I see you do know neither copyright nor trademark law. Please go READ THE FUCKING LAWS AND CASES and get back to me. Here is a hint for you: If one develops a product similar to an existing product and then gives that product a name similar to that existing product's name, one can be sued for trademark infringement and one will probably lose. If one makes one's own product too similar to an existing product, then there may be copyright claims as well.
Actually, each case of Coke or Pepsi firing someone for drinking the competition's product involved workers wearing their company uniforms drinking the competing product in public. In every case, it was behavior which brought embarrassment and public ridicule on the company.
Total freedom maximized by the GPL? Bullshit. You need to go read the definition of freedom, then you can tell me where forcing someone to do something is a part of freedom.
When people invented the Xerox machine, did people start talking about "Photo-cheating?"
Photocopy a few pages or paragraphs and turn them in as your assignment and tell us what happened, m'kay? Really, what they are talking about is copying other peoples work and turning it in as one's own. Please explain in detail how making a photocopy of something for reference is the same as copying and pasting a paragraph or 10 out of a Wikipedia article, someone else's paper, some other website, etc.
The Tetris company does not "own dropping blocks". They own "stacking dropping blocks, consisting of distinct shapes made of sets of four boxes connected at the edges, into rows which disappear when a row is completed across the game field". This equivalent to id software owning "running around a maze of rooms and corridors set on Phobos while shooting alien demons of specific shapes and abilities using a gun called the BFG9000".
You are over-simplifying the situation to leave out important distinguishing characteristics.
Try again. When Apple sued Microsoft over the look and feel of Windows 2.0, the judge determined it was a contractual dispute, not a copyright dispute because MS had already licensed IP from Apple for Windows 1.0.
Actually, they have protected their trademark. Now, prove that those other companies haven't paid the Tetris company for the right to make those clones.
Copyright is a legally created right. If what you say were true, then your sig would say something else. Your mere opinion of what something should be does not automatically make said thing what you believe it should be.
You are wrong. The court did not shoot it down. You really should read your own cited site:
... the court's ruling was based on the original licensing agreement between Apple and Microsoft for Windows 1.0, it made the case more of a contractual matter than of copyright law
Interestingly, Microsoft could have shown prior art and Xerox has something to say about Apple's claims:
Xerox filed a lawsuit against Apple claiming Apple had infringed copyrights Xerox held on its GUIs.
Also, any single case is not necessarily enough to effect all claims. Even if the court had said in that particular case that "look and feel" was not enough, that one decision does not invalidate a claim of infringement through "look and feel" in another.
Tetris does use 7 out of an infinite number of pieces. Don't use 4 squares. Use 5,6,7,8,... n+1 squares.
One may very well be able to copyright such a die, if one does not already exist.
A) chess has been in existence since before all applicable copyright laws, and so is in public domain. B) The creator of chess would not have a copyright on the moves in the game, but rather the pieces.
You can not copyright the alphabet because it was not created by you or via work for hire by you. It is quite easy to show that the alphabet existed prior to all applicable copyright laws and thus is in the public domain.
Please explain in detail how you know that what the Tetris Comany is claiming cannot be trademarked or copyrighted. Site the applicable laws and cases.
I ask this because you seem to think your opinion of what can and cannot be trademarked and/or copyrighted is the final word on such things. In all actuality, it is the court which is the final arbiter of such things, not you.
The Mac is a market niche where people are paying a much higher price for a specific name and experience. Adding "bloatware" would take the focus off of Apple and put it on the applications.
And, you are wrong a Mac costs substantially more than a Windows based PC. The Dell equivalent of the basic Macbook costs 25% less.
I see. And, you know that how? Oh, I see, you are basing your entire knowledge on what you read in Wikipedia. In other words, you are ignorant. Thanks for clearing that up.
Using Wikipedia doesn't advance your cause at all. Remember, anyone can edit a wikipedia page and all it takes is an editor with a lot of time on his hands and an agenda to keep a wikipedia page wrong.
All I hear is a bunch of crappy teachers crying about how they can't manage to do their jobs. If they were doing their jobs properly, there would not be a problem.
Here are some hints for you: Start failing and holding back students. Start requiring progress. Stop teaching to the lowest common denominator. Start imposing real discipline in the schools. Stop putting so much emphasis on social crap, political correctness, and sports. Teach the kids to think instead of teaching them to bow down before the PC down-offend-anyone alter. Stop letting the stupid death cult of christianity to dictate curriculum.
So, you would sit around and let your employees tell you fuck off and die? You would not be concerned and maybe fire them when they burn a cross on some black person's lawn? How about when they say in a semi-public forum that you suck dog cocks for fun? How about if your found out they post on Facebook how they spend most of the day fucking off, sometimes literally with prostitutes in a city vehicle?
I want to work for you. Then, I can call you a piece of monkey shit to your face right after I demand a raise. And, if you refuse to give me a raise, I will then fuck off at work and post on Facebook what a fucking prick you are so my friends, who include our customers can see.
Which begs the question of whether or not there is stealing going on in the first place, and as argued before, the term is in a technical/logical sense seemingly inappropriate since the criteria is not met
Do you gain something of value without compensating the right person?
The correct term is "creation and distribution of an unauthorized and illegal copy", a long term many people shorten to stealing because one gains something (a copy of a work) at the expense of another (the copyright holder). The maker of the unauthorized copy has stolen the profit from the copyright holder through the creation and distribution of unauthorized copies, whether said copies are distributed for a profit, at cost, or at no cost.
And, the "file sharer" is getting something in return: copies of other works.
Slashdot Mirror
They are a joke. They were too stupid or lacked the self-control to NOT break the law.
I see you do know neither copyright nor trademark law. Please go READ THE FUCKING LAWS AND CASES and get back to me. Here is a hint for you: If one develops a product similar to an existing product and then gives that product a name similar to that existing product's name, one can be sued for trademark infringement and one will probably lose. If one makes one's own product too similar to an existing product, then there may be copyright claims as well.
^^ THIS!!!! ^^
Why do so many people expect privacy in what is essentially a public space?
Actually, each case of Coke or Pepsi firing someone for drinking the competition's product involved workers wearing their company uniforms drinking the competing product in public. In every case, it was behavior which brought embarrassment and public ridicule on the company.
Then, the work is not free as in beer or as in speech, then is it? Now, STFU.
I call bullshit. Religion is just that, totalitarian control of the mind and body.
Total freedom maximized by the GPL? Bullshit. You need to go read the definition of freedom, then you can tell me where forcing someone to do something is a part of freedom.
Photocopy a few pages or paragraphs and turn them in as your assignment and tell us what happened, m'kay? Really, what they are talking about is copying other peoples work and turning it in as one's own. Please explain in detail how making a photocopy of something for reference is the same as copying and pasting a paragraph or 10 out of a Wikipedia article, someone else's paper, some other website, etc.
The Tetris company does not "own dropping blocks". They own "stacking dropping blocks, consisting of distinct shapes made of sets of four boxes connected at the edges, into rows which disappear when a row is completed across the game field". This equivalent to id software owning "running around a maze of rooms and corridors set on Phobos while shooting alien demons of specific shapes and abilities using a gun called the BFG9000".
You are over-simplifying the situation to leave out important distinguishing characteristics.
Try again. When Apple sued Microsoft over the look and feel of Windows 2.0, the judge determined it was a contractual dispute, not a copyright dispute because MS had already licensed IP from Apple for Windows 1.0.
Actually, they have protected their trademark. Now, prove that those other companies haven't paid the Tetris company for the right to make those clones.
This is just some schmuck whining. He isn't asking for advice. It isn't even news. It is just a pity party for the submitter.
Copyright is a legally created right. If what you say were true, then your sig would say something else. Your mere opinion of what something should be does not automatically make said thing what you believe it should be.
Interestingly, Microsoft could have shown prior art and Xerox has something to say about Apple's claims:
Also, any single case is not necessarily enough to effect all claims. Even if the court had said in that particular case that "look and feel" was not enough, that one decision does not invalidate a claim of infringement through "look and feel" in another.
Tetris does use 7 out of an infinite number of pieces. Don't use 4 squares. Use 5,6,7,8, ... n+1 squares.
One may very well be able to copyright such a die, if one does not already exist.
A) chess has been in existence since before all applicable copyright laws, and so is in public domain. B) The creator of chess would not have a copyright on the moves in the game, but rather the pieces.
You can not copyright the alphabet because it was not created by you or via work for hire by you. It is quite easy to show that the alphabet existed prior to all applicable copyright laws and thus is in the public domain.
Please explain in detail how you know that what the Tetris Comany is claiming cannot be trademarked or copyrighted. Site the applicable laws and cases.
I ask this because you seem to think your opinion of what can and cannot be trademarked and/or copyrighted is the final word on such things. In all actuality, it is the court which is the final arbiter of such things, not you.
That is only true if the installation works perfectly and one never has any trouble with it; or if one's time has no value.
The Mac is a market niche where people are paying a much higher price for a specific name and experience. Adding "bloatware" would take the focus off of Apple and put it on the applications. And, you are wrong a Mac costs substantially more than a Windows based PC. The Dell equivalent of the basic Macbook costs 25% less.
I see. And, you know that how? Oh, I see, you are basing your entire knowledge on what you read in Wikipedia. In other words, you are ignorant. Thanks for clearing that up.
Using Wikipedia doesn't advance your cause at all. Remember, anyone can edit a wikipedia page and all it takes is an editor with a lot of time on his hands and an agenda to keep a wikipedia page wrong.
All I hear is a bunch of crappy teachers crying about how they can't manage to do their jobs. If they were doing their jobs properly, there would not be a problem.
Here are some hints for you: Start failing and holding back students. Start requiring progress. Stop teaching to the lowest common denominator. Start imposing real discipline in the schools. Stop putting so much emphasis on social crap, political correctness, and sports. Teach the kids to think instead of teaching them to bow down before the PC down-offend-anyone alter. Stop letting the stupid death cult of christianity to dictate curriculum.
Does it apply to willful insubordination?
So, you would sit around and let your employees tell you fuck off and die? You would not be concerned and maybe fire them when they burn a cross on some black person's lawn? How about when they say in a semi-public forum that you suck dog cocks for fun? How about if your found out they post on Facebook how they spend most of the day fucking off, sometimes literally with prostitutes in a city vehicle? I want to work for you. Then, I can call you a piece of monkey shit to your face right after I demand a raise. And, if you refuse to give me a raise, I will then fuck off at work and post on Facebook what a fucking prick you are so my friends, who include our customers can see.
Do you gain something of value without compensating the right person?
The correct term is "creation and distribution of an unauthorized and illegal copy", a long term many people shorten to stealing because one gains something (a copy of a work) at the expense of another (the copyright holder). The maker of the unauthorized copy has stolen the profit from the copyright holder through the creation and distribution of unauthorized copies, whether said copies are distributed for a profit, at cost, or at no cost.
And, the "file sharer" is getting something in return: copies of other works.