You'd have to be a moron not to assume that a commercial product including the word Jedi, especially one in the area of mind control FFS, was not connected to Star Wars.
You'd be a moron to assume that it was, despite any indication, besides the word Jedi, to the contrary. The packaging doesn't look like Star Wars packaging, the logo looks nothing like anything from Star Wars. Not one Jedi controlled a computer with their mind. You'd have to ignore all evidence to the contrary and just stubbornly repeat that Jedi means Star Wars, everything else be damned. That is not something a reasonable person would do.
You'd have to be a moron (and I speak as someone who has done something similar with a mark owned by an 800lb gorilla, so this is the voice of experience) to launch a product (in the area of mind control FFS) using the name Jedi without getting permission.
Whether or not it's smart to challenge big companies is a separate issue. Curtailing their stomping, when appropriate, certainly is a good thing. Sadly the ever-expanding scope of trademarks probably means that this will not be a case of curtailing anything.
The idea that a company can own - in any context - words in our language that are obvious derivations of existing words seems mad. (Just think, in years to come when perhaps robotics becomes commonplace, we won't be allowed to call them droids without infringing...)
Worse! Imagine if in years to come computer mind control, that has nothing to do with the Force, telekinesis or telepathy... Wait, never mind. Clearly these are so different.
Trademark dilution isn't what trademarks are traditionally about. Why does everyone keeps missing this point, go back to what this started with, it was as much of a comment on the ever-increasing scope of trademark laws as anything else...
Besides that, it is still not a no brainer. Jedi is not a trademark used by LucasFilm explicitly or implicitly (not, part of a title of a creative works is not an automatic trademark, no, making up a word is not an automatic trademark). Yes, LucasFilm can with a high probability argue that the use of Jedi "dilutes" the Star Wars (not Jedi) trademark. No, that they almost certainly wouldn't have a case without recent, overreaching trademark expansions, nor should they.
Wait.. if I want to buy the official Star Wars "mind control" toy, I have to buy the one without the word Jedi in it?
Strangely enough you have to buy the one that has a huge Star Wars logo, Yoda and a kid with Jedi effects on it. Clearly, that only suggests that it might be an official Star Wars product... As you said yourself, official Star Wars toy, not official Jedi toy.
Yeah, that's not confusing at all.
The only confusing thing is that LucasFilm doesn't consider Jedi to be an effective trademark. If you can't get Jedi® toys, that is their failure.
"Passing off" doesn't require a strict demonstration of confusion where the mark is distinctive enough, and sufficiently strongly associated with a particular maker that there's no good-faith reason for anyone else to be using it.
You are talking about dilution, which is distinct from traditional trademark laws. Furthermore I repeatedly gave a good-faith reason of a cultural reference whose scope has outgrown the source. Lastly, common law trademarks are indicated by the superscript TM, indicating intent to use the word, or phrase, as a trademark. Any examples of even such a simple thing?
And your requirement that the products bear no other trademark has no legal basis either.
I never postulated such requirement. I merely argued that the prominent and consistent use of the Star Wars drastically reduces the likelihood of actual confusion.
Their repeated use of the word "Jedi" in naming products is the use of a trademark in the classical (by which I assume you mean common law) sense.
By classical sense I mean, likely to cause confusion, instead of just charging an economic rent on a word. There are no products named Jedi, Jedi is used in movie/book/game that are prominently marked with the Star Wars trademark as the main identifier. Where are the Star Wars products labeled Jedi without a prominent Star Wars logo/identifier?
I think what you mean is "I still don't see any evidence of LucasFilm using Jedi as a trademark in the sense that I have defined to allow me to win this argument".
Show the confusion. Not some toy that doesn't have the word Jedi on it.
Ok, you have a product that doesn't even have the word Jedi on it! Clearly LucasFilm doesn't consider Jedi to be a trademark even in this particular case. What it does have is the Star Wars logo, and a lot of related imagery. Things that are notably absent from anything that I've seen in Jedi Mind promotional materials.
I still don't see any evidence of LucasFilm using Jedi as a trademark in the classical sense. And even under modern interpretation it would probably take a bit to spin it in their favor.
A brand of devices that let you control objects with the power of your mind, called Jedi, has "no implications of anything Star Wars related"?
Can you show me something besides the word Jedi that implies a connection?
It's pretty obvious what allusions to the movies he's trying to make.
Yes, as discussed in my post, to the general application of the word Jedi, to things that are perceived as having Jedi-like attributes without being otherwise related to Star Wars, if you have a beef with that conclusion, then let's hear it. But a hanging implication of what allusions you consider being made are not leading to a good discussion.
If you see specific allusions to the Star Wars franchise, besides the word Jedi, then I'm interested to see them. If all it is, is a (rather far fetched) reference to Jedi powers, then I don't see ground to confuse, not just vaguely associate, it with anything that LucasFilms or their partners are selling.
A moron in a hurry might indeed believe that "Jedi X" is somehow about Star Wars, but given the lack of any and all Star Wars imagery, not to mention actually registered or specifically used Star Wars related trademarks (like Star Wars, that starts just about every game title, the most likely candidates, for confusion, LucasFilms or similar) and the rather straightforward description of what it does (let's you control computers in conjunction with a special input device, no implications of anything Star Wars related), no one else should.
Yes, it uses a word coined in context of Star Wars but unlike, say, "Star Wars" it isn't generally used on it's own to identify related products, and certainly nothing that would amount to a glorified input driver. On the other hand it is commonly used by the general public to identify various things with Jedi-like attributes, that are not otherwise related to Star Wars, this is what the company is aiming at, not trying to confuse the general public that they getting genuine Star Wars software.
Not the classical view of trademarks, where the purpose is product identification. Maybe in the new view, where every idea is to be milked to death, no matter if the company has a product to confuse with or not.
On one hand, I'm disappointed that this won't give the option for some gamers the option to migrate to a more free platform full-time. On the other hand, I'm glad that the recent trend of DRM free indie self-publishing for GNU/Linux won't be nicked in the bud.
It is not porper procedure to set up a network so that you are the only one who has management access to it. Not with a network of this size.
Yes, we know that his manager(s) fucked up badly... Admins shouldn't set policy, or be thrown under the wheels because there is no policy. Not with a network of this size.
The energy that went into the van is a sunken cost. You might as well advocate that it should have never been produced, because the steam engines were already there.
If there is no official policy (some claim he didn't record passwords, as per policy. But the commonly linked juror interview is quite clear that his management fucked themselves over more then he could have), then you have to figure out what is proper. I can't blame any admin who doesn't think it's proper to give vital passwords to a roomful of people over speaker phone. In many ways it really was a no-win, for example, if one of the people in the room mucks around with the system, they probably would have gone after him for that instead.
Childs wasn't sentenced for not handing over the password at that specific moment, he was sentenced for denying any access to the system at all.
"Denying any access" is nothing more then a chain of such specific moments. If there was no proper request for the passwords then the persons authorized to receive access information denied it to themselves in a very literal sense.
I can see how both views fit into the "information wants to be free" mindset, but there's a bit of dichotomy there on whether "on a computer" is the same as "in real life." Seems like they want the answer to be different depending on what benefits themselves the most in that situation.
There is no dichotomy precisely because all three cases you mention can't be lumped together.
Software patents present several problems. But let's focus on the one you mention. When a software patent covers something that is done the same way in real life, it pretty much has to be a form of information processing, as computers really can't do much else. So the debate really isn't weather information and physical objects are the same, but if implementing a specific way to process information on a computer should be considered an invention.
As far as legality online vs. offline is concerned, laws that concern themselves with actions and intent should generally be applicable as far as the actions are possible online. I should not that along with questioning the necessity for laws when there really isn't a significant difference between online and offline, there is also a strong dislike of misapplication of laws in cases when things are truly different.
Data theft, or the impossibility thereof, however, is by far the easiest. While casual use of terms like "taking" is a useful shortcut while dealing with typical data usage, it is important to keep it mind that it is just a simplification. You can't "take" digital data (you can take the physical medium, but that is a separate issue), you can only copy and destroy copies. So the equivalent of data theft would be copying and destroying the original, in the rare cases where this happens I don't see a reason to object to calling it "data theft".
The courts have been treating digital equivalents to physical objects exactly the same as their physical counterparts for years now.
They have absolutely not. They might have treated them similarly, but the very nature of information means that it's impossible to treat them the same. Also note that digital "objects" and information are related, but ultimately different beasts.
why the hell wouldn't a password be treated as a key?
Because you can't "return" it, you can only divulge it. Furthermore you don't "have" it, there is a very real chance to forget a secure password if you don't use it for a few months. Treating a forgotten password as theft would be positively insane.
Dumbass.
Now that we have the character attacks out of the way, lets return to the case. The question isn't about property. It's a question of authority, did he have the authority (as per his contract and organization policies the contract obliges him to follow) to divulge the password(s) to the persons he was requested to divulge them to. If he didn't, then it's a no win situation. If he did, then there is nothing to discuss aside from the fact that in the end password are not the same as keys, only somewhat alike.
Slashdot Mirror
You'd be a moron to assume that it was, despite any indication, besides the word Jedi, to the contrary. The packaging doesn't look like Star Wars packaging, the logo looks nothing like anything from Star Wars. Not one Jedi controlled a computer with their mind. You'd have to ignore all evidence to the contrary and just stubbornly repeat that Jedi means Star Wars, everything else be damned. That is not something a reasonable person would do.
Whether or not it's smart to challenge big companies is a separate issue. Curtailing their stomping, when appropriate, certainly is a good thing. Sadly the ever-expanding scope of trademarks probably means that this will not be a case of curtailing anything.
Worse! Imagine if in years to come computer mind control, that has nothing to do with the Force, telekinesis or telepathy... Wait, never mind. Clearly these are so different.
Common sense, because it's common sense that the common person is a moron in a hurry, who will confuse otherwise distinct products based on one word?
Passing off, also doesn't happen to be about trademarks, what we were talking about...
And you can't be bothered to link? Alive? Meaning products out there using it, or registration has not lapsed not lapsed?
Trademark dilution isn't what trademarks are traditionally about. Why does everyone keeps missing this point, go back to what this started with, it was as much of a comment on the ever-increasing scope of trademark laws as anything else...
Besides that, it is still not a no brainer. Jedi is not a trademark used by LucasFilm explicitly or implicitly (not, part of a title of a creative works is not an automatic trademark, no, making up a word is not an automatic trademark). Yes, LucasFilm can with a high probability argue that the use of Jedi "dilutes" the Star Wars (not Jedi) trademark. No, that they almost certainly wouldn't have a case without recent, overreaching trademark expansions, nor should they.
If it's an invention, patent it. But you know well it it isn't, words don't get trademark protection just because someone thought them.
Strangely enough you have to buy the one that has a huge Star Wars logo, Yoda and a kid with Jedi effects on it. Clearly, that only suggests that it might be an official Star Wars product... As you said yourself, official Star Wars toy, not official Jedi toy.
The only confusing thing is that LucasFilm doesn't consider Jedi to be an effective trademark. If you can't get Jedi® toys, that is their failure.
You are talking about dilution, which is distinct from traditional trademark laws. Furthermore I repeatedly gave a good-faith reason of a cultural reference whose scope has outgrown the source. Lastly, common law trademarks are indicated by the superscript TM, indicating intent to use the word, or phrase, as a trademark. Any examples of even such a simple thing?
I never postulated such requirement. I merely argued that the prominent and consistent use of the Star Wars drastically reduces the likelihood of actual confusion.
By classical sense I mean, likely to cause confusion, instead of just charging an economic rent on a word. There are no products named Jedi, Jedi is used in movie/book/game that are prominently marked with the Star Wars trademark as the main identifier. Where are the Star Wars products labeled Jedi without a prominent Star Wars logo/identifier?
Show the confusion. Not some toy that doesn't have the word Jedi on it.
Ok, you have a product that doesn't even have the word Jedi on it! Clearly LucasFilm doesn't consider Jedi to be a trademark even in this particular case. What it does have is the Star Wars logo, and a lot of related imagery. Things that are notably absent from anything that I've seen in Jedi Mind promotional materials.
I still don't see any evidence of LucasFilm using Jedi as a trademark in the classical sense. And even under modern interpretation it would probably take a bit to spin it in their favor.
Can you show me something besides the word Jedi that implies a connection?
Yes, as discussed in my post, to the general application of the word Jedi, to things that are perceived as having Jedi-like attributes without being otherwise related to Star Wars, if you have a beef with that conclusion, then let's hear it. But a hanging implication of what allusions you consider being made are not leading to a good discussion.
If you see specific allusions to the Star Wars franchise, besides the word Jedi, then I'm interested to see them. If all it is, is a (rather far fetched) reference to Jedi powers, then I don't see ground to confuse, not just vaguely associate, it with anything that LucasFilms or their partners are selling.
A moron in a hurry might indeed believe that "Jedi X" is somehow about Star Wars, but given the lack of any and all Star Wars imagery, not to mention actually registered or specifically used Star Wars related trademarks (like Star Wars, that starts just about every game title, the most likely candidates, for confusion, LucasFilms or similar) and the rather straightforward description of what it does (let's you control computers in conjunction with a special input device, no implications of anything Star Wars related), no one else should.
Yes, it uses a word coined in context of Star Wars but unlike, say, "Star Wars" it isn't generally used on it's own to identify related products, and certainly nothing that would amount to a glorified input driver. On the other hand it is commonly used by the general public to identify various things with Jedi-like attributes, that are not otherwise related to Star Wars, this is what the company is aiming at, not trying to confuse the general public that they getting genuine Star Wars software.
Where is LucasFilm's mind control software, that is named, or includes the word, Jedi to be confused with this?
Not the classical view of trademarks, where the purpose is product identification. Maybe in the new view, where every idea is to be milked to death, no matter if the company has a product to confuse with or not.
On one hand, I'm disappointed that this won't give the option for some gamers the option to migrate to a more free platform full-time. On the other hand, I'm glad that the recent trend of DRM free indie self-publishing for GNU/Linux won't be nicked in the bud.
Yes, we know that his manager(s) fucked up badly... Admins shouldn't set policy, or be thrown under the wheels because there is no policy. Not with a network of this size.
The energy that went into the van is a sunken cost. You might as well advocate that it should have never been produced, because the steam engines were already there.
If there is no official policy (some claim he didn't record passwords, as per policy. But the commonly linked juror interview is quite clear that his management fucked themselves over more then he could have), then you have to figure out what is proper. I can't blame any admin who doesn't think it's proper to give vital passwords to a roomful of people over speaker phone. In many ways it really was a no-win, for example, if one of the people in the room mucks around with the system, they probably would have gone after him for that instead.
That is the wrong question. How important is Javascript speed for advanced web applications and HTML5 games?
Your friend should not be teaching...
I'm no fan of Monsanto, but I'm no fan of manipulative propaganda from their critics either...
"Denying any access" is nothing more then a chain of such specific moments. If there was no proper request for the passwords then the persons authorized to receive access information denied it to themselves in a very literal sense.
There is no dichotomy precisely because all three cases you mention can't be lumped together.
Software patents present several problems. But let's focus on the one you mention. When a software patent covers something that is done the same way in real life, it pretty much has to be a form of information processing, as computers really can't do much else. So the debate really isn't weather information and physical objects are the same, but if implementing a specific way to process information on a computer should be considered an invention.
As far as legality online vs. offline is concerned, laws that concern themselves with actions and intent should generally be applicable as far as the actions are possible online. I should not that along with questioning the necessity for laws when there really isn't a significant difference between online and offline, there is also a strong dislike of misapplication of laws in cases when things are truly different.
Data theft, or the impossibility thereof, however, is by far the easiest. While casual use of terms like "taking" is a useful shortcut while dealing with typical data usage, it is important to keep it mind that it is just a simplification. You can't "take" digital data (you can take the physical medium, but that is a separate issue), you can only copy and destroy copies. So the equivalent of data theft would be copying and destroying the original, in the rare cases where this happens I don't see a reason to object to calling it "data theft".
They have absolutely not. They might have treated them similarly, but the very nature of information means that it's impossible to treat them the same. Also note that digital "objects" and information are related, but ultimately different beasts.
Because you can't "return" it, you can only divulge it. Furthermore you don't "have" it, there is a very real chance to forget a secure password if you don't use it for a few months. Treating a forgotten password as theft would be positively insane.
Now that we have the character attacks out of the way, lets return to the case. The question isn't about property. It's a question of authority, did he have the authority (as per his contract and organization policies the contract obliges him to follow) to divulge the password(s) to the persons he was requested to divulge them to. If he didn't, then it's a no win situation. If he did, then there is nothing to discuss aside from the fact that in the end password are not the same as keys, only somewhat alike.