No state shall... pass any... Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
Now, it's well known that this document doesn't apply in California;), ToysMart is in Massachusetts.
But what if another company buys ToysMart, thus assuming its contracts, obligations and debt? Then it would legitimately own the customer list. And, since all the company has is its customer list, maybe selling the list isn't all that different.
There's clearly something wrong here (see amusing calculations below). So, we go look at their web page. Wait a minute! Their pictures use square waves, not sine waves. They're actually broadcasting on all frequencies, and are misrepresenting their bandwidth. Problem solved. The real data rates may be what they claim -- they just use way more bandwidth than they claim.
The critical test, which they do not report, is to send and receive data through a narrow bandpass filter that eliminates the high-frequency components of the square-wave signal.
Amusing calculations:
The photon shot noise of a 1W, 100 MHz signal implies a maximum SNR of about 10^12.
SNR = Sqrt[Power/h*BW], h=6*10^-34 SI
A more reasonable microwatt radio signal has a maximum SNR of 10^9 and, with 100 MHz bandwidth, a throughput limit of 6 Mbps.
To get the SNR of 10^27 they claim as maximum (see below) you'd need a star-powered transmitter. And our sun probably isn't big enough.
To get a SNR of 10^19 you need something like 10^13 watts of receiver power. A nuclear plant wouldn't work. So, clearly either we've misinterpreted the research, they're full of crap, or they're on to something new.
How often do you hear "this call may be monitored..." on the phone? Microsoft tech support even does this on email: they ask you to contact the drone's supervisor if you're not happy with your answer.
Since phone wiretapping laws have been applied to email in the absence of any other governing law, I would think that the monitoring laws apply as well. You should be told when you're being monitored.
But email is quite different from a telephone. The rules on recording conversations varies from state to state, but computer information is always recorded. Many service providers spool everything to tape, and there's no expectation of privacy. Given this tradition, maybe you don't have to notify people that you're monitoring their email or keystrokes.
Under US law, if you fail to defend your tradmarks, you lose them. Until this is tested in court, there is no prescedent for whether or not foosucks.com is an infringement upon foo.com. So foo.com is obligated to go through legal action against foosucks.com.
So, the matter goes to the lawyers. This is, after all, our society's officially approved way of settling disputes.
Now for the flamebait:
Why do people get so uppity over cease and desist letters? It's just a letter. It doesn't mean that goons are coming to break down the door -- it means that somebody thinks that you're in the wrong, and you had better pay attention.
What if someone made a slashdotsucks.org site? Or if the owners of slashdot.net created a news site similar to/.?
I think that VA Linux, if it wanted to get its trademark application for Slashdot approved, would have to try to shut down the site, free speech be damned.
Without a trademark, anyone could provide shoddy goods and services to besmirch the Slashdot name. Consider Harvard Brand cigarettes, for example. You can buy them in India. That doesn't reflect very well on a medical school, does it?
The issue is about limiting free speech -- you're not allowed to pretend to be someone else by using their name.
Part of the reason for this discussion is that there's no governing law. The court has nothing to work with besides the shrinkwrap license agreement. For a hammer, the Uniform Commerce Code applies. But it has not been applied to software.
UCITA, whether you like it or not, or its variants would apply to software and to cases like this -- provided that the construction company were in a UCITA state. What do/.ers think that software developers' and purchasers' rights ought to be?
Should there be a "software bug insurance" industry?
Remember, Lotus 1-2-3 got involved in a case like this a long time ago. Lotus won that one, not because of the shrinkwrap license, but because they proved that the construction company entered the wrong formula in the spreadsheet.
Whether or not Coke is a valid trademark, it's the responsibility of the Coca-Cola company to enforce it. If they want to keep it, they are legally obligated to try to stop people from also using the word Coke. They might withdraw their claim later, but certainly not until they have come to an agreement with the domain owner.
Slashdot Mirror
I always thought it was pretty clear:
US Constitution Article I, Section 10
No state shall ... pass any ... Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
Now, it's well known that this document doesn't apply in California ;), ToysMart is in Massachusetts.
But what if another company buys ToysMart, thus assuming its contracts, obligations and debt? Then it would legitimately own the customer list. And, since all the company has is its customer list, maybe selling the list isn't all that different.
There's clearly something wrong here (see amusing calculations below). So, we go look at their web page. Wait a minute! Their pictures use square waves, not sine waves. They're actually broadcasting on all frequencies, and are misrepresenting their bandwidth. Problem solved. The real data rates may be what they claim -- they just use way more bandwidth than they claim.
The critical test, which they do not report, is to send and receive data through a narrow bandpass filter that eliminates the high-frequency components of the square-wave signal.
Amusing calculations:
The photon shot noise of a 1W, 100 MHz signal implies a maximum SNR of about 10^12.
SNR = Sqrt[Power/h*BW], h=6*10^-34 SI
A more reasonable microwatt radio signal has a maximum SNR of 10^9 and, with 100 MHz bandwidth, a throughput limit of 6 Mbps.
To get the SNR of 10^27 they claim as maximum (see below) you'd need a star-powered transmitter. And our sun probably isn't big enough.
To get a SNR of 10^19 you need something like 10^13 watts of receiver power. A nuclear plant wouldn't work. So, clearly either we've misinterpreted the research, they're full of crap, or they're on to something new.
How often do you hear "this call may be monitored..." on the phone? Microsoft tech support even does this on email: they ask you to contact the drone's supervisor if you're not happy with your answer.
Since phone wiretapping laws have been applied to email in the absence of any other governing law, I would think that the monitoring laws apply as well. You should be told when you're being monitored.
But email is quite different from a telephone. The rules on recording conversations varies from state to state, but computer information is always recorded. Many service providers spool everything to tape, and there's no expectation of privacy. Given this tradition, maybe you don't have to notify people that you're monitoring their email or keystrokes.
We have a minor miscommunication:
Under US law, if you fail to defend your tradmarks, you lose them. Until this is tested in court, there is no prescedent for whether or not foosucks.com is an infringement upon foo.com. So foo.com is obligated to go through legal action against foosucks.com.
So, the matter goes to the lawyers. This is, after all, our society's officially approved way of settling disputes.
Now for the flamebait:
Why do people get so uppity over cease and desist letters? It's just a letter. It doesn't mean that goons are coming to break down the door -- it means that somebody thinks that you're in the wrong, and you had better pay attention.
What if someone made a slashdotsucks.org site? Or if the owners of slashdot.net created a news site similar to /.?
I think that VA Linux, if it wanted to get its trademark application for Slashdot approved, would have to try to shut down the site, free speech be damned.
Without a trademark, anyone could provide shoddy goods and services to besmirch the Slashdot name. Consider Harvard Brand cigarettes, for example. You can buy them in India. That doesn't reflect very well on a medical school, does it?
The issue is about limiting free speech -- you're not allowed to pretend to be someone else by using their name.
Part of the reason for this discussion is that there's no governing law. The court has nothing to work with besides the shrinkwrap license agreement. For a hammer, the Uniform Commerce Code applies. But it has not been applied to software.
UCITA, whether you like it or not, or its variants would apply to software and to cases like this -- provided that the construction company were in a UCITA state. What do /.ers think that software developers' and purchasers' rights ought to be?
Should there be a "software bug insurance" industry?
Remember, Lotus 1-2-3 got involved in a case like this a long time ago. Lotus won that one, not because of the shrinkwrap license, but because they proved that the construction company entered the wrong formula in the spreadsheet.
The construction company was in Washington state, not the software company.
Whether or not Coke is a valid trademark, it's the responsibility of the Coca-Cola company to enforce it. If they want to keep it, they are legally obligated to try to stop people from also using the word Coke. They might withdraw their claim later, but certainly not until they have come to an agreement with the domain owner.