Are you sure you're not confusing copyright & trademark? My understanding was that the author had copyright in the USA without doing anything once the work was created, but that has nothing to do with trademark.
This is one area where trademark and copyright are similar. There are "registered trademarks", which use the "®" symbol, and "unregistered trademarks", which use the "TM" symbol. The first comes about through a registration process, and the second comes about simply by using the mark in commerce. Registered trademarks have additional protections that Common Law trademarks do not have, but the basic protection is still there.
That's an interesting use of the term "first to file". They're talking about the disparity between rights granted to unregistered vs registered trademarks. Generally the term is used to refer to how one gets a trademark. The fact that common law trademarks exist in the US mean that it is a "first to use" system. For example, the U.S. Department of Commerce, in comparing trademarks in the U.S. to the E.U., says:
Registration is especially important in the EU because, unlike in the US, where trademark protection is based on "first use" as well as registration rights; the trademark registration system in the EU is based on a "first-to-file", or more precisely, a "first to successfully register" approach.
This is clearly demonstrated by your next sentence.:)
trademarks in the US are valued by first to file, not first to use.
Wrong. The United States system is "first to use".
Your final point is the key point that goes back to the start of this thread. A fictional name in a novel doesn't compete with a real-world smartphone. However, trademarks have been known to be stretched beyond their logical limitations. Imagine, for example, if they had tried to name it something like "The Death Star" or "The Han Solo Phone" or something. There would be an enormous battle over that, and I'm not sure how it would end up.
The Yes Men's entire raisin d'etre is publicity. It would make sense for them to specifically choose ISPs that are willing to roll over easily.
It would make even more sense for them to just release a hoax announcement claiming that the ISP shut down their parody websites, even though the websites are actually stillonline.
The rebellion would have been crushed if Luke hadn't kicked evil Sith ass.
Impossible to say for certain, but unlikely.
The simple fact is that Han and crew shut down the shield generator without any help from Luke, and Lando and crew destroyed the second Death Star without any help from Luke. If the Emperor hadn't been killed by Vader, and Vader subsequently died, they both would've been killed anyway when the Death Star blew up.
Luke was busy fighting a self-indulgent personal battle that had nothing to do with the rebellion.
But in the end, it is Luke in Star Wars who is the real hero, we just like to pretend he isn't because we want to be cool. But in the end, it is Luke whose struggle we follow. Luke who we see grow up from anxious teen farmboy to Jedi Knight who confronts the emperor and his past.
Actually, I always had a problem with Luke as the hero because to me Star Wars was about the Rebellion, not about Luke's little family squabbles. While Luke was wanking off with his dad and the Emperor, Han and Leia and Lando and all the unnamed real heroes were out there actually winning the damn war.
I don't know about you, but for me the star of the original trilogy was Han Solo. I'm not sure who the star of the prequel trilogy was, but there was not a single Han Solo-esque character in it.
Wasn't that supposed to be Ewan McGregor's Obi-Wan?
I think Lucas wanted Obi-Wan to be that character, but the problem is that the Jedi are just not likable. They're all completely wooden and walk around like they have sticks up their ass. The prequels needed a rebel, and simply casting a cool actor to play a stuffy Jedi role doesn't magically turn that stuffy Jedi into a rebel.
Realistically, the one who had the most potential to become the cool likable character was Qui-Gon. So Lucas did nothing to flesh out the character, and killed him off in the first movie. Brilliant.
I honestly couldn't bring myself to watch the whole thing. I've yet to speak to a die hard Star Wars fan who has watched the whole thing. It really is that bad.
I sat through it, in its entirety, with a couple other people.
What I have not been able to do is sit through it a second time, even though I have managed to sit through all of the prequels a second time. That's how bad it is.
I think the one thing it needed that would've made it a thousand times better would be a single likeable character.
I don't know about you, but for me the star of the original trilogy was Han Solo. I'm not sure who the star of the prequel trilogy was, but there was not a single Han Solo-esque character in it.
Trademark registration is expensive and takes years to complete, so many small companies are content to use unregistered trademarks.
Right but only if by expensive you mean about $500 and by years you mean 6 months. What would I know though? I've only actually been through the entire process recently. I'm sure you talking out of your ass is a much more reliable source of information.
I've never been through the process, but I've researched it, so I'll admit it's possible that you are right. However, when I researched the process in the past I was informed that it was more like about $2000 and 2 years, although 1) I was researching Canadian Trademark Law, and 2) it could take less time if you hire an expensive lawyer, but obviously that increases the cost.
Nevertheless, even if it's only $500 and 6 months, many small companies simply don't see any benefit in doing it, considering the fact that they are still protected with an unregistered trademark.
No, it doesn't really say anything. They were a small fish happily using the trademark for the past nine years without any trouble. There was no need for them to register the mark, which is still legally protected even without registration. Trademark registration is expensive and takes years to complete, so many small companies are content to use unregistered trademarks.
However, now that Microsoft has stepped on their turf, they've decided they need additional protection, so they began the process of registering the mark. They should have no problem getting that registration since they likely have ample proof that they've been using it for nine years (marketing materials, print advertisements, maybe some TV commercials, etc).
I wonder why people always start claiming their rights so late.
Because obtaining trademarks is costly and time-consuming, and because an unregistered trademarks is still a protected mark. This is a fairly small company who, until recently, probably found that an unregistered trademark was sufficient for them. Now that Microsoft has started using the name, they've decided they need to protect themselves further.
Aren't you obliged to protect your mark?
They are. They filed suit and began the process of registering their trademark. They've been using it since 2000, so they should have no problem getting the trademark, since the system is "first to use", not "first to file".
The fact that some people are offended by four letter words doesn't mean you can't use them...
And this software doesn't stop anyone from using them. It only stops those who don't want to read them from having to read them. Everyone gets what they want. Sounds like a win-win to me.
Maybe you have more experience with the ribbon than I do, and you've encountered annoyances that I haven't, but what you describe doesn't match my admittedly limited experience with the ribbon.
You describe the same things that annoy me about some interfaces. In particular, things that move around on their own, such as those ungodly "personalized" menus that were introduced with XP (I think). I find controls by pattern more than by actually reading and thinking. If what I'm looking for has moved from its previous position, I get pissed off.
However, the ribbon is pretty static in my experience, which is limited to using Word 2007. It's also highly keyboard navigable, which is crucial for me. So I just don't get your criticism that "you are forced to read and interpret transitions that previously were static enough to select by reflex", because I, too, would hate the ribbon if that were the case. But it just isn't in my experience.
The ribbon is bad in many cases because displays have got wider more than they have got taller.
Actually, the ribbon is an improvement over traditional menus for exactly that reason. You can hide the ribbon so that it only appears when needed. Using this functionality, what you have is basically the same as a traditional menu, except that it's more feature-rich and organized, and is much shorter and wider, taking advantage of the fact that screens have more width than height.
Add to that the ability to pin your most used controls onto the quick access toolbar, and many of the other improvements over the old button bars, and you have a system that's much easier to use if you take the time to familiarize yourself with it.
Unfortunately most people are just resistant to change.
Although I still think SWHS is the absolute worst of the worst of the worst, you do make a good point about TV "back in the day". For example, I recently watched the first episode of the original 1984 V TV series. It was horrid. Absolutely painful. Nowhere near the level of SWHS, but I do not plan to re-watch the rest of the series, even though I absolutely loved it as a 12-year old.
Your average blue-collar idiot is also smart enough to see a conflict of interest... such as it not being in Jiffy Lube's best interest to tell you that your car doesn't need an oil change. What do climatologist do for a living other than telling us the sky is falling?
Climatologists study the climate. They do this whether or not it's changing, and they also do this whether or not any changes are caused by humans. They all had jobs before anyone started talking about AGW, and they'll still have jobs even if AGW disappears tomorrow.
They have nothing to gain by inventing a problem, and everything to lose if they force changes that turn out to have been unnecessary.
You made me curious. Now, I really have to see it!
...HATE YOU!!!
I know. That's one of the problems with warning people. It piques their curiosity. Let me try one last time to save you, however. Just because I'm a good person.
You see, there are movies that are bad.
There are movies that are so bad, they're good.
There are movies that are so bad they go past good and are bad again.
There are movies that are so bad they go past good and bad again, and are amazingly awesome (ex. Toxic Avenger).
Then there are movies that are so unbelievably bad they go past bad, good, bad again, and amazingly awesome, landing ultimately on so horrid that no one, no matter how curious, should ever see them.
Now, if you took all of the movies in that last category and ranked them from "best" (for lack of a better word) to worst, SWHS but be dead last.
When I tell people about it, I go on and on and on about how unbelievably bad it is. I insist that it's worse than the worst you can possibly think of and then some. I tell them that it's not one of those things that's so bad that it's good, it's so bad that it's just bad. Really, really, really, really, really bad. Horrible. And not in a way that's funny. It's just bad.
When people I've warned about it end up finally seeing it, they always tell me that my warnings didn't even come close to preparing them for just how bad it actually was.
I'd say that, even if you're a die-hard fan, SWHS is so bad that it's not even worth seeing. I personally can't bring myself to watch it a second time. It's just so freakin' bad.
Do yourself a favour. Stay away from it — far, far away.
Slashdot Mirror
Does Bennett Hasselton write lengthy articles to make up for having a small penis?
Well, I'm not saying he does, but I can't help but wonder why he has never denied it.
Are you sure you're not confusing copyright & trademark? My understanding was that the author had copyright in the USA without doing anything once the work was created, but that has nothing to do with trademark.
This is one area where trademark and copyright are similar. There are "registered trademarks", which use the "®" symbol, and "unregistered trademarks", which use the "TM" symbol. The first comes about through a registration process, and the second comes about simply by using the mark in commerce. Registered trademarks have additional protections that Common Law trademarks do not have, but the basic protection is still there.
That's an interesting use of the term "first to file". They're talking about the disparity between rights granted to unregistered vs registered trademarks. Generally the term is used to refer to how one gets a trademark. The fact that common law trademarks exist in the US mean that it is a "first to use" system. For example, the U.S. Department of Commerce, in comparing trademarks in the U.S. to the E.U., says:
Registration is especially important in the EU because, unlike in the US, where trademark protection is based on "first use" as well as registration rights; the trademark registration system in the EU is based on a "first-to-file", or more precisely, a "first to successfully register" approach.
IANAL of course.
This is clearly demonstrated by your next sentence. :)
trademarks in the US are valued by first to file, not first to use.
Wrong. The United States system is "first to use".
Your final point is the key point that goes back to the start of this thread. A fictional name in a novel doesn't compete with a real-world smartphone. However, trademarks have been known to be stretched beyond their logical limitations. Imagine, for example, if they had tried to name it something like "The Death Star" or "The Han Solo Phone" or something. There would be an enormous battle over that, and I'm not sure how it would end up.
Saw it in 3D at the Imax.
Just out of curiosity, do you wear glasses? I'm just wondering how the 3D glasses they're using for this movie fit over regular glasses.
If they haven't improved the "3D glasses over regular glasses" experience, I'll have to stick to the 2D version.
That was not the case at the time that I posted. The website was very much alive and kicking and serving satirical content.
In different parts of the country, like Florida, they have traffic lights in a horizontal orientation.
In these situations, red is generally on the left. This is nothing new. Every driver who is red/green colour blind knows this.
The Yes Men's entire raisin d'etre is publicity. It would make sense for them to specifically choose ISPs that are willing to roll over easily.
It would make even more sense for them to just release a hoax announcement claiming that the ISP shut down their parody websites, even though the websites are actually still online.
The rebellion would have been crushed if Luke hadn't kicked evil Sith ass.
Impossible to say for certain, but unlikely.
The simple fact is that Han and crew shut down the shield generator without any help from Luke, and Lando and crew destroyed the second Death Star without any help from Luke. If the Emperor hadn't been killed by Vader, and Vader subsequently died, they both would've been killed anyway when the Death Star blew up.
Luke was busy fighting a self-indulgent personal battle that had nothing to do with the rebellion.
And who writes this crap? Do they even proofread it? Seriously, try to parse this sentence:
GNU rewritten Unix utilities tool set were invented by through the purity in effort of Richard Stallman-- the pillar of free software.
But in the end, it is Luke in Star Wars who is the real hero, we just like to pretend he isn't because we want to be cool. But in the end, it is Luke whose struggle we follow. Luke who we see grow up from anxious teen farmboy to Jedi Knight who confronts the emperor and his past.
Actually, I always had a problem with Luke as the hero because to me Star Wars was about the Rebellion, not about Luke's little family squabbles. While Luke was wanking off with his dad and the Emperor, Han and Leia and Lando and all the unnamed real heroes were out there actually winning the damn war.
Anakin went from whiny kid to arrogant teen to Darth Vader, and sucked at two of those roles.
Only two of them? Which one didn't he suck at?
Wasn't that supposed to be Ewan McGregor's Obi-Wan?
I think Lucas wanted Obi-Wan to be that character, but the problem is that the Jedi are just not likable. They're all completely wooden and walk around like they have sticks up their ass. The prequels needed a rebel, and simply casting a cool actor to play a stuffy Jedi role doesn't magically turn that stuffy Jedi into a rebel.
Realistically, the one who had the most potential to become the cool likable character was Qui-Gon. So Lucas did nothing to flesh out the character, and killed him off in the first movie. Brilliant.
I honestly couldn't bring myself to watch the whole thing. I've yet to speak to a die hard Star Wars fan who has watched the whole thing. It really is that bad.
I sat through it, in its entirety, with a couple other people.
What I have not been able to do is sit through it a second time, even though I have managed to sit through all of the prequels a second time. That's how bad it is.
I think the one thing it needed that would've made it a thousand times better would be a single likeable character.
I don't know about you, but for me the star of the original trilogy was Han Solo. I'm not sure who the star of the prequel trilogy was, but there was not a single Han Solo-esque character in it.
Trademark registration is expensive and takes years to complete, so many small companies are content to use unregistered trademarks.
Right but only if by expensive you mean about $500 and by years you mean 6 months. What would I know though? I've only actually been through the entire process recently. I'm sure you talking out of your ass is a much more reliable source of information.
I've never been through the process, but I've researched it, so I'll admit it's possible that you are right. However, when I researched the process in the past I was informed that it was more like about $2000 and 2 years, although 1) I was researching Canadian Trademark Law, and 2) it could take less time if you hire an expensive lawyer, but obviously that increases the cost.
Nevertheless, even if it's only $500 and 6 months, many small companies simply don't see any benefit in doing it, considering the fact that they are still protected with an unregistered trademark.
No, it doesn't really say anything. They were a small fish happily using the trademark for the past nine years without any trouble. There was no need for them to register the mark, which is still legally protected even without registration. Trademark registration is expensive and takes years to complete, so many small companies are content to use unregistered trademarks.
However, now that Microsoft has stepped on their turf, they've decided they need additional protection, so they began the process of registering the mark. They should have no problem getting that registration since they likely have ample proof that they've been using it for nine years (marketing materials, print advertisements, maybe some TV commercials, etc).
I wonder why people always start claiming their rights so late.
Because obtaining trademarks is costly and time-consuming, and because an unregistered trademarks is still a protected mark. This is a fairly small company who, until recently, probably found that an unregistered trademark was sufficient for them. Now that Microsoft has started using the name, they've decided they need to protect themselves further.
Aren't you obliged to protect your mark?
They are. They filed suit and began the process of registering their trademark. They've been using it since 2000, so they should have no problem getting the trademark, since the system is "first to use", not "first to file".
The fact that some people are offended by four letter words doesn't mean you can't use them...
And this software doesn't stop anyone from using them. It only stops those who don't want to read them from having to read them. Everyone gets what they want. Sounds like a win-win to me.
Maybe you have more experience with the ribbon than I do, and you've encountered annoyances that I haven't, but what you describe doesn't match my admittedly limited experience with the ribbon.
You describe the same things that annoy me about some interfaces. In particular, things that move around on their own, such as those ungodly "personalized" menus that were introduced with XP (I think). I find controls by pattern more than by actually reading and thinking. If what I'm looking for has moved from its previous position, I get pissed off.
However, the ribbon is pretty static in my experience, which is limited to using Word 2007. It's also highly keyboard navigable, which is crucial for me. So I just don't get your criticism that "you are forced to read and interpret transitions that previously were static enough to select by reflex", because I, too, would hate the ribbon if that were the case. But it just isn't in my experience.
The ribbon is bad in many cases because displays have got wider more than they have got taller.
Actually, the ribbon is an improvement over traditional menus for exactly that reason. You can hide the ribbon so that it only appears when needed. Using this functionality, what you have is basically the same as a traditional menu, except that it's more feature-rich and organized, and is much shorter and wider, taking advantage of the fact that screens have more width than height.
Add to that the ability to pin your most used controls onto the quick access toolbar, and many of the other improvements over the old button bars, and you have a system that's much easier to use if you take the time to familiarize yourself with it.
Unfortunately most people are just resistant to change.
Although I still think SWHS is the absolute worst of the worst of the worst, you do make a good point about TV "back in the day". For example, I recently watched the first episode of the original 1984 V TV series. It was horrid. Absolutely painful. Nowhere near the level of SWHS, but I do not plan to re-watch the rest of the series, even though I absolutely loved it as a 12-year old.
Your average blue-collar idiot is also smart enough to see a conflict of interest... such as it not being in Jiffy Lube's best interest to tell you that your car doesn't need an oil change. What do climatologist do for a living other than telling us the sky is falling?
Climatologists study the climate. They do this whether or not it's changing, and they also do this whether or not any changes are caused by humans. They all had jobs before anyone started talking about AGW, and they'll still have jobs even if AGW disappears tomorrow.
They have nothing to gain by inventing a problem, and everything to lose if they force changes that turn out to have been unnecessary.
You made me curious. Now, I really have to see it!
I know. That's one of the problems with warning people. It piques their curiosity. Let me try one last time to save you, however. Just because I'm a good person.
You see, there are movies that are bad.
There are movies that are so bad, they're good.
There are movies that are so bad they go past good and are bad again.
There are movies that are so bad they go past good and bad again, and are amazingly awesome (ex. Toxic Avenger).
Then there are movies that are so unbelievably bad they go past bad, good, bad again, and amazingly awesome, landing ultimately on so horrid that no one, no matter how curious, should ever see them.
Now, if you took all of the movies in that last category and ranked them from "best" (for lack of a better word) to worst, SWHS but be dead last.
When I tell people about it, I go on and on and on about how unbelievably bad it is. I insist that it's worse than the worst you can possibly think of and then some. I tell them that it's not one of those things that's so bad that it's good, it's so bad that it's just bad. Really, really, really, really, really bad. Horrible. And not in a way that's funny. It's just bad.
When people I've warned about it end up finally seeing it, they always tell me that my warnings didn't even come close to preparing them for just how bad it actually was.
I'd say that, even if you're a die-hard fan, SWHS is so bad that it's not even worth seeing. I personally can't bring myself to watch it a second time. It's just so freakin' bad.
Do yourself a favour. Stay away from it — far, far away.