Why? What's the point of 17 web sites having "booth babe specials" and regurgitating what everyone else has? Or of actual journalists (or at least the best the games media can scrounge up) getting real floor-time with the demonstrators and games. Or more budget being put towards people who can actually talk about the games, or a few more TVs for videos or demos?
So, uh, yeah. This is hardly the end of gaming. In fact, the lack of stupid distractions will probably help us actually, I don't know, be informed.
You want a party? Organize a party. This is a media event that simply got out of hand, and is being reeled back to where it should be.
So I'm smug for responding to someone belittling me by saying that he's wrong? Or is that just a rule you have for lawyers? He made a rude assumption about what I knew, and a very rude remark about my intelligence. I was moderately rude in reply. How horrid.
I'm glad, however, that you know what you talking about, because that creates a real discussion.
The first trademark enabling acts used the copyright clause. Later, the Supreme Court decided (in the trademark cases, as you've noted), that the copyright clause did not support trademark. The problem with just saying "ah, well, it's commerce clause now" is that the tools with which we analyze trademarks, and the mechanisms by which they are recognized and enforced were designed under copyright clause rationale. When the Court swatted it down, the government changed the law facially (and in some ways mechanically) to bring it in line with a commerce clause justification. Most of how we work with trademarks, however, remained the same. The significant changes for justification under the commerce clause is that it runs into the annoying "interstate" problems, and has difficulties with its consumer-confusion rationale under a clause that is quite clearly not meant to entertain the idea.
In the end analysis, we have a producer-centered regime (unlike the more consumer-centered analyses that arise under the commerce clause) which grants protections similar in concept and mechanisms but different in practice to copyrights. In fact (as I mentioned), despite the different justifications, copyrights and trademarks have much more in common than copyrights and patents do (whose analyses and justifications are both rooted in the copyright clause).
I apologize if I was overly simplistic or misspoke about the topic. Perhaps in the spirit of forgiveness I can ignore the fact that my argument had nothing to do with constitutional meaning of a phrase, simply an explanation of why that phrase has arisen, couched in a historical, constitutional analysis.
Or, we could just run around insulting each other and using bold like it proves our point. I'm down for whatever.
If you want a full description, feel free to get yourself a lawyer.
Uh, done? I don't keep old casebooks on my shelf for the hell of it, you know.
You are correct that this dispute is over Trademarks. That really has no relevance to our discussion, however. Your argument is that grouping copyrights and trademarks (and occassionally, though rarely) patents into an umbrella of "IP" is a scheme to confuse people. My point is that we lump them together both because the authority for both schemes lie in the same clause of the constitution, and (partially as an offshoot of this), the two schemes share many characteristics (although the terminology is sometimes different), and a lot of the analyses are quite similar. This is why the two are often taught concurrently, and why they are given an umbrella "subject."
You didn't respond to any of these arguments, and managed to insult both my intelligence and education. Well done, sir.
Amen. Every programmer should take at least a course in IP law. Maybe then I'd be able to spend less time explaining things to people whose education about IP law is a combinations of "what they want it to be" and talking points from RMS.
Just going into it basically, both trademarks and copyrights are powers assigned to congress by the same clause of the constitution (the copyright clause). The law dealing with the two is roughly parallel, using a lot of the same analyses and a large body of shared terms of art. Hell, I have 2 books sitting on my bookshelf right here specifically titled "Intellectual Property" which deal with copyrights and trademarks both, because they work rather similarly. This is how it's taught in law schools everywhere, to those who will actually end up dealing with the concepts and not going for cheap political points on websites.
I can understand that you might not agree with the way a lot of companies use IP law, but that doesn't justify mischaracterizations and bending reality to fit your own preconcieved notions of what is and what isn't.
They have a "tethered" version, after a fashion... there's a version with a power cord that people have been using at events which link the remote to the Wii/TV.
The fund would be called "universal health care," and would come about when we realize that: a) our health is too important to trust in the hands of a for-profit organization, b) "voting with your wallets" is nice romantic nonsense, but betrays the fact that we as a public have extremely little control over said corporations (as opposed to a government which can be moved if need be... see 1994), and c) insurance works by insuring as many people as possible, to counter claims at one point with non-claiming members at another. Modern American insurance is trying to weed out those likely to make claims... which is what makes insurance expensive, since you are either in a high-premium insurance if you're at any point at risk, with rates going up if you run into something chronic, or a healthy person in a cheap plan with generally thin coverage. A universal system (think France or Japan, not Canada) makes the entire country part of the group, which would skyrocket the healthy/not-healthy ratio to the point where the system becomes very economically efficient.
As for personal pleas for money, I feel bad, but my personal values (and my personal catholicism) actually do say that it is wrong to specially help one person with money to aid their symptoms without doing anything about the cure. In this case, the cure needs to be systemic, and a few bucks to him won't really help anything.
While I realize this is only a semi-serious article, I'm a bit baffled as to where the "consensus" they often cite comes from. I'm aware of small groups of people who obsess over these sorts of things, and you could have a consensus of them, but the majority of people (the consensus that matters), from what I can tell, really couldn't care less.
I agree with the moderation, since always go to 3-panel comics written by demagogues with vested interests to inform myself upon nuanced issues. Extra bonus points for when the entire thing is based upon that person's speculation as to what the "real" purpose of a piece of legislation is for.
Generally, if the production of the documents would be "testamonial," then they cannot be discovered. Note that the contents of the documents themselves can never be testimonial: only the act of production can be. Furthermore, if the existence of something is a "foregone conclusion," then it is likewise not testimonial. Also considered is the doctrine of inevitable discovery; in this case, if other routes of investigation would have made the documents' existence a foregone conclusion, they would likewise be produced.
Dismissal is only appropriate where the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. There is no evidentiary burden for a motion to dismiss, and before some discovery, a motion for summary judgment (which seems to be what the author is referring to) is premature. If Microsoft has a good faith belief that what they alledge happened actually happened, then they are entitled to discovery to prove their point, so long as they actually have a cause of action (in this case, they do). If discovery information does not support their claim, then the defendant can have summary judgment. Even if they are using the legal system to "find out how he did it," if someone committed a tort against them, they have a right to figure out exactly what happened.
Don't write about law if you know nothing about law, and don't make assumptions or claims about lawsuits based on second-hand information and bias.
The nice thing about FE is that you can two completely different armies, even with some of the same characters. There's no huge advantage of a fast attack build vs. a slow defense one. Nintendo always gets the balance right.
Reliable numbers for the US are nearly impossible to get, but it's my feeling that DQVIII did quite well in the US. Perhaps not as well as FFXII will do, but not bad for a series that was dead for a decade and had a lackluster reentry 2 years before.
Do you know anything about the merger, or Enix in general? Enix bought Square. Square contributed the President, but the Enix shareholders gained loads of money and the board is mostly Enix. Enix just never worked like Square... much more low-key.
That said, Enix invented the spinoff. DQM has been around for a long time, in adition to a few other spinoffs. It also seems you haven't even read about these games, since they are actually quite well-regarded. Why is that? Because unlike most other companies, Enix has really always stood for quality.
MS (and most people) are deluding themselves that two RPGs (from non-series, no less) will wag the dog enough to get the 360 acceptance in Japan. MS won't get FF or DQ, and by the time those RPGs are out, we'll probably have at least pre-release hype for DQIX and FFXIII, which will absolutely crush anything trying to compete, marketing-wise.
That, and the 360 is already pretty much dead in the water in Japan.
These comments are in line with former rumors that if their games do well on Nintendo platforms, Enix will bring DQIX to Wii.
Considering SE considers Dragon Quest to be the "premier" title in their stable, mostly because they're Japan-centric and DQ owns pretty much the whole country, these statements would be consistent with supporting Sony (FF), but not too much (moving DQ).
Personally, I'd love that. I don't have the cash nor the inclination for a PS3, and although I will get FFXII soon, it will have been my first since IX (and my second since VII).
Actually, the claim is rather weak. When a work is prepared in the scope of one's employment, even if only for evaluation purposes, the copyrights are assigned to the employer (in this case, the school). The applicable theory would be the control doctrine: the college is in control of the time (due date), matter (general subject), content (requirements and rubrics) and finally, has a mechanism for evaluation which is generally transparent.
I don't see the students having a very strong IP claim at all.
Very few (sane) people hate HDTV. What people are saying is that they don't think it's worth it to go shell out a bunch of cash for a new shiny expensive TV for their games console and a couple channels of generally bad TV. No one's saying that they can't tell the difference, just that an upgrade is not an attractive option at this time. Add to this the fact that televisions are in general extremely reliable and last for ages, you have some pretty significant barriers to even tech nerd adoption.
How is $250 expensive? It's $150 less than the version everyone gets of a console already out for a year. The controllers are comparable to controllers on the market.
The people that were disappointed, it seems, weren't thinking realistically. Those of us who thought that Nintendo was an actual company and not actually going to give us a free pony with our wiis are pretty much... feeling the same.
The sane half of Square-Enix has been saying they're going to hand over DQIX to Wii if rocket slime and DQS sell well. Even if they don't sell well, the way Sony is handling their launch and production, it seems doubtful that PS3 will be able to kee Dragon Quest.
Slashdot Mirror
Why? What's the point of 17 web sites having "booth babe specials" and regurgitating what everyone else has? Or of actual journalists (or at least the best the games media can scrounge up) getting real floor-time with the demonstrators and games. Or more budget being put towards people who can actually talk about the games, or a few more TVs for videos or demos?
So, uh, yeah. This is hardly the end of gaming. In fact, the lack of stupid distractions will probably help us actually, I don't know, be informed.
You want a party? Organize a party. This is a media event that simply got out of hand, and is being reeled back to where it should be.
So I'm smug for responding to someone belittling me by saying that he's wrong? Or is that just a rule you have for lawyers? He made a rude assumption about what I knew, and a very rude remark about my intelligence. I was moderately rude in reply. How horrid.
I'm glad, however, that you know what you talking about, because that creates a real discussion.
The first trademark enabling acts used the copyright clause. Later, the Supreme Court decided (in the trademark cases, as you've noted), that the copyright clause did not support trademark. The problem with just saying "ah, well, it's commerce clause now" is that the tools with which we analyze trademarks, and the mechanisms by which they are recognized and enforced were designed under copyright clause rationale. When the Court swatted it down, the government changed the law facially (and in some ways mechanically) to bring it in line with a commerce clause justification. Most of how we work with trademarks, however, remained the same. The significant changes for justification under the commerce clause is that it runs into the annoying "interstate" problems, and has difficulties with its consumer-confusion rationale under a clause that is quite clearly not meant to entertain the idea.
In the end analysis, we have a producer-centered regime (unlike the more consumer-centered analyses that arise under the commerce clause) which grants protections similar in concept and mechanisms but different in practice to copyrights. In fact (as I mentioned), despite the different justifications, copyrights and trademarks have much more in common than copyrights and patents do (whose analyses and justifications are both rooted in the copyright clause).
I apologize if I was overly simplistic or misspoke about the topic. Perhaps in the spirit of forgiveness I can ignore the fact that my argument had nothing to do with constitutional meaning of a phrase, simply an explanation of why that phrase has arisen, couched in a historical, constitutional analysis.
Or, we could just run around insulting each other and using bold like it proves our point. I'm down for whatever.
If you want a full description, feel free to get yourself a lawyer.
Uh, done? I don't keep old casebooks on my shelf for the hell of it, you know.
You are correct that this dispute is over Trademarks. That really has no relevance to our discussion, however. Your argument is that grouping copyrights and trademarks (and occassionally, though rarely) patents into an umbrella of "IP" is a scheme to confuse people. My point is that we lump them together both because the authority for both schemes lie in the same clause of the constitution, and (partially as an offshoot of this), the two schemes share many characteristics (although the terminology is sometimes different), and a lot of the analyses are quite similar. This is why the two are often taught concurrently, and why they are given an umbrella "subject."
You didn't respond to any of these arguments, and managed to insult both my intelligence and education. Well done, sir.
Amen. Every programmer should take at least a course in IP law. Maybe then I'd be able to spend less time explaining things to people whose education about IP law is a combinations of "what they want it to be" and talking points from RMS.
Just going into it basically, both trademarks and copyrights are powers assigned to congress by the same clause of the constitution (the copyright clause). The law dealing with the two is roughly parallel, using a lot of the same analyses and a large body of shared terms of art. Hell, I have 2 books sitting on my bookshelf right here specifically titled "Intellectual Property" which deal with copyrights and trademarks both, because they work rather similarly. This is how it's taught in law schools everywhere, to those who will actually end up dealing with the concepts and not going for cheap political points on websites.
I can understand that you might not agree with the way a lot of companies use IP law, but that doesn't justify mischaracterizations and bending reality to fit your own preconcieved notions of what is and what isn't.
They have a "tethered" version, after a fashion... there's a version with a power cord that people have been using at events which link the remote to the Wii/TV.
The fund would be called "universal health care," and would come about when we realize that: a) our health is too important to trust in the hands of a for-profit organization, b) "voting with your wallets" is nice romantic nonsense, but betrays the fact that we as a public have extremely little control over said corporations (as opposed to a government which can be moved if need be... see 1994), and c) insurance works by insuring as many people as possible, to counter claims at one point with non-claiming members at another. Modern American insurance is trying to weed out those likely to make claims... which is what makes insurance expensive, since you are either in a high-premium insurance if you're at any point at risk, with rates going up if you run into something chronic, or a healthy person in a cheap plan with generally thin coverage. A universal system (think France or Japan, not Canada) makes the entire country part of the group, which would skyrocket the healthy/not-healthy ratio to the point where the system becomes very economically efficient.
As for personal pleas for money, I feel bad, but my personal values (and my personal catholicism) actually do say that it is wrong to specially help one person with money to aid their symptoms without doing anything about the cure. In this case, the cure needs to be systemic, and a few bucks to him won't really help anything.
While I realize this is only a semi-serious article, I'm a bit baffled as to where the "consensus" they often cite comes from. I'm aware of small groups of people who obsess over these sorts of things, and you could have a consensus of them, but the majority of people (the consensus that matters), from what I can tell, really couldn't care less.
I agree with the moderation, since always go to 3-panel comics written by demagogues with vested interests to inform myself upon nuanced issues. Extra bonus points for when the entire thing is based upon that person's speculation as to what the "real" purpose of a piece of legislation is for.
Generally, if the production of the documents would be "testamonial," then they cannot be discovered. Note that the contents of the documents themselves can never be testimonial: only the act of production can be. Furthermore, if the existence of something is a "foregone conclusion," then it is likewise not testimonial. Also considered is the doctrine of inevitable discovery; in this case, if other routes of investigation would have made the documents' existence a foregone conclusion, they would likewise be produced.
That's the short version of it, at least.
Dismissal is only appropriate where the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. There is no evidentiary burden for a motion to dismiss, and before some discovery, a motion for summary judgment (which seems to be what the author is referring to) is premature. If Microsoft has a good faith belief that what they alledge happened actually happened, then they are entitled to discovery to prove their point, so long as they actually have a cause of action (in this case, they do). If discovery information does not support their claim, then the defendant can have summary judgment. Even if they are using the legal system to "find out how he did it," if someone committed a tort against them, they have a right to figure out exactly what happened.
Don't write about law if you know nothing about law, and don't make assumptions or claims about lawsuits based on second-hand information and bias.
The nice thing about FE is that you can two completely different armies, even with some of the same characters. There's no huge advantage of a fast attack build vs. a slow defense one. Nintendo always gets the balance right.
Reliable numbers for the US are nearly impossible to get, but it's my feeling that DQVIII did quite well in the US. Perhaps not as well as FFXII will do, but not bad for a series that was dead for a decade and had a lackluster reentry 2 years before.
Do you know anything about the merger, or Enix in general? Enix bought Square. Square contributed the President, but the Enix shareholders gained loads of money and the board is mostly Enix. Enix just never worked like Square... much more low-key.
That said, Enix invented the spinoff. DQM has been around for a long time, in adition to a few other spinoffs. It also seems you haven't even read about these games, since they are actually quite well-regarded. Why is that? Because unlike most other companies, Enix has really always stood for quality.
MS (and most people) are deluding themselves that two RPGs (from non-series, no less) will wag the dog enough to get the 360 acceptance in Japan. MS won't get FF or DQ, and by the time those RPGs are out, we'll probably have at least pre-release hype for DQIX and FFXIII, which will absolutely crush anything trying to compete, marketing-wise.
That, and the 360 is already pretty much dead in the water in Japan.
These comments are in line with former rumors that if their games do well on Nintendo platforms, Enix will bring DQIX to Wii.
Considering SE considers Dragon Quest to be the "premier" title in their stable, mostly because they're Japan-centric and DQ owns pretty much the whole country, these statements would be consistent with supporting Sony (FF), but not too much (moving DQ).
Personally, I'd love that. I don't have the cash nor the inclination for a PS3, and although I will get FFXII soon, it will have been my first since IX (and my second since VII).
Where did you preorder? I've been looking for a good, reliable place for a while now.
Expect it to get worse: I recall Enix saying that if Rocket Slime and DQ Swords sell well, Dragon Quest IX is likely to be for Wii.
Thankfully, I actually don't care about Final Fantasy (or most of these new shiny-shiny RPGs) anymore, so I should be all right.
Actually, the claim is rather weak. When a work is prepared in the scope of one's employment, even if only for evaluation purposes, the copyrights are assigned to the employer (in this case, the school). The applicable theory would be the control doctrine: the college is in control of the time (due date), matter (general subject), content (requirements and rubrics) and finally, has a mechanism for evaluation which is generally transparent.
I don't see the students having a very strong IP claim at all.
Circumstantial evidence? Hello?
Very few (sane) people hate HDTV. What people are saying is that they don't think it's worth it to go shell out a bunch of cash for a new shiny expensive TV for their games console and a couple channels of generally bad TV. No one's saying that they can't tell the difference, just that an upgrade is not an attractive option at this time. Add to this the fact that televisions are in general extremely reliable and last for ages, you have some pretty significant barriers to even tech nerd adoption.
90-93. What a great couple of years of games.
How is $250 expensive? It's $150 less than the version everyone gets of a console already out for a year. The controllers are comparable to controllers on the market.
The people that were disappointed, it seems, weren't thinking realistically. Those of us who thought that Nintendo was an actual company and not actually going to give us a free pony with our wiis are pretty much... feeling the same.
"A lot of people?" Perhaps a lot of slashdotters- a very, very, (very) small portion of even the games-buying population.
The sane half of Square-Enix has been saying they're going to hand over DQIX to Wii if rocket slime and DQS sell well. Even if they don't sell well, the way Sony is handling their launch and production, it seems doubtful that PS3 will be able to kee Dragon Quest.
They could do the exact same thing by ordering a commodity system from any number of retailers. It would probably cost less, too.