It is interesting to me that drug companies are allowed patents that run out relatively soon (15 or 20 years, I think)
Patents last 17 years from the issuance of the patent or 20 years from the filing of the application, whichever is longer. Drug companies can get an extension if, for example, FDA approval process delayed the marketing of the product.
I think they have taken the easy way out and simply stall or "reinvent" the same drug with slight modifications when patents start expiring.
This is happening with Claritin right now. Claritin is one of the most popular allergy drugs in the US. However, the patent will be expiring soon, enabling other manufacturers to sell generic versions of it. Solution: create a new product called Clarinex. However, insurance companies aren't buying it . . . literally. Some insurance companies stated that they will refuse to pay for prescriptions for Clarinex unless the doctor can asserts that Claritin (or it's equivalent) will not work for the patient. See this ABC news article or this editorial.
Windows has been around for almost 20 years now. It would seem that with it's home market share that it would have become a common term for OS's. Much like Klennex is now klennex, it's a generic term for tissue and any tissue maker can use the term in their product description without a TM or R mark.
Actually, Kleenex still has a trademark. See
the USPTO web site. (Also check out the Kleenex web site in contrast to the Puffs site. The Kleenex site rather prominently features the logo and circle R for Kleenex.) Other manufacturers, such as Puffs or generic brands, call their products facial tissues. I think you're right in that some people say Kleenex to mean facial tissues, but it hasn't quite reached the state of genericness.
But I think operating systems are a different question entirely, in that a user of an OS is at least slightly more sophisticated than a user of facial tissue. I think most people, even general users, realize that a Mac doesn't run Windows, even though OS X features windows on the screen.
Plus, an OS is not like Kleenex or Saran Wrap. If you ask for Kleenex, someone isn't going to say, "I only have Puffs, is that OK?" But if a lay user were to say to a Mac or Linux user, "So you are running Windows, eh?" they would be corrected pretty promptly;-).
Windows is both generic and specific, depending on the usage. If I were to write a program and say that it "runs under Windows," you know that I mean that I wrote a program that runs under the Microsoft Windows OS. If I say the program "opens two windows," I'm obviously referring to the movable boxes on the screen. A window generically refers to the movable box on the screen. But Windows specifically refers to the MS OS.
It would be generic with respect to operating systems if people said, "I need windows to run this program" when referring to OS X, Linux, etc. They don't say that. They say "I need Linux," or "I need OS X," or "I need Windows" to refer to a specific OS.
I agree that naming the program Windows wasn't a smart move, but to say that Windows generically refers to operating systems is wrong. The term refers to a feature that is common in operating systems.
MS can try to get people to stop but because Windows is considered a generic term they can't trademark it so they are more or less blowing smoke.
It is not a generic term and MS already has a trademark for the name.
I think there is a fundamental misconception for what generic means. A term can be generic for one type of goods but not generic for another type. For example, apple is generic with respect to produce, but not with respect to computers. Window is generic with respect to transparent glass, but not with respect to operating systems.
A term is generic if people use the term to refer to an item. For example, people sometimes attempt to use Xerox to refer to photocopying or FedEx to refer to overnight delivery. Those companies thus try very hard to make sure people don't use those names in that manner. Nobody uses the term Windows to generically refer to software. So those who say that the term is generic are mistaken. It is true that windows are a common feature in operating systems, but it is not a common name in operating systems.
The information is on the Lindows opposition page. The judge said that there is not enough information to determine if the name Windows is generic or not, so he denied Microsoft's motion for preliminary injunction. You can find the ruling on the above-linked page.
IMO, the judge is wrong. There is still a question as to how broad the protection of the name should be and whether it should preclude Linodws or whether there is a likelihood of confusion between Windows and Lindows. But to assert that the term Windows is generic (with respect to software, the comments here regarding glass are just idiotic and should have been moderated out) is quite absurd. The judge did silly things, like looking at a previous rejection of the trademark application or the fact that Microsoft uses the name Windows with the name Microsoft. (I guess Ford is in trouble because they use the name Taurus with the name Ford).
I'm not saying Microsoft is a slam dunk winner against Lindows, there are a lot of interesting issues involved. But to state that customers do not associate the name Windows with Microsoft is quite silly.
For SACD, the implications are more far fetched than you may thought. I think you better head for http://www.hydrogenaudio.com/ [hydrogenaudio.com] boards and search for SACD. You will be suprised, how much is true, how much is pure marketing tricks. And the new problems introduced by the SACD system. Sony is at it again, this format will be a complete failure, just ignore it, and ignore DVD-A as well as any other DRM compliant format, we have the power to make and use our own standards, we don't need big companies dictating our needs.
If you got to the site you linked to (not the forums), you will find a lot of SACD reviews. Everyone that I read says the SACD sounds better than the CD.
Remember how Divx (copy/play controlled DVD) failed, look how SACD is doomed from the beginning, and any outragious format that they devise (unless easily cracked open) will face strong opposition from the public.
SACD is intended as a higher-quality product. It was not built for the express purpose of copy protection. It is a niche product and probably will always remain a niche product. SACD is doomed as a mass market product because they can't be played on the majority of players (except for the hybrid discs). But it was never intended to be mass market.
Er.. I'm not an expert.. but aren't these formats *dvd*?
No. SACD is an entirely new format. Currently, no computer CD-ROM drive can read the SACD layer. Many SACD discs (though apparently not the ones released by Sony music) have both a CD layer and an SACD layer. The CD layer is readily copiable.
Many "new" SACD releases are actually old albums. For example, all of the Rolling Stones albums released on the Abcko label have been re-released as SACD/CD Hybrids. (BTW, you can rip the CD layer easily).
The Sony SACD site has a list of available releases. Most of them are older releases. In fact, a brief perusal reveals very few "popular" music selections that were released this millenium. If the reason you aren't buying SACD is because of "new music" that is an wrong reason.
It is also a boon for "audiophile" labels. For example, Telarc has a relatively large selection of SACD classical music.
Cox communications allows users to subscribe only to cable modem.
Here is a link to and copy of the actual reg
on
Cable TV A La Carte?
·
· Score: 4, Informative
I hate it when articles don't refer to the regulation being discussed. As far as I can tell, the article is discussing 47 C.F.R. 76.921, which you can find by entering a search at FindLaw. A direct link is available from the Legal Information Institute, though this link appears to be slow.
Because the link is slow, here is the text of that rule:
Sec. 76.921 Buy-through of other tiers prohibited.
(a) No cable system operator, other than an operator subject to
effective competition, may require the subscription to any tier other
than the basic service tier as a condition of subscription to video
programming offered on a per channel or per program charge basis. A
cable operator may, however, require the subscription to one or more
tiers of cable programming services as a condition of access to one or
more tiers of cable programming services.
(b) A cable operator not subject to effective competition may not
discriminate between subscribers to the basic service tier and other
subscribers with regard to the rates charged for video programming
offered on a per-channel or per-program charge basis.
(c) With respect to cable systems not subject to effective
competition, prior to October 5, 2002, the provisions of paragraph (a)
of this section shall not apply to any cable system that lacks the
capacity to offer basic service and all programming distributed on a per
channel or per program basis without also providing other intermediate tiers of service:
(1) By controlling subscriber access to nonbasic channels of service
through addressable equipment electronically controlled from a central
control point; or
(2) Through the installation, noninstallation, or removal of
frequency filters (traps) at the premises of subscribers without other
alteration in system configuration or design and without causing
degradation in the technical quality of service provided.
(d) With respect to cable systems not subject to effective
competition, any retiering of channels or services that is not
undertaken in order to accomplish legitimate regulatory, technical, or
customer service objectives and that is intended to frustrate or has the
effect of frustrating compliance with paragraphs (a) through (c) of this
section is prohibited.
Slashdot Mirror
Patents last 17 years from the issuance of the patent or 20 years from the filing of the application, whichever is longer. Drug companies can get an extension if, for example, FDA approval process delayed the marketing of the product.
I think they have taken the easy way out and simply stall or "reinvent" the same drug with slight modifications when patents start expiring.
This is happening with Claritin right now. Claritin is one of the most popular allergy drugs in the US. However, the patent will be expiring soon, enabling other manufacturers to sell generic versions of it. Solution: create a new product called Clarinex. However, insurance companies aren't buying it . . . literally. Some insurance companies stated that they will refuse to pay for prescriptions for Clarinex unless the doctor can asserts that Claritin (or it's equivalent) will not work for the patient. See this ABC news article or this editorial.
Actually, Kleenex still has a trademark. See the USPTO web site. (Also check out the Kleenex web site in contrast to the Puffs site. The Kleenex site rather prominently features the logo and circle R for Kleenex.) Other manufacturers, such as Puffs or generic brands, call their products facial tissues. I think you're right in that some people say Kleenex to mean facial tissues, but it hasn't quite reached the state of genericness.
But I think operating systems are a different question entirely, in that a user of an OS is at least slightly more sophisticated than a user of facial tissue. I think most people, even general users, realize that a Mac doesn't run Windows, even though OS X features windows on the screen.
Plus, an OS is not like Kleenex or Saran Wrap. If you ask for Kleenex, someone isn't going to say, "I only have Puffs, is that OK?" But if a lay user were to say to a Mac or Linux user, "So you are running Windows, eh?" they would be corrected pretty promptly ;-).
Pretty worthless article to slashdotters. The jist of the article is: (1) Find out your equipment; (2) update your drivers and Windows.
Windows is both generic and specific, depending on the usage. If I were to write a program and say that it "runs under Windows," you know that I mean that I wrote a program that runs under the Microsoft Windows OS. If I say the program "opens two windows," I'm obviously referring to the movable boxes on the screen. A window generically refers to the movable box on the screen. But Windows specifically refers to the MS OS.
It would be generic with respect to operating systems if people said, "I need windows to run this program" when referring to OS X, Linux, etc. They don't say that. They say "I need Linux," or "I need OS X," or "I need Windows" to refer to a specific OS.
I agree that naming the program Windows wasn't a smart move, but to say that Windows generically refers to operating systems is wrong. The term refers to a feature that is common in operating systems.
It is not a generic term and MS already has a trademark for the name.
I think there is a fundamental misconception for what generic means. A term can be generic for one type of goods but not generic for another type. For example, apple is generic with respect to produce, but not with respect to computers. Window is generic with respect to transparent glass, but not with respect to operating systems.
A term is generic if people use the term to refer to an item. For example, people sometimes attempt to use Xerox to refer to photocopying or FedEx to refer to overnight delivery. Those companies thus try very hard to make sure people don't use those names in that manner. Nobody uses the term Windows to generically refer to software. So those who say that the term is generic are mistaken. It is true that windows are a common feature in operating systems, but it is not a common name in operating systems.
No I am not an IP lawyer
We can tell.
IMO, the judge is wrong. There is still a question as to how broad the protection of the name should be and whether it should preclude Linodws or whether there is a likelihood of confusion between Windows and Lindows. But to assert that the term Windows is generic (with respect to software, the comments here regarding glass are just idiotic and should have been moderated out) is quite absurd. The judge did silly things, like looking at a previous rejection of the trademark application or the fact that Microsoft uses the name Windows with the name Microsoft. (I guess Ford is in trouble because they use the name Taurus with the name Ford).
I'm not saying Microsoft is a slam dunk winner against Lindows, there are a lot of interesting issues involved. But to state that customers do not associate the name Windows with Microsoft is quite silly.
The Apple lawsuit wasn't about the trademark WINDOWS, this case is. The cases are completely unrelated.
So Microsoft attempting to defend their trademark rights is now shitty?
By statute, the US Olympic Committee has the exclusive right to the word Olympic.
If you got to the site you linked to (not the forums), you will find a lot of SACD reviews. Everyone that I read says the SACD sounds better than the CD.
Remember how Divx (copy/play controlled DVD) failed, look how SACD is doomed from the beginning, and any outragious format that they devise (unless easily cracked open) will face strong opposition from the public.
SACD is intended as a higher-quality product. It was not built for the express purpose of copy protection. It is a niche product and probably will always remain a niche product. SACD is doomed as a mass market product because they can't be played on the majority of players (except for the hybrid discs). But it was never intended to be mass market.
No. SACD is an entirely new format. Currently, no computer CD-ROM drive can read the SACD layer. Many SACD discs (though apparently not the ones released by Sony music) have both a CD layer and an SACD layer. The CD layer is readily copiable.
See Sony's SACD site for a technical overview.
Many "new" SACD releases are actually old albums. For example, all of the Rolling Stones albums released on the Abcko label have been re-released as SACD/CD Hybrids. (BTW, you can rip the CD layer easily). The Sony SACD site has a list of available releases. Most of them are older releases. In fact, a brief perusal reveals very few "popular" music selections that were released this millenium. If the reason you aren't buying SACD is because of "new music" that is an wrong reason. It is also a boon for "audiophile" labels. For example, Telarc has a relatively large selection of SACD classical music.
If SACD is inherently copy-protected, wouldn't placing a copy-protection logo on the packaging be redundant?
Look at this post.
Cox communications allows users to subscribe only to cable modem.
Because the link is slow, here is the text of that rule: