The article is definitely slanted. "Sony's rival format does away with traditional red lasers in favour of more efficient blue ones", but that's true for HD-DVD as well. Mention that Sony suffered a blow when Microsoft announced they will support (an external) HD-DVD on Xbox360, but didn't say anything at all about Blu-Ray on PS3, nor that Microsoft's reason for supporting HD-DVD is to try to hurt Sony in their console war.
Claiming that HD-DVD is cheaper than Blu-Ray is misleading. Start-up costs to build new equipment to produce Blu-Ray discs is going to be more expensive than modifying current DVD equipment to produce HD-DVD, but that is a short-term thing.
What they completely failed to mention is that the big hang-up is over the copy-prevention, even though both sides are using essentially the same thing.
I thought Blu-Ray and HD-DVD used the same DRM methods, with the same restrictions on output. Even Microsoft's method of copying an HD-DVD should be just as simple with Blu-Ray (except Microsoft wants to hurt Sony in the console wars by not supporting Blu-Ray). From what I've heard, the Microsoft copy-to-hard-drive can copy just the movie, which is just some minor meta-data convention - getting everyone to AGREE on it is a minor victory for Microsoft, but there's no reason Blu-Ray can't define the same thing.
The value in question is the time between pulses. If that isn't (and can't) be measured in discrete "clock ticks" in some way (e.g. "here there is a pulse missing") then it isn't a digital system. In many digital systems, the time is not part of the value system at all - if you clock it slow, or clock it fast, you get the same result. In that case, the only value part of the system IS the pulses - and if the value is discrete and not continuously variable, then you have a digital system. If time IS the value, then time is the data you have to determine if it is discrete or continuous, not the pulses that determine the time.
It isn't that the clock is variable, it is that the clock is DATA.
An example of such a system is any pulse-width-modulation system. It CAN be digital, in the sense that the pulse width is generated by a digital timing system that has a resolution of some clock rate, or it CAN be analog, with the width of a pulse determined by a variable RC circuit, e.g. a 755 timer.
Also, even though a neuron either fires or doesn't fire, the firing mechanism itself is still analog - you have several inputs into a neuron, some inhibitory, and those inputs can be added/subtracted in an analog fashion. When a threshold is reached, the neuron fires.
That's still an analog system. The analog part is in the timing of the firing rate. There are some interesting analog computers which
use randomized clock pulses to do calculations - being pulses, you can use a bunch of digital techniques on it (e.g. an AND gate is a multiplier, where the values are between 0 and 1), but it is still inherently analog, as the timing of the pulses is non-discrete.
Uh, no, he's saying the industry watchdogs download the file from someone distributing it, then sues the person who bought the watermarked copy and ripped it (or allowed it to be ripped), based on the information saved when that copy was bought.
Yeah, but this was in the context of countries which aren't enforcing copyrights vigorously, "Everybody's doing it" is actually true, and most everyone would be puzzled if you weren't pirating your software. "What, you PAID for that?"
Then they'll start pushing for mandatory use of hardware that only allows trusted signed programs and operating systems to be loaded. That such hardware would just happen to not allow for an Open Source model is merely a happy coincidence.
You could also make the claim that by reducing enforcement of copyright on software, more software would be used - since supposedly all of this software is being used to make businesses more efficient and productive, you'd actually create more real growth by doing that, not less.
Only if you postulate that most software wouldn't be written at all unless piracy is controlled, thus reducing future growth because the software needed won't be available, do you find any reason to enforce copyright. In the present argument, that doesn't make much sense because the software will still be created (what, you think those companies are just going to up and quit, when they have sufficient markets to make it worthwhile?), and the current software won't be going away no matter how much it gets pirated.
Also, you can measure it at both ends of the line, and then from the phase of the changes deduce which side made which changes.
I thought I had heard a similar claim long ago about modem signals (at least, with newer modulations, not the ones with discrete tones for each direction) - the modem on each end can understand the other side only by subtracting out its own signal (which, of course, it knows) - an eavesdropper listening in wouldn't be able to separate them out.
Re:For similar functionality with more focus on sc
on
Google Earth Beta for Mac
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Another interesting program is Celestia. I haven't tried any, but there are apparently lots of available high-resolution images available for various parts of the Earth as well as higher-resolution images for some of the other planets. The controls for moving around aren't intuitive, but it is a lot of fun to go zooming around the galaxy (and even some nearby galaxies, rendered as grayish-looking 3-d blobs).
Let's take a poll of the general populace. What percentage, when they're asked about a game called RISK, will say "oh, that's a type of game they play on that there Internet thingy", and how many will say "Oh, that's a board game, I forget who makes it. What, a version on the Internet? Never heard of it!" A few hundred or even a few thousand or even tens of thousands of people does not make a word generic.
I sure hope you talk to a lawyer BEFORE you start mooning Hasbro. He (or she) will set you straight on what "generic" means in trademark law, since you still don't get it. And, unless you tell them you've actually released a version of "OpenRisk", I don't expect them to bother replying to you, and no, their non-reply would not be evidence in your favor. You really need to go talk to a lawyer, you have some very foolish notions.
You might, just possibly, be able to get away with calling your version of the game "Risky Business".
I see no reason for a Web-app version of a RISK-like game. There are enough such games already in existence (most being smart and not calling them "Risk"). I prefer Diplomacy, anyway.
You quoted my statement once. BFD. How many times did I read it? Once, then I read it 2 more times because you seemed so damned sure there was something actually relevant. You know, to answering my question. Which you still haven't answered, you know, why the lawyer would bother to give you the time of day, whether that lawyer is a he or a she.
Let's see, who referenced the lawyer as a "he" first. Could it be... why yes, it could be:
The lawyer was talking out of his ass.
Notice how he doesn't specify any specific legal steps they'll take.
Now the layer covers his lame ass
Now, as you point out, he wrote "Risk the Game".
he avoided saying that there ware any specific infringments
You even pasted in the lawyer's name just before you called "him" a smarmy bastard.
So if you didn't even check to see if YOU had referred to the lawyer as a "he", I don't see why you think you have the wits to comprehend even a 3-page order. Clue: you put up a server with a game, and call it "RISK", or "Risk", or even "Tom Hudson's Risk", and then let Hasbro know about it, you'll be taking it down as soon as you get the advice of a competent attorney. Either that, or you're going to be out quite a bit of money. You simply have no idea whatsoever about how trademark actually works.
An e-mail signature isn't legally binding at all. Even you should know that.
Oh, I get it. You're referring to my originally saying "he". You're right, I didn't pay attention to the lawyer's name, so didn't say "she". Wow, you got me. You've proved your point. You, by virtue of the fact you looked at the LAWYER'S NAME, obviously know everything about copyright and trademark law. Hell, you could write a book about it now that you know the lawyer's name. Silly me, I was looking at the content of the letter.
I just COPIED AND PASTED pieces of the damned letter, how much MORE OBVIOUS CAN I GET? I even ended up pasting the non-ASCII characters from the letter, and didn't preview to catch it (Slashdot converted them to the ? after RISK).
You've got a lot of nerve talking about credibility. You make blatantly wrong statements (e.g. quoting the US Copyright website regarding COPYRIGHT on games, in response to a statement on TRADEMARK, then claiming that the Copyright Office also administers trademarks). You claim things that the judge didn't say (that generic terms can't be used as trademarks REGARDLESS OF FIELD), you don't seem to understand that the term "generic" does not mean "not made up".
So show me this magical "point that really reflects badly" on my credibility. Go on, I double dog dare you. Is it the part where she (I'm assuming "Carin" is female) signs the letter "Sincerely"? Hint, lawyers write that all the time, it doesn't mean they're sincere. Oh, wait, I see it now. The part that says "and please tell all your friends that if they have any legal questions as to what constitutes trademark and/or copyright infringement, please have them write to us and we'll get back to them right away." How stupid of me, I should have seen that in my first reading.
Or, no, I got it now, the part that says "Please confirm to me in writing as soon as possible, or have tomhudson on Slashdot follow up with questions. This letter does not purport to be a complete statement of the facts or the law, but we're happy to provide free legal advice as to how closely you can copy our games and not lose a lawsuit".
The problem with "Raisin Bran" as a trademark all by itself is that it is too descriptive. The problem with Windows as a trademark is that it was in use as a generic term (NOT the same thing as "not a made-up word", as you seem to keep trying to use it) for a method of graphical interfaces. Microsoft failed to get it registered initially, in fact. The Lindows case would probably have been lost for Microsoft because of the judge's ruling that the jury could consider whether the term was generic AT THE TIME - Microsoft was arguing that it didn't matter if it used to be generic, it isn't any longer. THAT"S where you get the phrase you keep repeating, that "once it's generic, it stays generic". NOT because "windows" was an ordinary word that referred to things you put in walls so you can look outside, but because it was being used IN COMPUTERS. The judge never said that it didn't matter in what field the term was being used as a trademark. In fact, he referred specifically to its usage in graphical user interfaces of the time (and, in fact, that Microsoft referred to it as a "window manager"). Why would he do that, you think, if all he had to say was "oh, it is an ordinary english word, so it can't be a valid trademark, case dismissed!"? Remember, he DENIED Lindows request for summary judgment, it was going to go to a jury trial. The ruling that you keep trumpeting was merely in regards to instructions to the jury.
If I wanted to make a game, based on the Hasbro game "Headache", but call it "Aspirin", I'll bet I could get a trademark for that, despite "aspirin" being generic for acetylsalicylic acid. As long as I don't copy graphical elements, write the rules in my own word, and never call it "Headache", I'd be safe from Hasbro (they could have patented aspects of it, but the game has been around long enough that any patents would have expired by now). If I wrote a computer program to run an automated milling machine and called it "Tin Snips", I could trademark that (assuming no one else has it), but if I tried to sell tools under the brand name "Tin Snips", I'd be spectacularly unsuccessful in attempting to sue someone for having "Tin Snips" on their packaging.
You said earlier "so I can send them a notice demanding exactly what elements they claim protection for".
If you send them a letter saying "Hi, I'm running a server, I'm calling it "Open Risk", so nyah nyah", you will most definitely get a response. If you do what you said: "Sir, I demand that you tell me what you meant in that letter you sent that I heard about on Slashdot", it probably won't make it past his secretary.
So Whoooosh all you want to, you still haven't answered my question. What in that letter makes you think they'd respond to you if you demand to know what precisely they claim protection on when they say they have rights to "the RISK? game, including the rules" and "trademark rights to the RISK? name", or to be more specific about "elements of Hasbro's RISK? game and rules as well as its trademark" that his game is infringing on, or why exactly they think "unauthorized use of the RISK? game constitutes copyright infringement in violation of 17 U.S.C. ? 501" and "unauthorized use of the RISK? name also violates the federal trademark laws... creating a likelihood of confusion... likely to dilute the distinctive quality of the RISK? game and trademark... in violation of 15 U.S.C. ? 1125(c) and numerous state anti-dilution laws"?
Just answer the question. While you're at it, I'm still waiting for an example of a restaurant named "McDonald's" that isn't a Fine Hamburger Establishment sporting Golden Arches.
Actually, we are talking about stealing company data, and I was referring to the fact that even if you ban everything imaginable, you can still get at least 24K bytes of data out per year per person. Not sure how much work you'd get done while memorizing 64 characters, though. Maybe you could write it down as a list of phone numbers instead. All sorts of steganographic opportunities.
Of course, if there's web access at all, there's no real way of stopping a low bandwidth leak. Just use 32 or 64 characters as a password to a web site. That might be monitored, so use a secure connection. Or use an access pattern to a web site, say by choosing one of 8 pictures on a page to transmit 3 bits; then another 3 bits with another picture, and so on. When you need to use the same 3 bits, click a different link to get another set of 8 pictures (so it doesn't look odd that you keep loading the same image).
Someone should create a service similar to Best Buy's "Geek Squad", and call it the "Hacker Team" or something... motto being "We're hackers, we'll help you do it the way YOU want it done."
Instead of recording audio, you could put up a 50x50 grid on the screen and change it 15 times per second, transmitting 37500 bps via a video camera. You could probably get lots more, but that level would clearly be quite easy to extract, even under less than ideal conditions.
They won't let me note that they have the lowest price on an item, so I should shop there? Seems pretty dumb to me!
We have a PDA with our shopping list, and we record prices all the time (generally, the lowest price and which store has it at that price). No one has ever said anything about it.
So show me a restaurant called "McDonald's". What does "only in connection with their business" mean? What else would it be used in connection with?
They don't have to shut down 100% of all clones - they have to actively protect it. As they find out about them, they send letters. As they sent a letter in this case. So obviously, they are still protecting it. Where they lose is when the public starts to call any board game played on a world map "Risk".
BTW, you keep bringing up the Lindows v Microsoft case, and it doesn't support what you're saying, at all. Microsoft probably would have lost that case, true, but the facts in that case are quite different from the use of RISK as a trademarked name for a game.
Also, you characterized it as Microsoft rolling over and paying them $20 million - but Microsoft was winning in most of Europe, so it could easily be seen as Lindows rolling over. They did change their name, after all. $20 million is chump change to Microsoft, they easily saved that much by avoiding further litigation worldwide, and the loss of the trademark in the United States would have been embarrassing. That might even be a good business model - start releasing products called "Free Windows" or similar, then get Microsoft to pay you a couple million to stop.
Compress and uuencode (or base64), then memorize one line at a time each day you go home. With a compression rate of, say, 50%, you could move out around 24K of data per year (working 5 days a week).
WHAT is the term "Risk" or "RISK" generic for, in the field of games? "Dice" or "Cards" would be a generic name. You couldn't sell a board game called "DIce" and expect to be able to protect that as a trademark. When someone says "Let's play RISK", does it ever mean something other than "Let's play that game with markers and cards on a board of a map of the world, as published by Hasbro"? Does it mean, say, "Let's play a game where we might get killed" or "Let's play one of many insurance actuarial games"? If not, then it is NOT A GENERIC TERM. "Generic" is when someone refers to tissue paper as "Kleenex", or refers to any copying machine as a "Xerox machine", or any vacuum cleaner as a "Hoover", or worse, starts to use it as a verb. I wouldn't be surprised to see Google lose their trademark protection, if people continue to refer to doing any Internet search as "googling for it", regardless of which search site they're actually using. They'll lose it just like Aspirin and Linoleum did. And that's why Hasbro writes letter like that, because if they don't, they can lose their trademark as well.
I wouldn't be surprised if the lawyer ignores you. You don't have standing to demand of him any explanation of his letter to someone else.
Slashdot Mirror
The article is definitely slanted. "Sony's rival format does away with traditional red lasers in favour of more efficient blue ones", but that's true for HD-DVD as well. Mention that Sony suffered a blow when Microsoft announced they will support (an external) HD-DVD on Xbox360, but didn't say anything at all about Blu-Ray on PS3, nor that Microsoft's reason for supporting HD-DVD is to try to hurt Sony in their console war.
Claiming that HD-DVD is cheaper than Blu-Ray is misleading. Start-up costs to build new equipment to produce Blu-Ray discs is going to be more expensive than modifying current DVD equipment to produce HD-DVD, but that is a short-term thing.
What they completely failed to mention is that the big hang-up is over the copy-prevention, even though both sides are using essentially the same thing.
I thought Blu-Ray and HD-DVD used the same DRM methods, with the same restrictions on output. Even Microsoft's method of copying an HD-DVD should be just as simple with Blu-Ray (except Microsoft wants to hurt Sony in the console wars by not supporting Blu-Ray). From what I've heard, the Microsoft copy-to-hard-drive can copy just the movie, which is just some minor meta-data convention - getting everyone to AGREE on it is a minor victory for Microsoft, but there's no reason Blu-Ray can't define the same thing.
The value in question is the time between pulses. If that isn't (and can't) be measured in discrete "clock ticks" in some way (e.g. "here there is a pulse missing") then it isn't a digital system. In many digital systems, the time is not part of the value system at all - if you clock it slow, or clock it fast, you get the same result. In that case, the only value part of the system IS the pulses - and if the value is discrete and not continuously variable, then you have a digital system. If time IS the value, then time is the data you have to determine if it is discrete or continuous, not the pulses that determine the time.
It isn't that the clock is variable, it is that the clock is DATA.
An example of such a system is any pulse-width-modulation system. It CAN be digital, in the sense that the pulse width is generated by a digital timing system that has a resolution of some clock rate, or it CAN be analog, with the width of a pulse determined by a variable RC circuit, e.g. a 755 timer.
Also, even though a neuron either fires or doesn't fire, the firing mechanism itself is still analog - you have several inputs into a neuron, some inhibitory, and those inputs can be added/subtracted in an analog fashion. When a threshold is reached, the neuron fires.
That's still an analog system. The analog part is in the timing of the firing rate. There are some interesting analog computers which use randomized clock pulses to do calculations - being pulses, you can use a bunch of digital techniques on it (e.g. an AND gate is a multiplier, where the values are between 0 and 1), but it is still inherently analog, as the timing of the pulses is non-discrete.
Uh, no, he's saying the industry watchdogs download the file from someone distributing it, then sues the person who bought the watermarked copy and ripped it (or allowed it to be ripped), based on the information saved when that copy was bought.
Yeah, but this was in the context of countries which aren't enforcing copyrights vigorously, "Everybody's doing it" is actually true, and most everyone would be puzzled if you weren't pirating your software. "What, you PAID for that?"
I think the comparison is to that same professional using the same software, just not paying Adobe anything for it.
Then they'll start pushing for mandatory use of hardware that only allows trusted signed programs and operating systems to be loaded. That such hardware would just happen to not allow for an Open Source model is merely a happy coincidence.
You could also make the claim that by reducing enforcement of copyright on software, more software would be used - since supposedly all of this software is being used to make businesses more efficient and productive, you'd actually create more real growth by doing that, not less.
Only if you postulate that most software wouldn't be written at all unless piracy is controlled, thus reducing future growth because the software needed won't be available, do you find any reason to enforce copyright. In the present argument, that doesn't make much sense because the software will still be created (what, you think those companies are just going to up and quit, when they have sufficient markets to make it worthwhile?), and the current software won't be going away no matter how much it gets pirated.
Also, you can measure it at both ends of the line, and then from the phase of the changes deduce which side made which changes.
I thought I had heard a similar claim long ago about modem signals (at least, with newer modulations, not the ones with discrete tones for each direction) - the modem on each end can understand the other side only by subtracting out its own signal (which, of course, it knows) - an eavesdropper listening in wouldn't be able to separate them out.
Another interesting program is Celestia. I haven't tried any, but there are apparently lots of available high-resolution images available for various parts of the Earth as well as higher-resolution images for some of the other planets. The controls for moving around aren't intuitive, but it is a lot of fun to go zooming around the galaxy (and even some nearby galaxies, rendered as grayish-looking 3-d blobs).
Let's take a poll of the general populace. What percentage, when they're asked about a game called RISK, will say "oh, that's a type of game they play on that there Internet thingy", and how many will say "Oh, that's a board game, I forget who makes it. What, a version on the Internet? Never heard of it!" A few hundred or even a few thousand or even tens of thousands of people does not make a word generic.
I sure hope you talk to a lawyer BEFORE you start mooning Hasbro. He (or she) will set you straight on what "generic" means in trademark law, since you still don't get it. And, unless you tell them you've actually released a version of "OpenRisk", I don't expect them to bother replying to you, and no, their non-reply would not be evidence in your favor. You really need to go talk to a lawyer, you have some very foolish notions.
You might, just possibly, be able to get away with calling your version of the game "Risky Business".
I see no reason for a Web-app version of a RISK-like game. There are enough such games already in existence (most being smart and not calling them "Risk"). I prefer Diplomacy, anyway.
You quoted my statement once. BFD. How many times did I read it? Once, then I read it 2 more times because you seemed so damned sure there was something actually relevant. You know, to answering my question. Which you still haven't answered, you know, why the lawyer would bother to give you the time of day, whether that lawyer is a he or a she.
Let's see, who referenced the lawyer as a "he" first. Could it be... why yes, it could be:
You even pasted in the lawyer's name just before you called "him" a smarmy bastard.So if you didn't even check to see if YOU had referred to the lawyer as a "he", I don't see why you think you have the wits to comprehend even a 3-page order. Clue: you put up a server with a game, and call it "RISK", or "Risk", or even "Tom Hudson's Risk", and then let Hasbro know about it, you'll be taking it down as soon as you get the advice of a competent attorney. Either that, or you're going to be out quite a bit of money. You simply have no idea whatsoever about how trademark actually works.
An e-mail signature isn't legally binding at all. Even you should know that.
Oh, I get it. You're referring to my originally saying "he". You're right, I didn't pay attention to the lawyer's name, so didn't say "she". Wow, you got me. You've proved your point. You, by virtue of the fact you looked at the LAWYER'S NAME, obviously know everything about copyright and trademark law. Hell, you could write a book about it now that you know the lawyer's name. Silly me, I was looking at the content of the letter.
I just COPIED AND PASTED pieces of the damned letter, how much MORE OBVIOUS CAN I GET? I even ended up pasting the non-ASCII characters from the letter, and didn't preview to catch it (Slashdot converted them to the ? after RISK).
You've got a lot of nerve talking about credibility. You make blatantly wrong statements (e.g. quoting the US Copyright website regarding COPYRIGHT on games, in response to a statement on TRADEMARK, then claiming that the Copyright Office also administers trademarks). You claim things that the judge didn't say (that generic terms can't be used as trademarks REGARDLESS OF FIELD), you don't seem to understand that the term "generic" does not mean "not made up".
So show me this magical "point that really reflects badly" on my credibility. Go on, I double dog dare you. Is it the part where she (I'm assuming "Carin" is female) signs the letter "Sincerely"? Hint, lawyers write that all the time, it doesn't mean they're sincere. Oh, wait, I see it now. The part that says "and please tell all your friends that if they have any legal questions as to what constitutes trademark and/or copyright infringement, please have them write to us and we'll get back to them right away." How stupid of me, I should have seen that in my first reading.
Or, no, I got it now, the part that says "Please confirm to me in writing as soon as possible, or have tomhudson on Slashdot follow up with questions. This letter does not purport to be a complete statement of the facts or the law, but we're happy to provide free legal advice as to how closely you can copy our games and not lose a lawsuit".
The problem with "Raisin Bran" as a trademark all by itself is that it is too descriptive. The problem with Windows as a trademark is that it was in use as a generic term (NOT the same thing as "not a made-up word", as you seem to keep trying to use it) for a method of graphical interfaces. Microsoft failed to get it registered initially, in fact. The Lindows case would probably have been lost for Microsoft because of the judge's ruling that the jury could consider whether the term was generic AT THE TIME - Microsoft was arguing that it didn't matter if it used to be generic, it isn't any longer. THAT"S where you get the phrase you keep repeating, that "once it's generic, it stays generic". NOT because "windows" was an ordinary word that referred to things you put in walls so you can look outside, but because it was being used IN COMPUTERS. The judge never said that it didn't matter in what field the term was being used as a trademark. In fact, he referred specifically to its usage in graphical user interfaces of the time (and, in fact, that Microsoft referred to it as a "window manager"). Why would he do that, you think, if all he had to say was "oh, it is an ordinary english word, so it can't be a valid trademark, case dismissed!"? Remember, he DENIED Lindows request for summary judgment, it was going to go to a jury trial. The ruling that you keep trumpeting was merely in regards to instructions to the jury.
If I wanted to make a game, based on the Hasbro game "Headache", but call it "Aspirin", I'll bet I could get a trademark for that, despite "aspirin" being generic for acetylsalicylic acid. As long as I don't copy graphical elements, write the rules in my own word, and never call it "Headache", I'd be safe from Hasbro (they could have patented aspects of it, but the game has been around long enough that any patents would have expired by now). If I wrote a computer program to run an automated milling machine and called it "Tin Snips", I could trademark that (assuming no one else has it), but if I tried to sell tools under the brand name "Tin Snips", I'd be spectacularly unsuccessful in attempting to sue someone for having "Tin Snips" on their packaging.
You said earlier "so I can send them a notice demanding exactly what elements they claim protection for".
If you send them a letter saying "Hi, I'm running a server, I'm calling it "Open Risk", so nyah nyah", you will most definitely get a response. If you do what you said: "Sir, I demand that you tell me what you meant in that letter you sent that I heard about on Slashdot", it probably won't make it past his secretary.
So Whoooosh all you want to, you still haven't answered my question. What in that letter makes you think they'd respond to you if you demand to know what precisely they claim protection on when they say they have rights to "the RISK? game, including the rules" and "trademark rights to the RISK? name", or to be more specific about "elements of Hasbro's RISK? game and rules as well as its trademark" that his game is infringing on, or why exactly they think "unauthorized use of the RISK? game constitutes copyright infringement in violation of 17 U.S.C. ? 501" and "unauthorized use of the RISK? name also violates the federal trademark laws ... creating a likelihood of confusion ... likely to dilute the distinctive quality of the RISK? game and trademark ... in violation of 15 U.S.C. ? 1125(c) and numerous state anti-dilution laws"?
Just answer the question. While you're at it, I'm still waiting for an example of a restaurant named "McDonald's" that isn't a Fine Hamburger Establishment sporting Golden Arches.
Actually, we are talking about stealing company data, and I was referring to the fact that even if you ban everything imaginable, you can still get at least 24K bytes of data out per year per person. Not sure how much work you'd get done while memorizing 64 characters, though. Maybe you could write it down as a list of phone numbers instead. All sorts of steganographic opportunities.
Of course, if there's web access at all, there's no real way of stopping a low bandwidth leak. Just use 32 or 64 characters as a password to a web site. That might be monitored, so use a secure connection. Or use an access pattern to a web site, say by choosing one of 8 pictures on a page to transmit 3 bits; then another 3 bits with another picture, and so on. When you need to use the same 3 bits, click a different link to get another set of 8 pictures (so it doesn't look odd that you keep loading the same image).
Someone should create a service similar to Best Buy's "Geek Squad", and call it the "Hacker Team" or something... motto being "We're hackers, we'll help you do it the way YOU want it done."
Instead of recording audio, you could put up a 50x50 grid on the screen and change it 15 times per second, transmitting 37500 bps via a video camera. You could probably get lots more, but that level would clearly be quite easy to extract, even under less than ideal conditions.
They won't let me note that they have the lowest price on an item, so I should shop there? Seems pretty dumb to me!
We have a PDA with our shopping list, and we record prices all the time (generally, the lowest price and which store has it at that price). No one has ever said anything about it.
So show me a restaurant called "McDonald's". What does "only in connection with their business" mean? What else would it be used in connection with?
They don't have to shut down 100% of all clones - they have to actively protect it. As they find out about them, they send letters. As they sent a letter in this case. So obviously, they are still protecting it. Where they lose is when the public starts to call any board game played on a world map "Risk".
BTW, you keep bringing up the Lindows v Microsoft case, and it doesn't support what you're saying, at all. Microsoft probably would have lost that case, true, but the facts in that case are quite different from the use of RISK as a trademarked name for a game.
Also, you characterized it as Microsoft rolling over and paying them $20 million - but Microsoft was winning in most of Europe, so it could easily be seen as Lindows rolling over. They did change their name, after all. $20 million is chump change to Microsoft, they easily saved that much by avoiding further litigation worldwide, and the loss of the trademark in the United States would have been embarrassing. That might even be a good business model - start releasing products called "Free Windows" or similar, then get Microsoft to pay you a couple million to stop.
What in that letter implies that he'd bother giving you the time of day?
Compress and uuencode (or base64), then memorize one line at a time each day you go home. With a compression rate of, say, 50%, you could move out around 24K of data per year (working 5 days a week).
WHAT is the term "Risk" or "RISK" generic for, in the field of games? "Dice" or "Cards" would be a generic name. You couldn't sell a board game called "DIce" and expect to be able to protect that as a trademark. When someone says "Let's play RISK", does it ever mean something other than "Let's play that game with markers and cards on a board of a map of the world, as published by Hasbro"? Does it mean, say, "Let's play a game where we might get killed" or "Let's play one of many insurance actuarial games"? If not, then it is NOT A GENERIC TERM. "Generic" is when someone refers to tissue paper as "Kleenex", or refers to any copying machine as a "Xerox machine", or any vacuum cleaner as a "Hoover", or worse, starts to use it as a verb. I wouldn't be surprised to see Google lose their trademark protection, if people continue to refer to doing any Internet search as "googling for it", regardless of which search site they're actually using. They'll lose it just like Aspirin and Linoleum did. And that's why Hasbro writes letter like that, because if they don't, they can lose their trademark as well.
I wouldn't be surprised if the lawyer ignores you. You don't have standing to demand of him any explanation of his letter to someone else.