Actually, they would have a right. You yourself admitted that the Mc-prefix is a common pattern among McDonald's trademarks. In effect, the "Mc" brand itself is their mark. You have no more right to infringe upon their "Mc" mark than I have a right to create a program called "Microsoft Birdhouse".
No, but if you were using it for a legitimate purpose before the person sought a trademark, they can't make you be infringing on their trademark retroactively. And, their mark only applies in the context of the type of business they engage in.
If I was performing under the name "MC Chocolate Cake" (to use the poster's example), the fact that you wanted to introduce a product called "McChocolate Cake" would be irrelevant to my legitimate use of the term -- trademarks only apply in a limited segment, it in no way allows you to prevent everyone from using a similar name because you want to. It just doesn't work that way.
Seriously, if the guy applied for the domain, and actually used it, a full two years before the trademark was applied for (and, indeed before the bid was even done) then I completely fail to see how they can go back in time and claim ownership. Yes, if he did it afterwards, fine. I just don't see it as being that clear.
In the spelled out example, you have no actual basis to arrive at the conclusion that they would have the right to seize the domain name. Like I said, "MC Chocolate Cake" could have been the next up and coming rapper instead of having anything to do with the food industry. In which case he could tell McDonald's to fuck right off and leave him alone.
I'm not American, nor familiar with its political system. by why would you want a reduced government system?
Because some people actually believe that "the market" will solve the issues that we rely on the government to do, or, even if the market doesn't solve it they still don't want to pay taxes to the government to pay for it. Those who can't afford it be damned.
I'll admit I'm probably making it sound more black and white than it really is.
Personally, I'm of the opinion we want these problems solved, and only government can do it. But, at root, it seems to be the belief that either these issues don't really need solving, or even if they did, it shouldn't be funded from the public purse.
Basically (if I understand it), "for profit" organizations, or, "privately funded non profits" should be the ones solving these issues. And government should mostly just protect personal and property rights.
I'm treating GOP as a faction within with republican party, much like the religious moonbats. If you read the post I was responding to, it should be clear what I meant.
Not really, because you've suddenly decided that the GOP has a different meaning that the commonly accepted "GOP == Republican Party".
In all honesty, it wasn't clear at all, which was kind of why I asked.
Do a search for GOP on google, and you get articles specifically about the Republican party, or web sites owned by the republican party. Not moonbats.:-P
What the hell man, have you never heard of a companies stock going up or down based on an announcement?
It's one thing to observe that the stock market is a bunch of skittish people. It's another thing to try to control current oil prices in any meaningful way by saying that in the future you'll have more production, and then rely on the skittish market to sort things out by lowering the price.
A half-day blip versus anything which fundamentally changes anything tangible about the market -- different things, no?
I think in the case of oil, speculation and all sorts of other factors would outweigh announcing new, future (hypothetical?) production capacity. But, unlike Scott Adams apparently, I'm no economist, so WTF do I know?;-)
For instance, Drilling for oil which he brought up in his "explanation" may not make a huge dent in the total amount of oil supply worldwide. However the important details he leaves out. It will immediately cause a drop in oil prices before a single drop of oil is extracted.
So, you're advocating that we try to lower prices of a traded commodity by announcing something which can't make any short term changes on the basis that even if it's not going to be effective in the short term, current market factors can lower prices on the perception that in the long run this will make a difference????
WTF?? So, through the use of wishful thinking and vacuous statements, we can control market prices today? Is this an economic policy or a tarot reading??
Sorry if I'm mis-characterizing what you said, but making the announcement of hypothetical future production to lower current prices will last for, what, an afternoon??? The market will respond to actual data, and simply announcing it will have a really short term blip, if any at all.
Man, I think Paris Hilton had a better oil policy than that.;-)
Before he was a cartoonist, and indeed while he was starting, Adams was an economist.
It's sad that his wealth seems to have isolated and insulated him so that he seems increasingly to be just going through the motions - but he is well placed to report on the views of economists.
Actually, I had no idea he was an economist. I knew he'd been in industry, but he seems to cover my job pretty well (software development) so I assumed he came from that area. His insight into how companies work is too cutting for him to not have direct experience with corporate BS -- how many of us on a fairly regular basis find ourselves wondering how he managed to identify what happened yesterday at our place of work?
Truthfully, I wasn't saying he's not supposed to be reporting on views about economics, or not qualified. I just thought it was an unlikely source to be actually putting out a study of such things. I'm glad he did it, and knowing that he actually has a background in economics explains it. It just seemed so out of left field.
Now we actually turn to Scott Adams for actual unbiased information about economics? Or, at least an attempt to explain the biases up-front? That just hurts my head!!:-P
Where's the punch line?
But, seriously, good on Scott Adams for actually doing this on his own. I think had anyone else tried to do this, we'd all be screaming loudly that they were inherently biased and had an agenda.
No matter how it goes, Adams will get more material for the strips.;-)
Exactly how big is a kitchen table? Is it an official unit of measurement?
Well, in terms of what you can see from an orbiting camera, it seems a reasonable thumb-and-squint description to the layman to describe something in the 4-8 foot range. It's not exact, but useful for describing in broad terms.
While we're at it, how long is a piece of string?
What, like plain old boring linear measurement of actual string? Or, multidimensional strings?;-)
Seriously, any piece of string is just slightly too short for its required purpose -- unless it's grossly oversized, in which case after trimming it, the remaining pieces will be too short for the required purpose.
...that a good 10% of scientific work goes into inventing catchy acronyms:o) My boss is particularly good at this. And he has to, in order to secure the maximum amount of funding for our research. The catchier the better.
My old manager had a brilliant one for internal use only, and was in reference to alpha and beta drops from dev.
Basically, boiled down to "I see dev has delivered another Steaming Heap of Innovative Technology" . I'm sure you'll never see that on an approved list of acronyms, but we liked it.
$54 million for just a name? Sounds a little high to me.
I must say, I had more or less the same reacion. So, this says all things considered, they're spending about $121 million for Napster.
What, exactly, are they getting for this? Sure, Napster is a well known name, but so are Edsel and New Coke.;-)
Does anyone have any insight into what about Napster in its current state (or any other) that actually makes any sense whatsoever to spend this kind of money?
Actually, here in Canada, we have Best Buy and Future Shop -- both owned by the same parent company. To the best of my knowledge, Best Buy isn't commissioned sales, Future Shop is.
The sales people in Best Buy are actually fairly good at backing off in my experience. Walking through a Future Shop, and you get one humping your leg and following you around every few feet -- they can be quite aggressive.
I have had to resort to finally telling the salesman to piss off, and if I needed him I'd get him. If you look cranky enough, they do get out of your way.
Oh, give him a break. Look at his UID. He's probably pushing 50 and nearly dead.
Yeah, but look at it from his perspective. He's been shooing crurotarsans and other punks off his lawn since the Triassic period. He's a little tired of it by now.:-P
Not to be overly cynical, but this sounds like paying a bunch of people to walk around and try to convince the user that the experience won't suck, has never sucked, and that I'm merely deluded.
I mean, how much of it will be true, and how much of it will simply sound like a sales pitch from someone who drank the Kool Aid?
Man, shopping in most electronics stores is annoying enough -- having some git wandering around stumping for Windows Vista is just one more nuisance to avoid. If I'm standing there looking at a PC, and after I've shooed the salesman away, I don't want to then have to deal with some MS shill.
Hearing that they won't actually be useful sources of information for existing customers only re-affirms my cynicism about this program.
The Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice was established in 1957. The Division is the program institution within the federal government responsible for enforcing federal statutes prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, sex, disability, religion, and national origin. Since its establishment, the Division has grown dramatically both in size and responsibility.
The Division enforces the Civil Rights Acts of 1957, 1960, 1964, and 1968; the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended through 1992; the Equal Credit Opportunity Act; the Americans with Disabilities Act; the National Voter Registration Act; the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act; the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act; and additional civil rights provisions contained in other laws and regulations. These laws prohibit discrimination in education, employment, credit, housing, public accommodations and facilities, voting, and certain federally funded and conducted programs.
Having a department whose job it is to enforce federal statutes on behalf of injured parties is in no way the same as the investigation and enforcement on behalf of large corporate interests.
The presence of the word "civil" in both titles doesn't change the fact that the federal government does not pursue "civil" cases on behalf of companies, and never has. Enforcing the "civil" rights of people is a completely different thing. I suspect you know this, but choose to ignore the distinction.
Hey, look, yet another biased ignorant post submitted by "I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property" and posted by kdawson.
Dude, did you read TFA? Because, if the way ars describes it is accurate, the whole law is pretty much inflammatory.
It's downright scary!! The federal government will now pursue civil matters on behalf of private entities, with the inclusion for collateral damage of seizure of entire server farms. So, if you host with someone, and one of their customers infringes, you could lose all of your stuff with little or no recourse.
This is a very scary precedent, and it seems to blur some historical distinctions between federal agencies and private interests.
However, private industry doesn't write laws (at least without congress voting on it!) or have the ability to seize your property, strip your liberties, or throw you in jail.
Well, that's scary is that, if this passes, the DoJ becomes the enforcement arm for private industry.
How is it at all rational that the DoJ should be pursuing civil matters on behalf of private companies? I mean, are they going to start being the investigative arm and replace Media Sentry and me the ones to be sending subpoenas to universities and then prosecute them? Why does this industry group get their own publicly funded enforcement agency?
This sounds like a really bad turning point for justice in America. Welcome to the distopian future kiddies!
You don't own it.... you own a license to view what's on the disk. See how they get you there.
I retain right of first sale on DVDs, CDs, and books.
I own the disk, and while I'm limited in what I can do with its contents.... this "license to view what's one the disk" argument is fallacious. Don't buy into the unproven claims of the *AAs. This is more than just what they claim they've licensed you to do.
I'm fairly certain the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA have been tested in court, specifically in relation to backing up DVDs. Remember 321 Studios?
Well, that was a combination of running out of money and losing a lower court ruling.
At present, there isn't definitive case law to identify if this is legal or not. Unfortunately, the pecker heads at the MPAA have deep enough pockets to buy whatever ruling they want until someone pushes this far enough through the courts. The whole point of TFA is that this is a gray area that hasn't been finally determined by the courts.
Slashdot Mirror
Arrr!! Ye'll be walkin' the plank for that one, matey.
If thar be one thing pirates be hatin', it's bad puns! :-P
Cheers, Arrr!!
No, but if you were using it for a legitimate purpose before the person sought a trademark, they can't make you be infringing on their trademark retroactively. And, their mark only applies in the context of the type of business they engage in.
If I was performing under the name "MC Chocolate Cake" (to use the poster's example), the fact that you wanted to introduce a product called "McChocolate Cake" would be irrelevant to my legitimate use of the term -- trademarks only apply in a limited segment, it in no way allows you to prevent everyone from using a similar name because you want to. It just doesn't work that way.
Seriously, if the guy applied for the domain, and actually used it, a full two years before the trademark was applied for (and, indeed before the bid was even done) then I completely fail to see how they can go back in time and claim ownership. Yes, if he did it afterwards, fine. I just don't see it as being that clear.
In the spelled out example, you have no actual basis to arrive at the conclusion that they would have the right to seize the domain name. Like I said, "MC Chocolate Cake" could have been the next up and coming rapper instead of having anything to do with the food industry. In which case he could tell McDonald's to fuck right off and leave him alone.
Cheers
Because some people actually believe that "the market" will solve the issues that we rely on the government to do, or, even if the market doesn't solve it they still don't want to pay taxes to the government to pay for it. Those who can't afford it be damned.
I'll admit I'm probably making it sound more black and white than it really is.
Personally, I'm of the opinion we want these problems solved, and only government can do it. But, at root, it seems to be the belief that either these issues don't really need solving, or even if they did, it shouldn't be funded from the public purse.
Basically (if I understand it), "for profit" organizations, or, "privately funded non profits" should be the ones solving these issues. And government should mostly just protect personal and property rights.
Cheers
Hmmmm .... Beavernaut. Is that like the negation of beaver?
In which case we Canadians would be launching ... a Brazillian??
And, besides, if an astronaut explores space ... a beavernaut would ... ;-)
Cheers
Not really, because you've suddenly decided that the GOP has a different meaning that the commonly accepted "GOP == Republican Party".
In all honesty, it wasn't clear at all, which was kind of why I asked.
Do a search for GOP on google, and you get articles specifically about the Republican party, or web sites owned by the republican party. Not moonbats. :-P
Cheers
It's one thing to observe that the stock market is a bunch of skittish people. It's another thing to try to control current oil prices in any meaningful way by saying that in the future you'll have more production, and then rely on the skittish market to sort things out by lowering the price.
A half-day blip versus anything which fundamentally changes anything tangible about the market -- different things, no?
I think in the case of oil, speculation and all sorts of other factors would outweigh announcing new, future (hypothetical?) production capacity. But, unlike Scott Adams apparently, I'm no economist, so WTF do I know? ;-)
Cheers
Ummmm .... isn't that like saying white people are fair skinned??
I mean, by definition, isn't a "Republican" president from the GOP??
I'm totally confused.
Cheers
So, you're advocating that we try to lower prices of a traded commodity by announcing something which can't make any short term changes on the basis that even if it's not going to be effective in the short term, current market factors can lower prices on the perception that in the long run this will make a difference????
WTF?? So, through the use of wishful thinking and vacuous statements, we can control market prices today? Is this an economic policy or a tarot reading??
Sorry if I'm mis-characterizing what you said, but making the announcement of hypothetical future production to lower current prices will last for, what, an afternoon??? The market will respond to actual data, and simply announcing it will have a really short term blip, if any at all.
Man, I think Paris Hilton had a better oil policy than that. ;-)
Cheers
Actually, I had no idea he was an economist. I knew he'd been in industry, but he seems to cover my job pretty well (software development) so I assumed he came from that area. His insight into how companies work is too cutting for him to not have direct experience with corporate BS -- how many of us on a fairly regular basis find ourselves wondering how he managed to identify what happened yesterday at our place of work?
Truthfully, I wasn't saying he's not supposed to be reporting on views about economics, or not qualified. I just thought it was an unlikely source to be actually putting out a study of such things. I'm glad he did it, and knowing that he actually has a background in economics explains it. It just seemed so out of left field.
Thanks for the info.
Cheers
Now we actually turn to Scott Adams for actual unbiased information about economics? Or, at least an attempt to explain the biases up-front? That just hurts my head!! :-P
Where's the punch line?
But, seriously, good on Scott Adams for actually doing this on his own. I think had anyone else tried to do this, we'd all be screaming loudly that they were inherently biased and had an agenda.
No matter how it goes, Adams will get more material for the strips. ;-)
Cheers
Well, in terms of what you can see from an orbiting camera, it seems a reasonable thumb-and-squint description to the layman to describe something in the 4-8 foot range. It's not exact, but useful for describing in broad terms.
What, like plain old boring linear measurement of actual string? Or, multidimensional strings? ;-)
Seriously, any piece of string is just slightly too short for its required purpose -- unless it's grossly oversized, in which case after trimming it, the remaining pieces will be too short for the required purpose.
Cheers
My old manager had a brilliant one for internal use only, and was in reference to alpha and beta drops from dev.
Basically, boiled down to "I see dev has delivered another Steaming Heap of Innovative Technology" . I'm sure you'll never see that on an approved list of acronyms, but we liked it.
Cheers
I must say, I had more or less the same reacion. So, this says all things considered, they're spending about $121 million for Napster.
What, exactly, are they getting for this? Sure, Napster is a well known name, but so are Edsel and New Coke. ;-)
Does anyone have any insight into what about Napster in its current state (or any other) that actually makes any sense whatsoever to spend this kind of money?
I just don't see it.
Cheers
*laugh* Yes, obviously I missed it then. I interpreted it as "how could you possible shoo away a Best Buy salesman". :-P
Cheers
Actually, here in Canada, we have Best Buy and Future Shop -- both owned by the same parent company. To the best of my knowledge, Best Buy isn't commissioned sales, Future Shop is.
The sales people in Best Buy are actually fairly good at backing off in my experience. Walking through a Future Shop, and you get one humping your leg and following you around every few feet -- they can be quite aggressive.
I have had to resort to finally telling the salesman to piss off, and if I needed him I'd get him. If you look cranky enough, they do get out of your way.
Cheers
Just wait for his yellow fart of contempt. It's a doozy!!
Cheers
What I want to know is how this is affected by my huge collection of fridge magnets?
Will one more souvenir magnet from a trip cause my milk to spoil? Or will I have to thaw my mustard? :-P
Cheers
Yeah, but look at it from his perspective. He's been shooing crurotarsans and other punks off his lawn since the Triassic period. He's a little tired of it by now. :-P
Cheers
What, like hot dinosaur on crurotarsan action, or just a friendly cuddle? ;-)
Cheers
Not to be overly cynical, but this sounds like paying a bunch of people to walk around and try to convince the user that the experience won't suck, has never sucked, and that I'm merely deluded.
I mean, how much of it will be true, and how much of it will simply sound like a sales pitch from someone who drank the Kool Aid?
Man, shopping in most electronics stores is annoying enough -- having some git wandering around stumping for Windows Vista is just one more nuisance to avoid. If I'm standing there looking at a PC, and after I've shooed the salesman away, I don't want to then have to deal with some MS shill.
Hearing that they won't actually be useful sources of information for existing customers only re-affirms my cynicism about this program.
Cheers
Allow me to dispel your insinuations that this department is currently doing the equivalent of what is being proposed.
From their web site ...
Having a department whose job it is to enforce federal statutes on behalf of injured parties is in no way the same as the investigation and enforcement on behalf of large corporate interests.
The presence of the word "civil" in both titles doesn't change the fact that the federal government does not pursue "civil" cases on behalf of companies, and never has. Enforcing the "civil" rights of people is a completely different thing. I suspect you know this, but choose to ignore the distinction.
Cheers
Dude, did you read TFA? Because, if the way ars describes it is accurate, the whole law is pretty much inflammatory.
It's downright scary!! The federal government will now pursue civil matters on behalf of private entities, with the inclusion for collateral damage of seizure of entire server farms. So, if you host with someone, and one of their customers infringes, you could lose all of your stuff with little or no recourse.
This is a very scary precedent, and it seems to blur some historical distinctions between federal agencies and private interests.
Cheers
Well, that's scary is that, if this passes, the DoJ becomes the enforcement arm for private industry.
How is it at all rational that the DoJ should be pursuing civil matters on behalf of private companies? I mean, are they going to start being the investigative arm and replace Media Sentry and me the ones to be sending subpoenas to universities and then prosecute them? Why does this industry group get their own publicly funded enforcement agency?
This sounds like a really bad turning point for justice in America. Welcome to the distopian future kiddies!
Cheers
I retain right of first sale on DVDs, CDs, and books.
I own the disk, and while I'm limited in what I can do with its contents .... this "license to view what's one the disk" argument is fallacious. Don't buy into the unproven claims of the *AAs. This is more than just what they claim they've licensed you to do.
Cheers
Well, that was a combination of running out of money and losing a lower court ruling.
At present, there isn't definitive case law to identify if this is legal or not. Unfortunately, the pecker heads at the MPAA have deep enough pockets to buy whatever ruling they want until someone pushes this far enough through the courts. The whole point of TFA is that this is a gray area that hasn't been finally determined by the courts.
Cheers