Even if it was a trademarked phrase it wouldn't matter since the term was clarified by the judge to mean any keyword that could be used for blocking an advertiser from showing up in a search.
Since I see no TM markings next to any use of the phrase on all of Google's pages that I can find, most likely not. If they did they are doing a poor job of showing it.
They could put ads with Yahoo!, get sued again and say in court "Your honor, Yahoo! does not offer negative keywords, negative adwords or the like." That's why the term was clarified in the ruling document to mean any keyword that could be used to prevent an advertiser from appearing during a search. I know this is slashdot and all, but you might want to read the thing you are trying to critique next time. It'll help to make you look like less of a moron the next time you try to expound on a subject.
For purposes of this court order, a "negative keyword" or "negative adword" shall mean a special kind of advertiser keyword matching option that allows an advertiser to prevent its advertisement from appearing when the specific terms are a part of a given user's internet search or search string. It does not infer that the Defendant may use the specified negative keywords or adwords for any other purpose. Fail. Read the ruling next time.
Do you have a reading comprehension problem? I'll quote the relevant section for you.
and shall, when purchasing internet advertising using keywords, adwords or the like
If pressed to think of a non-constellation use of Orion, I think of Orion Pictures Those are two different industries and hence one wouldn't be confusing Orion Bankcorp with Orion Pictures. So that situation isn't really analogous to two financial companies both using Orion in their name.
These banks prolly ought not mess with movie folks over things like trademarks and copyrights... Even if Orion Pictures was still around, which it's not, they wouldn't be able to win a suit against either Orion Bankcorp or Orion Residential Finance.
You might want to do some reading on trademark law before you post next time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright_law#Movable_type
Protection for the authors and their representatives was sought through special privileges obtained for separate works as issued. According to Elizabeth Armstrong (whom the Curators of the Bodleian Library awarded the Gordon Duff Prize in 1965 for her essay on Printers' and authors' privileges in France and the Low Countries in the sixteenth century), "The republic of Venice granted its first privilege for a particular book in 1486.
The first copyright privilege in England bears date 1518 and was issued to Richard Pynson, King's Printer, the successor to William Caxton. The privilege gives a monopoly for the term of two years. The date is 15 years later than that of the first privilege issued in France.
The earliest German privilege of which there is trustworthy record was issued in 1501 by the Aulic Council to an association entitled the Sodalitas Rhenana Celtica, for the publication of an edition of the dramas of Hroswitha of Gandersheim, which had been prepared for the press by Konrad Keltes. All of these examples predate Shakespeare's birth by a half century or more. Next time you might want to read up on a topic before trying to expound on it.
And I'm pointing out that those concepts didn't really even exist in Shakespeare's time. Then you would be wrong. The copyrighting of an artists work actually predates his time.
But is he really all that rich now? I'm assuming most of his money was probably tied into company stock that's worth less than toilet paper at this point.
This flies directly in the face of what SCO found in extensive investigations in 2002 and did not correspond with what SCO Senior Vice President Chrs Sontag just finished testifying earlier that day. Wait... you're going to claim that Darl McBride is a liar?!?!? I'm totally shocked!
I'm having a hard time understanding what your post has to do with mine. I was merely pointing out that the situation between Harry Potter and Shakspeare's plays aren't analogous since once is still under copyright and one is public domain.
To add, this isn't meant to be a post supportive of Rowling, but the attempt at trying to equate the usage of copyrighted material as being the exact same situation as something in the public domain is retarded.
I really hope you're joking. Otherwise you've unnecessarily made a complete fool of yourself in public. The works of William Shakespeare have been in the public domain for centuries. Harry Potter is still a copyrighted work. Next time you might want to look after such details trying to one up someone.
No, they are opposed to the trolling of Stallman who was spreading falsehoods about their project and then refused to apologize or even acknowledge his misstatements.
I see CDs slowly but surely heading the way of the floppy. At some point, they're going to disappear from more or less all new units. They're off a few models already, but it's too soon to say when the tipping point will hit. The reason that CD drives are disappearing is because of the fact that DVD drives are pretty much as cheap as any CD drive AND can read CDs (with many able to also burn CDs).
When it does, the sales of read-only CDs will have to be replaced, possibly with read-write SD flash or USB sticks or something similar. This logic doesn't follow. DVD/HD-DVD/Blu-Ray drives all read CDs. Why would the elimination of drives that only read CDs mean that CDs would have to be replaced? There are still 100s of millions of the previous mentioned drives that can read them just the same.
Some thought will have to be put into how to best deal with that when the time comes. This time you mention would have to extend to the end of all optical media, which isn't coming around any time soon.
But I think that jailing people for having an increased risk of committing a crime is a slippery slope.... A slippery slope to what? DUI laws have been on the books for almost 40 years in the US.
As expected, Jack Thompson is making his usual attention-whoring remarks by comparing GTA IV to the polio virus." Won't someone finally lock this guy up in a mental institution? This man seriously needs therapy.
A true conservative, in the same style as Barry Goldwater, would find all of this governmental involvement abhorrent and would love to see the size of government shrink and people start taking responsibility for themselves and their actions again. I don't think any such conservative has existed for a few decades in any public position.
Slashdot Mirror
Even if it was a trademarked phrase it wouldn't matter since the term was clarified by the judge to mean any keyword that could be used for blocking an advertiser from showing up in a search.
Since I see no TM markings next to any use of the phrase on all of Google's pages that I can find, most likely not. If they did they are doing a poor job of showing it.
You might want to do some reading on trademark law before you post next time.
your*
Especially when you're stock is worth less than a roll of Charmin.
But is he really all that rich now? I'm assuming most of his money was probably tied into company stock that's worth less than toilet paper at this point.
I'm having a hard time understanding what your post has to do with mine. I was merely pointing out that the situation between Harry Potter and Shakspeare's plays aren't analogous since once is still under copyright and one is public domain.
To add, this isn't meant to be a post supportive of Rowling, but the attempt at trying to equate the usage of copyrighted material as being the exact same situation as something in the public domain is retarded.
That doesn't make him a jerk. His behavior and loony rantings do.
I really hope you're joking. Otherwise you've unnecessarily made a complete fool of yourself in public. The works of William Shakespeare have been in the public domain for centuries. Harry Potter is still a copyrighted work. Next time you might want to look after such details trying to one up someone.
No, they are opposed to the trolling of Stallman who was spreading falsehoods about their project and then refused to apologize or even acknowledge his misstatements.
You're almost an hour behind there. See: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=540248&cid=23264284 and then http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=540248&cid=23264514
This could definitely lead to some interesting implications for people cybering.
The fact of the matter is that Merriam-Webster is a more authoritative dictionary than some random webpage.