Well, to be pedantic, it's not updated periodically -- that would imply that it gets updated on a regular basis with a predictable cycle. It's updated sporadically.
To be more specific, the periodic table can be thought of as a fungus. The elements are the mycelia of the fungus, and once in a while the table produces fruiting bodies (like mushrooms) that will produce spores for the periodic table to reproduce. It is these fruiting bodies that are the new elements. The spores will be released from these new elements when moisture and temperature conditions are right -- and with luck, a given spore may land upon the wall of another elementary school classroom and become a new periodic table of the elements.
Yet he still doesn't know why he isn't invited to parties.
You should reread the post you question. It neither states nor implies the OP is not free to post on/. It merely points out the fallacy of considering a/. post as an effective means to bring about change in patent law.
Or they use fuzes, which leads to the "fuzed off" language. The fuzes are generally only accessible via the IC tester and the pads are not bonded out when packaged.
How is that difference relevant to the reasons stated here that software ideas cannot be copyrighted.
Patents and copyrights are not the same thing.
From the brief article linked, it appears as though the argument is about software functions, such as drawing a box or moving a cursor. Maybe I miss your point, but I am certainly not arguing that drawing a box on the screen is patentable. How the box is drawn may be, but I don't see that as the argument.
I may have missed something in the article or with the larger story, but I don't see where it is being suggested that the code itself is not copyrightable or the function of the software is not patentable. The argument seems to be over some of the basic functions of a computer. If it is truly about the function, it is clear that isn't an area for copyrights as those deal with expression where as patents deal with utility.
No matter, as this is not the area in which I commented that drew your ire. Design patents for the look and feel of a widget are a separate idea for copyrighting software functions. Trying to lump them together as the same thing completely ignores differences much broader than the nuance you want to consider so much.
With the Tobacco companies it took decades to hold anyone responsible for these kinds of tricks.
Agreed. But with the army of lawyers the tobacco companies had working for them their documents could have been posted on billboards and it would have taken years to get them admitted into evidence.
All thing being equal, all things are rarely equal.
I love how corporations are, supposedly, people, but noone expects them to act ethically or for the good of the society.
Define what that means. Are you suggesting that not patenting inventions, or failing to enforce the patents is ethical? If copycats take advantage of your R&D such that you lose market share and have to lay off employees, that is beneficial to society?
Are you really making the case that people, acting as individuals, are all ethical and act in the good of society?
So policies with short email retention periods should make you suspect that the organization is sleazy or even doing illegal stuff?
Not always, and not necessarily if email retention is the only indicator. In my experience such a policy may warrant a more thorough evaluation. Your experience may be different, and I am certainly not trying to imply you should do anything different because I said so. Just food for thought.
In my mind, it's better to use that choice in such a way as to try to effect positive change whereever you can
Ranting on Slashdot is very unlikely to change patent law. But if it makes you feel better, carry on, but don't try to convince anyone it is to bring about positive change.
OK, I'll bite for a bit of 101 review, but it will be brief.
What's the difference?
A design patent is specifically about the look and feel of a product. This may include rounded corners. It does not rely on prior art in that no one made an electronic device with rounded corners before, but that this tablet computer with rounded corners and certain other features is a certain look and feel that does not exist yet in the tablet computer market.
And, how is that difference relevant?
A design patent is look and feel, a utility patent is how you do something.
It is really quite simple when you quit trying to make it difficult.
I'd imagine "DISNEY", "NIKE", "MCDONALD'S", "OLYMPIC", and "RED CROSS" are likewise famous enough to qualify for dilution protection.
Unfortunately for you trademark law doesn't follow your imagination. Any of the trademark holders you listed would have to make a reasonable case for dilution.
McDonald's fast food is going to be hard pressed to show how they are harmed by McDonald's Floral Arts in West Valley, UT. (No plug for the florist is intended - the first McDonald's ! fast food that showed up in a quick search).
Your argument is made easier given the fact you have chosen already famous trademarks. I know a country singer who's real last name was Brooks. Upon his first CD release, he was contacted by Garth Brook's lawyers and wound up taking a stage name. McDonald's fast food may have well lost the argument to the florist if they crossed paths when the fast food company was a single location, although it is most likely each could have gotten trademarks given the differences in industry.
That is why many new trademarks take the fanciful approach. It is hard to argue Google meant anything to anyone before the search company named themselves.
That may be, but if bullshit is the law it is hard to fault companies for using it to their maximum advantage, as it is almost certain someone would find a way to use the bullshit against them.
If you don't like the game, yelling at the players is not effective. Change the rules.
Not if the mark is famous [wikipedia.org] like the Nike swoosh, the McDonald's arches, the Disney mouse-ear-silhouette, the Olympic rings, or the Red Cross emblem.
I didn't say it was always possible to have non-competing trademarks. You cite logos, which are much easier to argue for complete exclusivity than names. Even if I had the registered trademark for Apple Toothbrushes, I would not expect to be able to use the Apple's bitten-apple logo for it. As you pointed out, logos are generally more protectable than names -- one would not expect to use Apple's bitten-apple logo for any purpose, regardless of the name or industry. Hence the power and attractiveness of logos.
It may cost Facebook a little bit of money in geolocated pages, but their actions may have saved them a much larger headache and cost by not being drawn into the middle of a trademark dispute.
Your concept for geolocated pages is possible to become the final solution. Expect it to be done quietly and without the fanfare of the current situation.
Facebook's action of denying both parties access to the name has made the geolocated pages concept more attractive to both. Certainly more so than if it would have been Facebook's first offer to remedy the situation.
You are absolutely correct. My previous comments were in line with a company trying to hide the fact they were doing wrong. Your comments are in line with a company needing to prove the fact they were doing right.
Except that Facebook is still private property. They don't have to let you promote your trademark on their site any more than a company could force you to paint their logo on the side of your house.
Denying both companies access to the name on Facebook is a completely viable and legal means to not infringe on any trademark.
You may also want to brush up on trademarks a bit. It is possible to have the same trademark for different industries, and one does not trump the other. Say for example, I have a registered trademark for Apple toothbrushes. I am free to promote my trademark, even if Apple computers doesn't like it. Granted it does get even murkier when industries are similar across international boundaries, but one trumping the other is still a tough argument to make.
In the end it is very funny that Facebook basically give a timeout to two companies acting like two year old children.
Actually, the standard "Do not use water with electrical fires" is based on the danger of electrocution.
'Throwing' water on something would work fine as there is no stream connecting you to the electrified component.
Absolutely amazing this statement has been modded insightful. Apparently mods have no further understanding of electrical fires than the poster.
Not putting water on an electrical fire has little to do with electrocution, although that is a valid concern for the responders dealing with the situation. Water is fine to put out the subsequent fire - say if the circuit board, plastic housing, or something else is on fire. However, if the electrical components that created the fire are still energized, dumping a conductive liquid on it is a stupid act. You will have a much larger problem before you have dumped enough water to create a viable electrocution hazard.
I've worked for a company that mandated irrevocably deleting emails as soon as legally possible. Why? "One email, a SINGLE email, can make the difference between a multi million dollar lawsuit..."
That really only works if all parties on the email have the same policy. I have never seen that work. Unless you consider having your company look guilty due to an all-too-apparent attempt to cover their tracks a success, in which case this usually works like a charm.
A even more sleazy company could send all its backups to its lawyers, so they are protected by attorney/client privilege.
Attorney-client privilege is not a magic shield that protects everything one might throw behind the term. The backups are almost certainly not privileged and would most likely have to be turned over in discovery. The only thing this does is lengthen the process and rack up fees that you will ultimately be held responsible for.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, to be pedantic, it's not updated periodically -- that would imply that it gets updated on a regular basis with a predictable cycle. It's updated sporadically.
To be more specific, the periodic table can be thought of as a fungus. The elements are the mycelia of the fungus, and once in a while the table produces fruiting bodies (like mushrooms) that will produce spores for the periodic table to reproduce. It is these fruiting bodies that are the new elements. The spores will be released from these new elements when moisture and temperature conditions are right -- and with luck, a given spore may land upon the wall of another elementary school classroom and become a new periodic table of the elements.
Yet he still doesn't know why he isn't invited to parties.
You should reread the post you question. It neither states nor implies the OP is not free to post on /. It merely points out the fallacy of considering a /. post as an effective means to bring about change in patent law.
Okay, there's no GRAVITATIONAL convection, which is the dominant method that enables fresh oxygen to get to a fire in the earth's atmosphere.
Don't tell that to fires. Fires often create their own convection due to a variety of factors.
Would that be any 4 digits, or some particular ones?
Any of these particular digits: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
Fuze? Is that some type of trademarked name for the concept of a fuse?
I get my feeling hurt when no one makes snotty comments on my posts. It was troll bait. And it worked.
Thank you.
Or they use fuzes, which leads to the "fuzed off" language. The fuzes are generally only accessible via the IC tester and the pads are not bonded out when packaged.
censor
censoring
People keep using these words but do not seem to understand what they mean.
A judge ruling in favor of a company seeking to protect their trademarks is not government censorship.
A judge ruling that search engines must de-index sites offering counterfeit wares is stupid and practically unenforceable, but not censorship.
Dumping water onto an energized circuit in an attempt to put out a fire should de-energize the circuit from the short.
How is that difference relevant to the reasons stated here that software ideas cannot be copyrighted.
Patents and copyrights are not the same thing.
From the brief article linked, it appears as though the argument is about software functions, such as drawing a box or moving a cursor. Maybe I miss your point, but I am certainly not arguing that drawing a box on the screen is patentable. How the box is drawn may be, but I don't see that as the argument.
I may have missed something in the article or with the larger story, but I don't see where it is being suggested that the code itself is not copyrightable or the function of the software is not patentable. The argument seems to be over some of the basic functions of a computer. If it is truly about the function, it is clear that isn't an area for copyrights as those deal with expression where as patents deal with utility.
No matter, as this is not the area in which I commented that drew your ire. Design patents for the look and feel of a widget are a separate idea for copyrighting software functions. Trying to lump them together as the same thing completely ignores differences much broader than the nuance you want to consider so much.
With the Tobacco companies it took decades to hold anyone responsible for these kinds of tricks.
Agreed. But with the army of lawyers the tobacco companies had working for them their documents could have been posted on billboards and it would have taken years to get them admitted into evidence.
All thing being equal, all things are rarely equal.
I love how corporations are, supposedly, people, but noone expects them to act ethically or for the good of the society.
Define what that means. Are you suggesting that not patenting inventions, or failing to enforce the patents is ethical? If copycats take advantage of your R&D such that you lose market share and have to lay off employees, that is beneficial to society?
Are you really making the case that people, acting as individuals, are all ethical and act in the good of society?
Your world must be nice. Delusional, but nice.
So policies with short email retention periods should make you suspect that the organization is sleazy or even doing illegal stuff?
Not always, and not necessarily if email retention is the only indicator. In my experience such a policy may warrant a more thorough evaluation. Your experience may be different, and I am certainly not trying to imply you should do anything different because I said so. Just food for thought.
In my mind, it's better to use that choice in such a way as to try to effect positive change whereever you can
Ranting on Slashdot is very unlikely to change patent law. But if it makes you feel better, carry on, but don't try to convince anyone it is to bring about positive change.
What's the difference?
A design patent is specifically about the look and feel of a product. This may include rounded corners. It does not rely on prior art in that no one made an electronic device with rounded corners before, but that this tablet computer with rounded corners and certain other features is a certain look and feel that does not exist yet in the tablet computer market.
And, how is that difference relevant?
A design patent is look and feel, a utility patent is how you do something.
It is really quite simple when you quit trying to make it difficult.
I'd imagine "DISNEY", "NIKE", "MCDONALD'S", "OLYMPIC", and "RED CROSS" are likewise famous enough to qualify for dilution protection.
Unfortunately for you trademark law doesn't follow your imagination. Any of the trademark holders you listed would have to make a reasonable case for dilution.
McDonald's fast food is going to be hard pressed to show how they are harmed by McDonald's Floral Arts in West Valley, UT. (No plug for the florist is intended - the first McDonald's ! fast food that showed up in a quick search).
Your argument is made easier given the fact you have chosen already famous trademarks. I know a country singer who's real last name was Brooks. Upon his first CD release, he was contacted by Garth Brook's lawyers and wound up taking a stage name. McDonald's fast food may have well lost the argument to the florist if they crossed paths when the fast food company was a single location, although it is most likely each could have gotten trademarks given the differences in industry.
That is why many new trademarks take the fanciful approach. It is hard to argue Google meant anything to anyone before the search company named themselves.
It's still bullshit.
That may be, but if bullshit is the law it is hard to fault companies for using it to their maximum advantage, as it is almost certain someone would find a way to use the bullshit against them.
If you don't like the game, yelling at the players is not effective. Change the rules.
Not if the mark is famous [wikipedia.org] like the Nike swoosh, the McDonald's arches, the Disney mouse-ear-silhouette, the Olympic rings, or the Red Cross emblem.
I didn't say it was always possible to have non-competing trademarks. You cite logos, which are much easier to argue for complete exclusivity than names. Even if I had the registered trademark for Apple Toothbrushes, I would not expect to be able to use the Apple's bitten-apple logo for it. As you pointed out, logos are generally more protectable than names -- one would not expect to use Apple's bitten-apple logo for any purpose, regardless of the name or industry. Hence the power and attractiveness of logos.
It may cost Facebook a little bit of money in geolocated pages, but their actions may have saved them a much larger headache and cost by not being drawn into the middle of a trademark dispute.
Your concept for geolocated pages is possible to become the final solution. Expect it to be done quietly and without the fanfare of the current situation.
Facebook's action of denying both parties access to the name has made the geolocated pages concept more attractive to both. Certainly more so than if it would have been Facebook's first offer to remedy the situation.
Because that was a design patent, not a utility patent on a software concept.
You are absolutely correct. My previous comments were in line with a company trying to hide the fact they were doing wrong. Your comments are in line with a company needing to prove the fact they were doing right.
Your logic and reason have no reason in this argument, regardless of the fact you are correct. This is a conversation about trademarks and Facebook.
Please wave your arms wildly and scream incoherently, just like everyone else.
Except that Facebook is still private property. They don't have to let you promote your trademark on their site any more than a company could force you to paint their logo on the side of your house.
Denying both companies access to the name on Facebook is a completely viable and legal means to not infringe on any trademark.
You may also want to brush up on trademarks a bit. It is possible to have the same trademark for different industries, and one does not trump the other. Say for example, I have a registered trademark for Apple toothbrushes. I am free to promote my trademark, even if Apple computers doesn't like it. Granted it does get even murkier when industries are similar across international boundaries, but one trumping the other is still a tough argument to make.
In the end it is very funny that Facebook basically give a timeout to two companies acting like two year old children.
Actually, the standard "Do not use water with electrical fires" is based on the danger of electrocution. 'Throwing' water on something would work fine as there is no stream connecting you to the electrified component.
Absolutely amazing this statement has been modded insightful. Apparently mods have no further understanding of electrical fires than the poster.
Not putting water on an electrical fire has little to do with electrocution, although that is a valid concern for the responders dealing with the situation. Water is fine to put out the subsequent fire - say if the circuit board, plastic housing, or something else is on fire. However, if the electrical components that created the fire are still energized, dumping a conductive liquid on it is a stupid act. You will have a much larger problem before you have dumped enough water to create a viable electrocution hazard.
Exactly what is the difference between a no-name Chinese battery, and a named Chinese battery, besides cost?
The name, obviously.
there certainly needs to be the means to extinguish an electrical fire.
Might I humbly suggest each passenger be issued standard a bottle of water?
If you are smart enough to throw water on an electrical fire, might I suggest you do the gene pool a favor and lick the fire?
I've worked for a company that mandated irrevocably deleting emails as soon as legally possible. Why? "One email, a SINGLE email, can make the difference between a multi million dollar lawsuit..."
That really only works if all parties on the email have the same policy. I have never seen that work. Unless you consider having your company look guilty due to an all-too-apparent attempt to cover their tracks a success, in which case this usually works like a charm.
A even more sleazy company could send all its backups to its lawyers, so they are protected by attorney/client privilege.
Attorney-client privilege is not a magic shield that protects everything one might throw behind the term. The backups are almost certainly not privileged and would most likely have to be turned over in discovery. The only thing this does is lengthen the process and rack up fees that you will ultimately be held responsible for.