctive, the trade dress must be either arbitrary or suggestive..."
But to be a valid trademark, the mark need not be inherently distinctive. Rather, it can acquire distinctiveness through use. This is why Coca-Cola can be a trademark despite being merely descriptive of the ingredients of the drink.
It's perfectly valid for a word to be in use as a generic term before it becomes a trademark. What's invalid is to use the generic term for your product as a trademark for it.
An obvious hoax.
C'mon, why do you think they call it a TRADEmark? You can't take a generally used word or symbol out of the public domain; you can only enjoin a specific and limited use. I can use the words hallmark and paramount, for example, even capitalizing them if I choose, and if it doesn't give a false impression to consumers I can't be successfully sued.
Additionally, you generally can't have classes of unrelated defendants in a suit. That should have tipped you off.
Even if you didn't know law, wouldn't you wonder how they got a list of millions of e-mail users who used the emoticon? Did they lease Carnivore?
A little cogitation goes a long way, guys.
I use lynx to read User Friendly all the time. It's annoying to have to scroll past the "menu" to pull up the cartoon, but it's still just as fast as waiting for all the extraneous graphics to load.)
My pet peeve: your typical site menu consists of a space-wasting bar of links down the left side. On graphical browsers, this cuts into the display space--I have to view the site full-screen on my 800x600 laptop, and often even that's too small--while on lynx this usually displays as either a frameset to wade through (sometimes on every page, and usually with an "upgrade your browser" message; I'm using the latest packaged version!) or a list of links to scroll past on every page.
Technically, there is a laches defense to patent infringement. However, it rarely succeeds, and if it does it only bars relief of infringements prior to the suit.
Research doesn't always make it acceptable, as I'm sure you're aware - look at the Texaco case; conversely, fair use is of benefit to far more than the academic community, or have you never rented a movie?
Copyright doesn't apply, unless you authored yourself. Not to mention the fact that you can't copyright facts or ideas, only expression. State privacy laws may apply, sure, but not copyright.
I'm not sure when you think that time was, but it wasn't anytime in our lifetimes, unless you're a lot older than I think. In 1924, there was a case called King Features Syndicates v. Fleischer, which was a suit over making a toy out of a character in the "Barney Google and Spark Plug" comic strip.
They're both copyrighted AND trademarked. (This is perfectly
permissible; see Frederick Warne & Co. v. Book Sales, Inc.) If a
character's sufficiently unique it can be copyrighted; see Disney v. Air
Pirates or DC v. Bruns Publishing. Comic-book characters have added
protection in that they're protected both as characters and artwork.
It's not a parody just because you say it is. If you change the fundamental nature of the work, it's not a parody but a derivative work, and not necessarily protected under fair use. And if you comment about culture in general, rather than the work you're taking from, it's satire rather than parody, and isn't necessarily protected under fair use.
Wrong. While it's true that not selling it improves your chances of getting fair use, it doesn't guarantee you haven't infringed. The reason you can distribute to a few friends is that that's not public distribution as defined by the Copyright Act, whereas putting it on the net is.
Sure, it's dated and it's not realistic for most people (various characters say so at the time), but that's an easy criticism and doesn't warrant posting it on Slashdot (why not take a more original approach--e.g., comparing Mike's Nest with the free-love society of Brave New World? It's not like either Heinlein's book or this particular critique is new.
But the book has lasted enough that people are still talking about it. Why? In part because of the ideas in the book; I wasn't around when it first came out so I don't know how readers of that time reacted. The reason I still read it is that, even though his characters are hopelessly idealistic characters and his ideas largely unworkable, he spins a damn good yarn. I'd rather have that than the social genius who can't write his way out of an introductory scene.
This isn't quite true. If Bush takes Iowa and Wisconsin without taking Florida, he has 264 electoral votes. If he also took Oregon (likely, but it hasn't been called yet), he'd be back at 271, which would put him over the top. At that point, the Gore campaign would ask for a recount in New Hampshire, where the margin was about 7,000 votes.
This does let parents parent, by enabling them to make this decision with (hopefully rather than for) their children. Personally, I think 16 would be a better cutoff than 18, but other than that this law is not problematic any more than theatres that exclude childen based on MPAA ratings (less so, perhaps).
Jim Davis owns the Trademark on the Garfield characters. He may or may not own the copyright of a particular strip, but it is the (TM) that keeps you from distributing your own Garfield(TM) cartoons.
This is incorrect. While using Garfield in some other context may violate trademark (can't think of any, but if Snoopy was in public domain and an insurance company besides Met Life used it in advertising), any drawing of Garfield is going to be derivative of Davis' creative work. See the Peter Rabbit case (Frederick Warne & Co. v. Book Sales, Inc., 481 F.Supp. 1191) for details.
"Price discrimination..." way to coin a phrase that will automatically bias you against metering! Maybe he should have just used "Nazi Price Fixing" and been a little less subtle.
That phrase certainly wasn't coined here. It's the standard term for charging people different prices for the same good. (It also wasn't quite as loaded when it was coined as it may be now.)
Odlyzko cites a hypothetical case of two people at the end of a long road who want Internet service. One is willing to pay $10,000, the other is willing to pay $20,000, and running the line out to them would cost $25,000. If the vendor charges $10,000 to each, both will sign up, but the revenue will be only $20,000 (not enough to run the line). If the vendor charges $20,000 to each, only the second will sign up, which still won't cover the $25,000 cost. But if the vendor creates an artificial distinction and offers high-speed service for $18,000, and low-speed service for $8,000, both customers will sign up, the revenue will be $26,000 (enough for a $1,000 profit), and both customers will have service for less than they were willing to pay. This makes economic sense even if the cost of providing the service to both is the same, although, ironically, consumers tend to feel cheated if they find out.
Odlzyko seems to assume that service is service, and the guy who'd pay 10,000 will be satisfied with low-speed service, or that the services aren't really different, in which case the vendor is committing fraud (which is why, completely ironically, the second consumer would feel cheated).
Actually, the vendor can charge a flat rate if he chooses, anywhere between $12,500 to 15,000, and make a profit. This is because, in the artificial constraints of the long-road problem, the second person will pay the first person to sign up for the service so that he can have service as well.
If Internet usage should be metered, you'd think that an ISP would offer such a pricing plan, and that it would be more popular for those light users, making the ISP more successful than its competitors until they too changed their plans.
It's been tried (by the hour, AFAIK not by the byte), and it wasn't. People generally preferred the flat rate.
Personally, I'd prefer a reasonable flat rate for other utilities as well. The reason there isn't one (aside from oligopoly/cartel theories) is that those resources are in more need of conservation, and a flat rate would encourage overconsumption. Overconsumption of bandwidth is not a problem in the same sense that overconsumption of fossil fuels is.
Slashdot Mirror
But to be a valid trademark, the mark need not be inherently distinctive. Rather, it can acquire distinctiveness through use. This is why Coca-Cola can be a trademark despite being merely descriptive of the ingredients of the drink.
It's not a patent, it's a trademark.
It's perfectly valid for a word to be in use as a generic term before it becomes a trademark. What's invalid is to use the generic term for your product as a trademark for it.
It's not a patent, it's a trademark. PTO.
An obvious hoax. C'mon, why do you think they call it a TRADEmark? You can't take a generally used word or symbol out of the public domain; you can only enjoin a specific and limited use. I can use the words hallmark and paramount, for example, even capitalizing them if I choose, and if it doesn't give a false impression to consumers I can't be successfully sued. Additionally, you generally can't have classes of unrelated defendants in a suit. That should have tipped you off. Even if you didn't know law, wouldn't you wonder how they got a list of millions of e-mail users who used the emoticon? Did they lease Carnivore? A little cogitation goes a long way, guys.
IANAProgrammer, but isn't this a pretty basic use of aalib?
I use lynx to read User Friendly all the time. It's annoying to have to scroll past the "menu" to pull up the cartoon, but it's still just as fast as waiting for all the extraneous graphics to load.)
My pet peeve: your typical site menu consists of a space-wasting bar of links down the left side. On graphical browsers, this cuts into the display space--I have to view the site full-screen on my 800x600 laptop, and often even that's too small--while on lynx this usually displays as either a frameset to wade through (sometimes on every page, and usually with an "upgrade your browser" message; I'm using the latest packaged version!) or a list of links to scroll past on every page.
Technically, there is a laches defense to patent infringement. However, it rarely succeeds, and if it does it only bars relief of infringements prior to the suit.
The decision would have been exactly the same if it was given away for free.
Research doesn't always make it acceptable, as I'm sure you're aware - look at the Texaco case; conversely, fair use is of benefit to far more than the academic community, or have you never rented a movie?
Copyright doesn't apply, unless you authored yourself. Not to mention the fact that you can't copyright facts or ideas, only expression. State privacy laws may apply, sure, but not copyright.
I'm not sure when you think that time was, but it wasn't anytime in our lifetimes, unless you're a lot older than I think. In 1924, there was a case called King Features Syndicates v. Fleischer, which was a suit over making a toy out of a character in the "Barney Google and Spark Plug" comic strip.
They're not defending copyright, they're defending trademark. Please don't contribute to the legal legend that copyright is lost if not defended.
Sure it does. 2 Live Crew's "Pretty Woman" parody didn't infringe do to fair use, and that was commercial and widespread.
They're both copyrighted AND trademarked. (This is perfectly
permissible; see Frederick Warne & Co. v. Book Sales, Inc.) If a
character's sufficiently unique it can be copyrighted; see Disney v. Air
Pirates or DC v. Bruns Publishing. Comic-book characters have added
protection in that they're protected both as characters and artwork.
It's not a parody just because you say it is. If you change the fundamental nature of the work, it's not a parody but a derivative work, and not necessarily protected under fair use. And if you comment about culture in general, rather than the work you're taking from, it's satire rather than parody, and isn't necessarily protected under fair use.
Wrong. While it's true that not selling it improves your chances of getting fair use, it doesn't guarantee you haven't infringed. The reason you can distribute to a few friends is that that's not public distribution as defined by the Copyright Act, whereas putting it on the net is.
Sure, it's dated and it's not realistic for most people (various characters say so at the time), but that's an easy criticism and doesn't warrant posting it on Slashdot (why not take a more original approach--e.g., comparing Mike's Nest with the free-love society of Brave New World? It's not like either Heinlein's book or this particular critique is new.
But the book has lasted enough that people are still talking about it. Why? In part because of the ideas in the book; I wasn't around when it first came out so I don't know how readers of that time reacted. The reason I still read it is that, even though his characters are hopelessly idealistic characters and his ideas largely unworkable, he spins a damn good yarn. I'd rather have that than the social genius who can't write his way out of an introductory scene.
This isn't quite true. If Bush takes Iowa and Wisconsin without taking Florida, he has 264 electoral votes. If he also took Oregon (likely, but it hasn't been called yet), he'd be back at 271, which would put him over the top. At that point, the Gore campaign would ask for a recount in New Hampshire, where the margin was about 7,000 votes.
That's the MyMP3 case.
This does let parents parent, by enabling them to make this decision with (hopefully rather than for) their children. Personally, I think 16 would be a better cutoff than 18, but other than that this law is not problematic any more than theatres that exclude childen based on MPAA ratings (less so, perhaps).
How did you get from "under 18 must be accompanied by parent or guardian" to "banned"?
This is incorrect. While using Garfield in some other context may violate trademark (can't think of any, but if Snoopy was in public domain and an insurance company besides Met Life used it in advertising), any drawing of Garfield is going to be derivative of Davis' creative work. See the Peter Rabbit case (Frederick Warne & Co. v. Book Sales, Inc., 481 F.Supp. 1191) for details.
That phrase certainly wasn't coined here. It's the standard term for charging people different prices for the same good. (It also wasn't quite as loaded when it was coined as it may be now.)
Odlzyko seems to assume that service is service, and the guy who'd pay 10,000 will be satisfied with low-speed service, or that the services aren't really different, in which case the vendor is committing fraud (which is why, completely ironically, the second consumer would feel cheated).
Actually, the vendor can charge a flat rate if he chooses, anywhere between $12,500 to 15,000, and make a profit. This is because, in the artificial constraints of the long-road problem, the second person will pay the first person to sign up for the service so that he can have service as well.
If Internet usage should be metered, you'd think that an ISP would offer such a pricing plan, and that it would be more popular for those light users, making the ISP more successful than its competitors until they too changed their plans. It's been tried (by the hour, AFAIK not by the byte), and it wasn't. People generally preferred the flat rate. Personally, I'd prefer a reasonable flat rate for other utilities as well. The reason there isn't one (aside from oligopoly/cartel theories) is that those resources are in more need of conservation, and a flat rate would encourage overconsumption. Overconsumption of bandwidth is not a problem in the same sense that overconsumption of fossil fuels is.