That was the USOC, not the IOC, as it is only in the US, due to a special act of Congress, that the trademark in question is able to extend beyond the normal boundaries of trademark law.
I did the same thing, although my 286 ran at a blazing 16 MHz, had a colour monitor and a fancy 40 MB hard drive, not to mention an entire MB of RAM and both 5.25" and 3.5" high-density floppy drives -- that system was the best $3000 I've ever spent.
One of my favourite quirks of running Windows 3.1 on that monster machine occurred when attempting to use "Write" (I believe that's what the "Notepad" of the day was called). There was about a 2 second delay between typing a letter and seeing the character appear on the screen, which made it completely unusable -- unless you knew the trick. You see, if you keep the mouse moving while typing (ie. just jiggle it back and forth with one hand while typing with the other), for some reason the system was able to keep up with the typing. It was very odd.
(this having to wait 5 minutes between posts is a pain in the ass. Anyone else stuck with this restriction?)
It seems to vary from machine to machine, or at least internet connection to internet connection. For example, at my last work site I had to wait at least 5 minutes between posts. At my previous work site, I was pretty much limited to one post a day. However, where I am right now, I did two posts within about 30 seconds, and now I'm posting this about 2-3 minutes after that.
Now I'm really confused. What's the point of seizing a domain name if you're not allowed to change anything? What does the State of Kentucky gain by owning a bunch of domains that they can't do anything with? What happens when those domains expire? Will the State have to pay to renew them? Or will they just let them expire so the original owners can buy them again? What have they accomplished by doing this?
Short answer to what's wrong...only day-view calendar.
Huh? Try clicking the "Switch To Weekly View" or "Switch To Monthly View" buttons at the top. It's magic.
Only logged in for 20 minutes at a time.
I've been logged in all day, as I do every day. Try logging in using the "Private computer" option.
1990s way of handling session timeouts: i.e. lose your 10 page email you were composing. OWA is unusable.
I've been using it for years without losing a single 10 page email due to session timeout. Are you sure you're talking about OWA? Are you using the Premium client or the Basic client? Even the Basic client has weekly view in the calendar (but no monthly view).
But until you actually get through security, there's got to be a lot of stress to deal with - Probably even more than when they actually push the button / flip the switch / light their shoe laces.
I'm sure you've heard the story of Thich Quang Duc (although you may not know the name). His is not an isolated case. Buddhist monks have been doing this for centuries.
The point is, if a man can train himself to sit motionless and silent while his body is engulfed in flames to make a point, then I think a man could train himself to not get nervous as he walks through airport security.
One way in which Blu-Ray could be made "better" in a way that the average person could understand would be if there was more "content" on the disk.
Possibly, if the "more content" also happens to actually be "good content". I know that one of the reasons I finally made the switch to DVD after resisting for many years was that DVDs had so much more content. Of course, most of that extra content turned out to be filler, so now it'll take more than just some trailers and a handful of crappy deleted scenes to convince me to dish out a pile of cash for a whole new system.
I think Blu-Ray has an uphill struggle to deal with. As another poster pointed out upthread, Blu-Ray is a solution looking for a problem. I mean, was anyone really looking at their DVDs and thinking, "man, I wish somebody would improve the audio and video quality of these things"?
I switched to DVDs because VHS movies started to become harder to actually find, so I felt I had no choice. I think that I'll switch to Blu-Ray when two things occur: 1) the price of a player drops to the point that it matches the price of a DVD player, and 2) my current DVD player dies.
Blu-Ray is better than DVD, but I don't know if it is enough better to survive and conquer.
Exactly. Blu-Ray may just be "better than DVD" in the same way that Beta was "better than VHS" -- ie, in a way that consumers don't give a flying fsck about.
as I said above, I don't have to - just wait for this trial to complete.
Except that the question isn't necessarily relevant to this case. It was a poster earlier up in this thread who was suggesting that Mr. Frayne would have a common law trademark as a result of his usage of the domain. As far as I can tell from the website itself, Mr. Frayne makes no such claim. It's the Olympic Bid Committee who are the trademark holders in this case.
Nowhere in you definition does it specify that these services are sold for money; if I provide a service for free, it's still a service.
No, it doesn't explicitly state that money has to be involved, but that still doesn't mean that any "use" is automatically enough to warrant trademark protection, which was my original point.
Nevertheless, as for whether or not a trademark can apply to someone providing a service for free, you'd have to ask a trademark lawyer about that. However, I don't see the point of protecting a mark that represents a free service. If someone infringed on your mark, what would you sue them for? What financial loss would you be trying to recover?
The ultimate test of whether or not a mark can be protected is whether or not misuse of that mark would result in consumer confusion. I suppose that if you had developed a good reputation for providing a free service, then someone else came along and tried to charge for that same service and used your mark in order to try to convince people to pay for that service based on your reputation, then consumers would be impacted (and trademark law was originally intended to protect consumers).
But I'm just speculating. Again, ask an attorney if you really want to know.
So if you gave free speeches under the moniker Raryco, would you expect no protection under trademark law when I start using your mark for my business?
If I'm not using the name as a mark of trade, then no, I wouldn't expect the name to protected as a mark of trade. Why would I expect it to be protected as something it's not?
NASIOC is a well known subaru user site - can I market NASIOC wristbands without their OK?
NASIOC sells stuff. Therefore the name is a mark of trade, and is protected as such. You would find yourself in a courtroom if you tried to sell NASIOC wristbands without their OK.
Methinks your undestanding of how things work is faulty
What part do you take issue with? That trademark law deals specifically with commerce? Here's a little bit of what our old friend Wikipedia has to say on the subject (with some emphasis added):
A trademark... is a distinctive sign or indicator used by an individual, business organization or other legal entity to identify uniquely the source of its products and/or services to consumers, and to distinguish its products or services from those of other entities.
Trademark law is extremely complicated, and my description of it being "industry-specific" is definitely an oversimplification. Two words don't describe the intricate details of the law. What it really comes down to is whether or not there is the possibility of creating confusion among consumers, specifically such that consumers might buy a product or service thinking that the provider of that product or service is someone other than who it really is.
Companies try to push the limits of trademark law all the time. Of course, they don't always succeed. I don't have time to do too much searching, but my quick googling didn't turn up any indication that any of the cases you mentioned were actually successful. Sure, they sued, but did they win?
Having said that, the case of Microsoft suing the dentist appears to be a clear case of cybersquatting. It's irrelevant that he's a dentist, he's obviously trying to use their trademarked name for his own purposes. Microsoft should win that case.
How is discussion of olympic type happenings not use? And why should he be required to be selling something specific in order to be protected?
Because that's how the law is written. It's a protection of a mark of trade, not a protection of some random use.
My username is Rary. I've been using that name for years, but it is not protected by trademark law. Any company who wants to call themselves "Rary, Inc." or whatever is free, legally, to do so. Trademark law does not protect "use", it protects "use in commerce". That's just the way it is.
Unregistered trademarks are only recognized if they're in use. His usage predates theirs.
But is he using it as a "mark of trade"?
Merely registering a domain name doesn't make it a trademark. If he simply uses a domain name, but not actually as a mark of trade, then along comes the Olympic Committee who starts using it as a mark of trade, then the trademark belongs to them. He may have been the first to "use" it, but they're the first to "use it as a mark of trade".
From that same article: "Proprietary rights in relation to a trademark may be established through actual use in the marketplace, or through registration of the mark with the trademarks office (or "trademarks registry") of a particular jurisdiction, e.g., the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office."
I've long since reconciled myself to the fact that while I believe in intellectual property rights, most people around me don't. Of course the vast majority of those people have never tried to make a living by producing something for the mass market.
I sometimes download music. I also sometimes buy CDs, and I've even bought MP3s. I am also a copyright holder and have released 4 albums with 2 different bands.
I believe in intellectual property rights. I do not believe that today's copyright law is fair or reasonable. I also don't believe the music industry, as it existed prior to the advent of digital music downloads, should continue to exist today. It needs to change, along with copyright law.
Here's how I view music downloading as a recording artist: Some people will buy my album, therefore I give them the opportunity to do that. Some people will not buy my album. I cannot change that fact, however, if those people are given the opportunity to listen to the album, they might come to one of my shows, buy a t-shirt, or maybe play the album for a friend, and that friend might decide to buy the album, come to a show, buy a t-shirt, etc. Therefore, I encourage people to buy the album, but I have no complaints at all about people choosing the download route. In fact, if it were entirely up to me, the band's website would sell both the CD and the MP3s at reasonable prices, plus have streaming audio of every song. I wouldn't provide a simple link to download the MP3 for free, however anyone who wants to put in the effort could easily capture the streaming audio. If that effort is worth saving the $10 that the CD would cost, then go for it. If not, then a CD purchase is only a click away.
The RIAA wants a world where every song is bought and paid for. They like to paint the "pirates" as wanting a world where not a penny is ever paid for any song. Reality is somewhere in between, and likely always will be. Artists need to use recorded music primarily as a means of acquiring fans (or "customers", in economic speak), and use live performances and other merchandise as a means of paying the rent. They also need to accept the fact that they don't deserve to be multi-multi-multi-quinzillionaires just because they wrote a catchy tune.
No, I've been here for many years (even longer than my UID suggests, since I lurked anonymously for quite a while before finally signing up). However, I'm an optimist. I am convinced that Slashdot can improve. All it takes is enough people demanding it.
FTA: "the center of a federal lawsuit brought by a Sheboygan woman against the mayor and other officials there"
Did you?
Yes. That's exactly what I said. The lawsuit was brought by the woman against the city, not the other way around as the headline states. If the editor had even bothered to read the summary, let alone the article, he would not have allowed the incorrect headline to get through.
Reisinger alleges her First Amendment rights were violated by the city. She seeks $250,000 in compensatory damages, unspecified punitive damages and unspecified declaratory relief.
RTFA?
I did RTFA. You did not. Or at least you did not understand it.
The city was not suing the woman. The city sent the woman a cease-and-desist letter. The city also launched a criminal investigation. Neither of those things are a lawsuit. The woman responded to those two actions with a lawsuit against the city.
The man said that if Creationism is raised in class by a student it should be dealt with there as a teaching opportunity
And if a student brings up what happens when you mix Mentos and Coca Cola in Modern European History it should be "dealt with as a teaching opportunity"?
Only if the mixing of Mentos and Coca Cola is part of an already enormous and still growing movement which is constantly butting heads with historians.
The fact of the matter is that the Creationism/ID juggernaut is here, and like it or not, it's influencing political, scientific, and religious discourse. Science teachers who ignore it are not doing their students any favours. Right now they have students in their classes who are being taught by their parents and their religious leaders to ignore what their teachers say, because those teachers are godless heathens who "believe" in this Darwinist cult which attacks the foundations of The One True Religion.
These teachers can pretend it's not happening, and their students will learn nothing, or they can address it, and use it as a vehicle to teach the scientific method.
Your Mentos example is silly, as is any talk of the FSM, or other creation myths, simply because Creationism/ID is, unfortunately, a special case. That's reality. Ignoring it won't fix it. Talking about it might.
Slashdot Mirror
That was the USOC, not the IOC, as it is only in the US, due to a special act of Congress, that the trademark in question is able to extend beyond the normal boundaries of trademark law.
I did the same thing, although my 286 ran at a blazing 16 MHz, had a colour monitor and a fancy 40 MB hard drive, not to mention an entire MB of RAM and both 5.25" and 3.5" high-density floppy drives -- that system was the best $3000 I've ever spent.
One of my favourite quirks of running Windows 3.1 on that monster machine occurred when attempting to use "Write" (I believe that's what the "Notepad" of the day was called). There was about a 2 second delay between typing a letter and seeing the character appear on the screen, which made it completely unusable -- unless you knew the trick. You see, if you keep the mouse moving while typing (ie. just jiggle it back and forth with one hand while typing with the other), for some reason the system was able to keep up with the typing. It was very odd.
(this having to wait 5 minutes between posts is a pain in the ass. Anyone else stuck with this restriction?)
It seems to vary from machine to machine, or at least internet connection to internet connection. For example, at my last work site I had to wait at least 5 minutes between posts. At my previous work site, I was pretty much limited to one post a day. However, where I am right now, I did two posts within about 30 seconds, and now I'm posting this about 2-3 minutes after that.
I really don't understand it.
<conspiracy-theory>I wounder if "ImNotAtWork" is the developer of the slighted application.</conspiracy-theory>
And this is to say nothing of the poorly worded second sentence (of a two-sentence summary) which stopped me dead in my tracks:
"Recently it killed a developer..." -- wait, what?!? -- "...submitted program..." oh, whew!
Now I'm really confused. What's the point of seizing a domain name if you're not allowed to change anything? What does the State of Kentucky gain by owning a bunch of domains that they can't do anything with? What happens when those domains expire? Will the State have to pay to renew them? Or will they just let them expire so the original owners can buy them again? What have they accomplished by doing this?
Short answer to what's wrong...only day-view calendar.
Huh? Try clicking the "Switch To Weekly View" or "Switch To Monthly View" buttons at the top. It's magic.
Only logged in for 20 minutes at a time.
I've been logged in all day, as I do every day. Try logging in using the "Private computer" option.
1990s way of handling session timeouts: i.e. lose your 10 page email you were composing. OWA is unusable.
I've been using it for years without losing a single 10 page email due to session timeout. Are you sure you're talking about OWA? Are you using the Premium client or the Basic client? Even the Basic client has weekly view in the calendar (but no monthly view).
And out of how many computers connected to the Internet? I'm willing to bet China's "per machina" rate is higher.
Since China actually has more internet-connected computers than the US, I'll take that bet.
But until you actually get through security, there's got to be a lot of stress to deal with - Probably even more than when they actually push the button / flip the switch / light their shoe laces.
I'm sure you've heard the story of Thich Quang Duc (although you may not know the name). His is not an isolated case. Buddhist monks have been doing this for centuries.
The point is, if a man can train himself to sit motionless and silent while his body is engulfed in flames to make a point, then I think a man could train himself to not get nervous as he walks through airport security.
One way in which Blu-Ray could be made "better" in a way that the average person could understand would be if there was more "content" on the disk.
Possibly, if the "more content" also happens to actually be "good content". I know that one of the reasons I finally made the switch to DVD after resisting for many years was that DVDs had so much more content. Of course, most of that extra content turned out to be filler, so now it'll take more than just some trailers and a handful of crappy deleted scenes to convince me to dish out a pile of cash for a whole new system.
I think Blu-Ray has an uphill struggle to deal with. As another poster pointed out upthread, Blu-Ray is a solution looking for a problem. I mean, was anyone really looking at their DVDs and thinking, "man, I wish somebody would improve the audio and video quality of these things"?
I switched to DVDs because VHS movies started to become harder to actually find, so I felt I had no choice. I think that I'll switch to Blu-Ray when two things occur: 1) the price of a player drops to the point that it matches the price of a DVD player, and 2) my current DVD player dies.
Blu-Ray is better than DVD, but I don't know if it is enough better to survive and conquer.
Exactly. Blu-Ray may just be "better than DVD" in the same way that Beta was "better than VHS" -- ie, in a way that consumers don't give a flying fsck about.
as I said above, I don't have to - just wait for this trial to complete.
Except that the question isn't necessarily relevant to this case. It was a poster earlier up in this thread who was suggesting that Mr. Frayne would have a common law trademark as a result of his usage of the domain. As far as I can tell from the website itself, Mr. Frayne makes no such claim. It's the Olympic Bid Committee who are the trademark holders in this case.
Nowhere in you definition does it specify that these services are sold for money; if I provide a service for free, it's still a service.
No, it doesn't explicitly state that money has to be involved, but that still doesn't mean that any "use" is automatically enough to warrant trademark protection, which was my original point.
Nevertheless, as for whether or not a trademark can apply to someone providing a service for free, you'd have to ask a trademark lawyer about that. However, I don't see the point of protecting a mark that represents a free service. If someone infringed on your mark, what would you sue them for? What financial loss would you be trying to recover?
The ultimate test of whether or not a mark can be protected is whether or not misuse of that mark would result in consumer confusion. I suppose that if you had developed a good reputation for providing a free service, then someone else came along and tried to charge for that same service and used your mark in order to try to convince people to pay for that service based on your reputation, then consumers would be impacted (and trademark law was originally intended to protect consumers).
But I'm just speculating. Again, ask an attorney if you really want to know.
So if you gave free speeches under the moniker Raryco, would you expect no protection under trademark law when I start using your mark for my business?
If I'm not using the name as a mark of trade, then no, I wouldn't expect the name to protected as a mark of trade. Why would I expect it to be protected as something it's not?
NASIOC is a well known subaru user site - can I market NASIOC wristbands without their OK?
NASIOC sells stuff. Therefore the name is a mark of trade, and is protected as such. You would find yourself in a courtroom if you tried to sell NASIOC wristbands without their OK.
Methinks your undestanding of how things work is faulty
What part do you take issue with? That trademark law deals specifically with commerce? Here's a little bit of what our old friend Wikipedia has to say on the subject (with some emphasis added):
Trademark law is extremely complicated, and my description of it being "industry-specific" is definitely an oversimplification. Two words don't describe the intricate details of the law. What it really comes down to is whether or not there is the possibility of creating confusion among consumers, specifically such that consumers might buy a product or service thinking that the provider of that product or service is someone other than who it really is.
Companies try to push the limits of trademark law all the time. Of course, they don't always succeed. I don't have time to do too much searching, but my quick googling didn't turn up any indication that any of the cases you mentioned were actually successful. Sure, they sued, but did they win?
Having said that, the case of Microsoft suing the dentist appears to be a clear case of cybersquatting. It's irrelevant that he's a dentist, he's obviously trying to use their trademarked name for his own purposes. Microsoft should win that case.
How is discussion of olympic type happenings not use? And why should he be required to be selling something specific in order to be protected?
Because that's how the law is written. It's a protection of a mark of trade, not a protection of some random use.
My username is Rary. I've been using that name for years, but it is not protected by trademark law. Any company who wants to call themselves "Rary, Inc." or whatever is free, legally, to do so. Trademark law does not protect "use", it protects "use in commerce". That's just the way it is.
So if McDonalds named a product the McHammer, they get to forcibly take MCHammer.com on the basis of they own mc*?
When did MC Hammer become a restaurant?
You do know that trademarks are industry-specific, right?
Unregistered trademarks are only recognized if they're in use. His usage predates theirs.
But is he using it as a "mark of trade"?
Merely registering a domain name doesn't make it a trademark. If he simply uses a domain name, but not actually as a mark of trade, then along comes the Olympic Committee who starts using it as a mark of trade, then the trademark belongs to them. He may have been the first to "use" it, but they're the first to "use it as a mark of trade".
From that same article: "Proprietary rights in relation to a trademark may be established through actual use in the marketplace, or through registration of the mark with the trademarks office (or "trademarks registry") of a particular jurisdiction, e.g., the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office."
I've long since reconciled myself to the fact that while I believe in intellectual property rights, most people around me don't. Of course the vast majority of those people have never tried to make a living by producing something for the mass market.
I sometimes download music. I also sometimes buy CDs, and I've even bought MP3s. I am also a copyright holder and have released 4 albums with 2 different bands.
I believe in intellectual property rights. I do not believe that today's copyright law is fair or reasonable. I also don't believe the music industry, as it existed prior to the advent of digital music downloads, should continue to exist today. It needs to change, along with copyright law.
Here's how I view music downloading as a recording artist: Some people will buy my album, therefore I give them the opportunity to do that. Some people will not buy my album. I cannot change that fact, however, if those people are given the opportunity to listen to the album, they might come to one of my shows, buy a t-shirt, or maybe play the album for a friend, and that friend might decide to buy the album, come to a show, buy a t-shirt, etc. Therefore, I encourage people to buy the album, but I have no complaints at all about people choosing the download route. In fact, if it were entirely up to me, the band's website would sell both the CD and the MP3s at reasonable prices, plus have streaming audio of every song. I wouldn't provide a simple link to download the MP3 for free, however anyone who wants to put in the effort could easily capture the streaming audio. If that effort is worth saving the $10 that the CD would cost, then go for it. If not, then a CD purchase is only a click away.
The RIAA wants a world where every song is bought and paid for. They like to paint the "pirates" as wanting a world where not a penny is ever paid for any song. Reality is somewhere in between, and likely always will be. Artists need to use recorded music primarily as a means of acquiring fans (or "customers", in economic speak), and use live performances and other merchandise as a means of paying the rent. They also need to accept the fact that they don't deserve to be multi-multi-multi-quinzillionaires just because they wrote a catchy tune.
Exactly. Go straight to the source of your language of choice.
You must be new here!
No, I've been here for many years (even longer than my UID suggests, since I lurked anonymously for quite a while before finally signing up). However, I'm an optimist. I am convinced that Slashdot can improve. All it takes is enough people demanding it.
FTA: "the center of a federal lawsuit brought by a Sheboygan woman against the mayor and other officials there"
Did you?
Yes. That's exactly what I said. The lawsuit was brought by the woman against the city, not the other way around as the headline states. If the editor had even bothered to read the summary, let alone the article, he would not have allowed the incorrect headline to get through.
The city was suing the woman. It also states:
Reisinger alleges her First Amendment rights were violated by the city. She seeks $250,000 in compensatory damages, unspecified punitive damages and unspecified declaratory relief.
RTFA?
I did RTFA. You did not. Or at least you did not understand it.
The city was not suing the woman. The city sent the woman a cease-and-desist letter. The city also launched a criminal investigation. Neither of those things are a lawsuit. The woman responded to those two actions with a lawsuit against the city.
It wasn't the story that made it great, it was the writing. Without Douglas Adams it can't possibly be the same.
Agreed. However, another book is what Adams wanted, and the author has been hand-picked by Adams' wife, so I see it as a fitting tribute.
I have no expectations that it will truly be a part of the H2G2 world, but I plan to read it.
And if a student brings up what happens when you mix Mentos and Coca Cola in Modern European History it should be "dealt with as a teaching opportunity"?
Only if the mixing of Mentos and Coca Cola is part of an already enormous and still growing movement which is constantly butting heads with historians.
The fact of the matter is that the Creationism/ID juggernaut is here, and like it or not, it's influencing political, scientific, and religious discourse. Science teachers who ignore it are not doing their students any favours. Right now they have students in their classes who are being taught by their parents and their religious leaders to ignore what their teachers say, because those teachers are godless heathens who "believe" in this Darwinist cult which attacks the foundations of The One True Religion.
These teachers can pretend it's not happening, and their students will learn nothing, or they can address it, and use it as a vehicle to teach the scientific method.
Your Mentos example is silly, as is any talk of the FSM, or other creation myths, simply because Creationism/ID is, unfortunately, a special case. That's reality. Ignoring it won't fix it. Talking about it might.