He did mention in the question that it should not be "retyped or reimplemented in some way?". I guess the code never ran so it's not reimplemented in that sense. But it does seem to go against the spirit of the question as it says "still in use today" which suggest longevity of "uptime" is the issue.
I go for the Maxwell equations:
God said: Divergence of E = charge density / permittivity of free space ;... , etc.
This ain't Dubai otherwise doubtless my attitude to the law would be different.
As for stolen laptops - mine was stolen after our shop was broken into on Friday morning. That doesn't mean that they can't also prosecute people for leaving excrement on pavements and in public parks.
All it needs is some hard enforcement that makes national press. After the first hundred shit-spreaders get locked up then dog owners will take their responsibility seriously.
People who let their animals crap on the pavement or in public parks and don't clear it up should be made to lick up the mess. Curb your animal or let it crap on your own land.
No, I am not joking.
If they use CCTV to prosecute people for crimes, why is that a bad thing? That's kinda why it's there.
If you don't want to be prosecuted then here's an idea, don't break the law.
fyc writes "A new study.. has suggested.. may also have.. likely remained.. would have.. could have.. They would have.. and would have appeared in the sky like bright stars. So it's a first hypothesis, now find some evidence.
Meanwhile a new study by me has suggested that reading Slashdot stops time and may also make you hyper-intelligent. Slashdotters would have bigger brains that could be farmed in the future to feed entire villages. Villagers would crack open the skulls with sharp metal straws which would be used to drink the brains out. A strong light then placed in the skull cavity would then shine in the night like bright stars.
Web 3.0 will be coming out with something truly fantastic... perhaps they'll introduce something called HTML? I know that was a tongue-in-cheek rhetorical question but... I'm hoping "web 3.0" will have wide use of SVG. When I can design webpages like I design the previews in a vector editor... no hang on, that might put me out of a job - please stick to the current mess.
competitors trademark name on your shopfront misrepresents your business I can see there's room to breath in an incredulous attempt at misunderstanding that phrase. What I intended to refer to was too retail outlets selling their own products. Such as M&S and Primark (in the UK, both are high street clothes stores that sell their own branded products).
I note that in your reply you've assumed the retailer is also the product manufacturer - you don't get many single brand stores that sell their products elsewhere in the UK at least. I saw a Nike shop once.
Trademarks are there to identify [the origin of] goods and services, nothing more. As long as the consumer isn't confused about what he is buying (i.e., when money changes hands), the intent of trademark law is satisfied. [Fixed that for you!]
I disagree almost entirely with your version of that statement. You're basically saying fraud is fine as long as the consumer discovers it eventually and accepts the products of the fraudulent retailer.
Scenario: I open a "Holiday Inn", you book in knowing that you've had good service in other Holiday Inns, except when you arrive at 9pm after your days meetings, despite the Holiday Inn sign outside, we're actually a different company. Are you going to go find another hotel, no, as long as that one is adequate. You don't get what you thought you were going to - but you get something and you know the origin of the service at the point of sale. Are you really fine with that? If the hotel sucks but you have no time to travel to a new one, perhaps next time you'll go to a Comfort Inn, just in case a lot of Holiday Inns are not from the company they say they're from?
It's fraud and it could easily be used to destroy one of any companies largest assets: goodwill.
Scenario: You look online for an iPod, as DigiMedia Inc. has the best offer you travel out of town to get one. You get there and they only sell ePod (their own knock off) and they tell you that at the counter just before you enter your pin number to buy it. That's OK too?
You misunderstand. Search for say, 'lastminute.com travel' on uk google and you will get paid sponsor links for competitors to lastminute.com. Assuming google allowed those competiting businesses to add lastminute.com as a keyword for *their* link to show up for, then google is selling competitors the ability to get search results off a trademark that doesn't belong to them. Except that "lastminute" is too generic and shouldn't have been granted. Google should be allowed to set their engine for "last minute" queries and also for conflation of words. Trademarks shouldn't be granted for conflation of words which are in common use in a given category for _description_ of services.
One example in the UK literature of disallowed types is "tastyfood" for catering. How is "lastminute" for impulse travel different?
That aside and turning to your flaming straw-man. It's more like the supermarket put up a sign with "diet cola" on it and had "diet cocacola" for sale. If google used the lastminute branding anywhere in the ads for other peoples last minute services then yes you'd have a point. Even then if it said "sick of lastminute flights, try impulsetravel instead" they'd be fine.
I have no problem with Trademark sounds, and colours. Change the colour by an iota - most people won't be able to tell and you can demonstrate (eg showing the pantone numbers) that your colour is different. If you're in the same market (eg mobile phones, is it LG that has that pinky-purple I can't remember) you need to be sure to avoid brand confusion (even with a slightly different colour) otherwise you're fair game for a legal challenge. Other markets, you're free - trademarks are for categories of goods.
Back to your post, Mr AC. "lastminute" is an RTM (http://www.ipo.gov.uk/tm/t-find/t-find-adp?propnum=0770743001). The words "last minute" are not. You can sell "last minute flights" you can't sell "lastminute flights".
How "lastminute" was ever granted as a trademark I have no idea, it's descriptive of goods and not demonstrative of a distinct origin. I'd love to see the file-wrapper on that one!
You look up "Tesco" in business pages. Alongside is an ad for "Sainsburys". No harm there in my book. But then that's partially because we know that Sainsburys is different.
How about if the company was called "PeterMark" (ahem, measuring services). Next to it an ad says "looking for measuring services try... JohnThomas on 0022-555-8974").
Is that OK. I think so, the "PeterMark" trademark owner* would probably be a bit pissed however.
--- * I've assumed the name is distinctive in the field and not descriptive and so is deemed to warrant a RTM.
Trademark law merely doesn't allow people to misrepresent the origins of goods and services. If people go to the web site and it's clear that it's not your company, how have your goods or services been misrepresented?
You seem to be operating under the false assumption that you own all the traffic that your trademark generates. You do not. If I put up a "[your trademark] sucks" web site, you don't own that traffic and you don't have a right to prevent people from finding that site. There are a couple of points there:
1) Trademark law includes specific provisions to protect the reporting of and criticism of trademarked goods or the companies they represent. That's why your alicious-sucks.com website is OK.
2) Consider the search engine like a shop-front. It advertises the business to people, maybe shows some products, is used to get people in the door (ie to visit your site in the search engine case). Putting a competitors trademark name on your shopfront misrepresents your business. Similarly using a trademark in your ad, unless it is explicitly shown that you do not sell those goods, is misrepresentation (fraudulent!). So to be a little more specific, they shouldn't have to discover for themselves that the destinatino site is not yours, the link is the point at which the misrepresentation occurs.
So, I'm with this sibling post from nguy:
That ad should be OK in response to a search for "serious magic" if it said:
Special Effects Software
fxhome.com/compositelab Special Effects On Your Desktop Simple Powerful Software. Try Now! or even
Better than Serious Magic!
fxhome.com/compositelab Special Effects On Your Desktop Simple Powerful Software. Try Now! The last one uses the trademark, which is fine, as it's an allowed use in comparing products. I'll even let them have the subjective "better than", even if there product is a pile-of-crap in comparison (however if they made a measurably false claim the directors should be given 20 lashes; I don't think I'm joking there either).
Just like photographs of masterpieces. The requirement in UK/European law I gather is that their has been substantial work involved in creating this new work from the previous one. I don't think an automated translation would get you a new copyright.
A translation is an adaptation, so you need the copyright holders permission if the original is not in the public domain.
From the summary, no I didn't RTFA:
'If no sexual offence is being committed it seems very odd indeed that there should be an offence for having an image of something which was not an offence.... Having engaged in it consensually would not be a crime, but to have a photograph of it in one's possession would be a crime. That does not seem to make sense to me.' It's pretty much the situation already. If a child of say 15 has sex, they won't be prosecuted by the police (though it's technically a crime). Yet if they then post a video on the 'net of that act they are engaged in Child Pornography.
I've a vague recollection of a prosecution following this pattern.
I don't see how this is "thought police", no one is stopping people from doing the things, nor from thinking about it, just from possessing images which it would be illegal to produce in the UK.
are you trying to be ironic? or are you a failed smart arse, an arbitrary numeric string can be found somewhere in a transcendental number... or maybe i'm the fool?
STREPSIADES No, indeed; I thought the Clouds were only fog, dew and vapour. SOCRATES But what you certainly do not know is that they are the support of a crowd of quacks, the diviners, who were sent to Thurium, the notorious physicians, the well-combed fops, who load their fingers with rings down to the nails, and the braggarts, who write dithyrambic verses, all these are idlers whom the Clouds provide a living for, because they sing them in their verses. ["The Clouds" by Aristophanes] This is how it went down... Aristophanes is a fictional writer, a comic (in the ancient greek sense, over-political and unfunny!) he creates a character called Socrates (in about 420BC) who is an archetypal brainbox and an antidote to the corrupt democracy deluded to believing he can survive on reason and his soul's direct response to the gods and doesn't need to work - Something like that, I don't know Aristophanes that well.
This character then is used as a literary device when wanting to criticise the learned professors who believe themselves to be "The Answer". Plato flips it about and uses Socrates instead to castigate the people for killing philosophy by overzealous democraticism, oh the irony!
Those dialogs are pretty contrived. He uses current hearsay, the stories of old men, to include historical information and frame himself as one of the "sophistes".
There are some pretty cool twists in there too, like making Socrates parents part of the elite circle and putting them close to Pericles, the very figure of democracy.
Xenophon uses Plato's tool, or attempts to, after the alleged date of Socrates demise (died 399BC, I think). He is responding to sophists of his time basically saying "Socrates [our stand in for the world of wise philosophers] thinks you're an ass and he's so wise; you do the math".
Aristotle, naturally rides on Plato's coat tails in this respect.
That's not to say that Plato's work (the cave had a profound effect on me as a teenager) nor Aristotles are lacking philosophically. A philosopher who can engage the people is a great thing.
Oh yeah, there may have been a historical figure called Socrates too, but he's not the subject of these writings!
1) The FSM was created by atheist zealot[s] and is well known to Slashdot users as a meme of the zeitgeist [buzzword bingo anyone!]. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster. 2) Jesus lived approx 2000 years ago and is know to nearly all people of the world and is believed by at least 50% (according to population statistics on adherents http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html) to be at least a prophet. [argument by majority I know] 3) Christians and Hindus believe him, Jesus, to be God; Muslims to be a prophet; many other misguided souls believe him to be just a righteous man.
That's enough for a "deserves more attention" enquiry.
Interestingly both Jesus and the FSM (may his meatballs be ever spicy!) are well documented but you choose to believe a parody to have equal weight to an historic person. Delusional ever?
And we need to de-criminalize a wide swath of drug possession crimes. We're spending billions keeping people in jail for a few oz's of pot. It's really quite insane. Got any evidence to back up those vague assertions?
As my home was burgled by kids looking for stuff to sell so they could get their personal few oz's of pot (great for when you're chilling out in someone's car you've stolen, vandalising the local shops, trashing peoples homes, etc..) I say lock them up, if we don't pay now we pay more later.
Their punishment? Well they got told off and had to do a few hours community service. My experience may be randomly skewed, but I don't think anyone is going to jail for small time possession in the UK.
We do however spend too much on prisons but we have to bite the bullet and spend a heap more to fix that. Letting people off just removes the deterrent and you might as well just have anarchy.
So now children on Facebook will assume that it is safe to give information to a person who poses as a policeman or someone who has a similar logo. Those kids are already giving their details away to anyone who creates a "send a monkey/whatever to your friends" app.. I trust the police more than I trust a randomly chosen web programmer.
all it would take in that case is for one company to spend the extra money, and they will reap the benefits in better sales ... and maybe a free and uncorrupted market (eg by monopolies) that values performance over fashionable trademarks??
I don't see why third party developers have to have it Erm, that's what facebook sell. They "sell" your details to app developers in return for their apps. The more adopted the app, the more data mining they can do (more people that is).
In turn the apps generate more page views, which generates more "ad" revenue.
You're not really that naive, are you?
The devs sell your details then to spammers/scammers (or the service agents of spammers and scammers) so they can either target spam or match up the rest of your details with the government leaked SSID (NINO in the UK) listings and apply for credit cards for you...
Facebook must be a marketeers dream - they not only get to market stuff to you, but also to all of your friends. They now have far greater opportunity to manipulate peer pressure, the greatest tool of the capitalist.
Slashdot Mirror
I go for the Maxwell equations: God said:
Divergence of E = charge density / permittivity of free space ;
This ain't Dubai otherwise doubtless my attitude to the law would be different.
As for stolen laptops - mine was stolen after our shop was broken into on Friday morning. That doesn't mean that they can't also prosecute people for leaving excrement on pavements and in public parks.
All it needs is some hard enforcement that makes national press. After the first hundred shit-spreaders get locked up then dog owners will take their responsibility seriously.
People who let their animals crap on the pavement or in public parks and don't clear it up should be made to lick up the mess. Curb your animal or let it crap on your own land.
No, I am not joking.
If they use CCTV to prosecute people for crimes, why is that a bad thing? That's kinda why it's there.
If you don't want to be prosecuted then here's an idea, don't break the law.
Meanwhile a new study by me has suggested that reading Slashdot stops time and may also make you hyper-intelligent. Slashdotters would have bigger brains that could be farmed in the future to feed entire villages. Villagers would crack open the skulls with sharp metal straws which would be used to drink the brains out. A strong light then placed in the skull cavity would then shine in the night like bright stars.
Carry on.
I note that in your reply you've assumed the retailer is also the product manufacturer - you don't get many single brand stores that sell their products elsewhere in the UK at least. I saw a Nike shop once. Trademarks are there to identify [the origin of] goods and services, nothing more. As long as the consumer isn't confused about what he is buying (i.e., when money changes hands), the intent of trademark law is satisfied. [Fixed that for you!]
I disagree almost entirely with your version of that statement. You're basically saying fraud is fine as long as the consumer discovers it eventually and accepts the products of the fraudulent retailer.
Scenario: I open a "Holiday Inn", you book in knowing that you've had good service in other Holiday Inns, except when you arrive at 9pm after your days meetings, despite the Holiday Inn sign outside, we're actually a different company. Are you going to go find another hotel, no, as long as that one is adequate. You don't get what you thought you were going to - but you get something and you know the origin of the service at the point of sale. Are you really fine with that? If the hotel sucks but you have no time to travel to a new one, perhaps next time you'll go to a Comfort Inn, just in case a lot of Holiday Inns are not from the company they say they're from?
It's fraud and it could easily be used to destroy one of any companies largest assets: goodwill.
Scenario: You look online for an iPod, as DigiMedia Inc. has the best offer you travel out of town to get one. You get there and they only sell ePod (their own knock off) and they tell you that at the counter just before you enter your pin number to buy it. That's OK too?
One example in the UK literature of disallowed types is "tastyfood" for catering. How is "lastminute" for impulse travel different?
That aside and turning to your flaming straw-man. It's more like the supermarket put up a sign with "diet cola" on it and had "diet cocacola" for sale. If google used the lastminute branding anywhere in the ads for other peoples last minute services then yes you'd have a point. Even then if it said "sick of lastminute flights, try impulsetravel instead" they'd be fine.
Glad Wrap, I'm guessing is what I call cling-film (not necessarily "Cling Film"). Bit easier than "plastic food wrap".
Xerox, I hear, but use "photocopy". Back in the day it used to be a "banda" which was a brand-name spirit duplicator.
I have no problem with Trademark sounds, and colours. Change the colour by an iota - most people won't be able to tell and you can demonstrate (eg showing the pantone numbers) that your colour is different. If you're in the same market (eg mobile phones, is it LG that has that pinky-purple I can't remember) you need to be sure to avoid brand confusion (even with a slightly different colour) otherwise you're fair game for a legal challenge. Other markets, you're free - trademarks are for categories of goods.
Back to your post, Mr AC. "lastminute" is an RTM (http://www.ipo.gov.uk/tm/t-find/t-find-adp?propnum=0770743001). The words "last minute" are not. You can sell "last minute flights" you can't sell "lastminute flights".
How "lastminute" was ever granted as a trademark I have no idea, it's descriptive of goods and not demonstrative of a distinct origin. I'd love to see the file-wrapper on that one!
IANAL.
The phonebook analogy could work:
... JohnThomas on 0022-555-8974").
You look up "Tesco" in business pages. Alongside is an ad for "Sainsburys". No harm there in my book. But then that's partially because we know that Sainsburys is different.
How about if the company was called "PeterMark" (ahem, measuring services). Next to it an ad says "looking for measuring services try
Is that OK. I think so, the "PeterMark" trademark owner* would probably be a bit pissed however.
---
* I've assumed the name is distinctive in the field and not descriptive and so is deemed to warrant a RTM.
You seem to be operating under the false assumption that you own all the traffic that your trademark generates. You do not. If I put up a "[your trademark] sucks" web site, you don't own that traffic and you don't have a right to prevent people from finding that site. There are a couple of points there:
1) Trademark law includes specific provisions to protect the reporting of and criticism of trademarked goods or the companies they represent. That's why your alicious-sucks.com website is OK.
2) Consider the search engine like a shop-front. It advertises the business to people, maybe shows some products, is used to get people in the door (ie to visit your site in the search engine case). Putting a competitors trademark name on your shopfront misrepresents your business. Similarly using a trademark in your ad, unless it is explicitly shown that you do not sell those goods, is misrepresentation (fraudulent!). So to be a little more specific, they shouldn't have to discover for themselves that the destinatino site is not yours, the link is the point at which the misrepresentation occurs.
So, I'm with this sibling post from nguy: That ad should be OK in response to a search for "serious magic" if it said: Special Effects Software
fxhome.com/compositelab Special Effects On Your Desktop Simple Powerful Software. Try Now! or even Better than Serious Magic!
fxhome.com/compositelab Special Effects On Your Desktop Simple Powerful Software. Try Now! The last one uses the trademark, which is fine, as it's an allowed use in comparing products. I'll even let them have the subjective "better than", even if there product is a pile-of-crap in comparison (however if they made a measurably false claim the directors should be given 20 lashes; I don't think I'm joking there either).
Just like photographs of masterpieces. The requirement in UK/European law I gather is that their has been substantial work involved in creating this new work from the previous one. I don't think an automated translation would get you a new copyright.
A translation is an adaptation, so you need the copyright holders permission if the original is not in the public domain.
I've a vague recollection of a prosecution following this pattern.
I don't see how this is "thought police", no one is stopping people from doing the things, nor from thinking about it, just from possessing images which it would be illegal to produce in the UK.
are you trying to be ironic? or are you a failed smart arse, an arbitrary numeric string can be found somewhere in a transcendental number ... or maybe i'm the fool?
If you get beat on by a bully for years and then one day he says he'd like to pat you on the back instead, you tend to be suspicious ...
No, indeed; I thought the Clouds were only fog, dew and vapour.
SOCRATES
But what you certainly do not know is that they are the support of
a crowd of quacks, the diviners, who were sent to Thurium, the
notorious physicians, the well-combed fops, who load their fingers
with rings down to the nails, and the braggarts, who write dithyrambic
verses, all these are idlers whom the Clouds provide a living for,
because they sing them in their verses. ["The Clouds" by Aristophanes] This is how it went down
This character then is used as a literary device when wanting to criticise the learned professors who believe themselves to be "The Answer". Plato flips it about and uses Socrates instead to castigate the people for killing philosophy by overzealous democraticism, oh the irony!
Those dialogs are pretty contrived. He uses current hearsay, the stories of old men, to include historical information and frame himself as one of the "sophistes".
There are some pretty cool twists in there too, like making Socrates parents part of the elite circle and putting them close to Pericles, the very figure of democracy.
Xenophon uses Plato's tool, or attempts to, after the alleged date of Socrates demise (died 399BC, I think). He is responding to sophists of his time basically saying "Socrates [our stand in for the world of wise philosophers] thinks you're an ass and he's so wise; you do the math".
Aristotle, naturally rides on Plato's coat tails in this respect.
That's not to say that Plato's work (the cave had a profound effect on me as a teenager) nor Aristotles are lacking philosophically. A philosopher who can engage the people is a great thing.
Oh yeah, there may have been a historical figure called Socrates too, but he's not the subject of these writings!
Incidentally I'm a great fan of "his" method, http://www.davemckay.co.uk/philosophy/ is a great source for further study.
The only two non-christian writings I know about are Tacitus and Josephus. You'll have to research the details.
If you can prove from 2 sources anything about anyone else 2000 years ago I'd be interested to hear it!
I don't suppose my personally testimony of my experience of God will sway you, it wouldn't sway me if it hadn't been my experience.
http://alicious.com/my-testimony-about-jesus-christ/
1) The FSM was created by atheist zealot[s] and is well known to Slashdot users as a meme of the zeitgeist [buzzword bingo anyone!]. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster.
...
2) Jesus lived approx 2000 years ago and is know to nearly all people of the world and is believed by at least 50% (according to population statistics on adherents http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html) to be at least a prophet. [argument by majority I know]
3) Christians and Hindus believe him, Jesus, to be God; Muslims to be a prophet; many other misguided souls believe him to be just a righteous man.
That's enough for a "deserves more attention" enquiry.
Interestingly both Jesus and the FSM (may his meatballs be ever spicy!) are well documented but you choose to believe a parody to have equal weight to an historic person. Delusional ever?
I love responding to flamebait
sorry but as the article was about the Manchester police, I thought it was the Manchester, UK police and hence that the conversation was UK focussed.
;0)> apologies
I forgot that the US is the centre of the universe for a moment there
As my home was burgled by kids looking for stuff to sell so they could get their personal few oz's of pot (great for when you're chilling out in someone's car you've stolen, vandalising the local shops, trashing peoples homes, etc..) I say lock them up, if we don't pay now we pay more later.
Their punishment? Well they got told off and had to do a few hours community service. My experience may be randomly skewed, but I don't think anyone is going to jail for small time possession in the UK.
We do however spend too much on prisons but we have to bite the bullet and spend a heap more to fix that. Letting people off just removes the deterrent and you might as well just have anarchy.
Now get off my lawn, I'm off to buy a shotgun!
In turn the apps generate more page views, which generates more "ad" revenue.
You're not really that naive, are you?
The devs sell your details then to spammers/scammers (or the service agents of spammers and scammers) so they can either target spam or match up the rest of your details with the government leaked SSID (NINO in the UK) listings and apply for credit cards for you
Facebook must be a marketeers dream - they not only get to market stuff to you, but also to all of your friends. They now have far greater opportunity to manipulate peer pressure, the greatest tool of the capitalist.
>>> you can even waive many constitutional rights
...
Like what? What good is a constitution if your employer just says "sign this":
"I waive all rights under the law, my employer now owns me"
Then goes off to put all your possessions on ebay