The poster never called it something that it wasn't. In the post, he specifically returned to it as "copyright infringement."
In the title of his post, he was referring to the content of other posts, like yours, which highlight the distinction between copyright infringement and stealing. In the post itself, he was arguing that the distinction is irrelevant.
Whether you disagree with his actual point or not, he isn't making the mistake in terminology that you seem convinced he's making.
Parent is correct, as I understand U.S. Trademark law.
What the parent is alluding to are "field of use" restrictions. More so than many other countries, the U.S. requires that a person registering a trademark provide fairly specific fields in which the trademark is being used or will soon be used.
That's why Lindows/Windows was a problem (both are computer software), but Blade Runner/BladeRunner shouldn't be a problem
Courts have referred to that as "initial interest confusion."
There's no chance of confusion once they get to the website and take a look around, but if it wasn't for their use of the TM's, they never would have gotten there in the first place.
The two statistics aren't in conflict. The 80 percent one only refers to companies that still have some number of machines running Windows 95 or 98. The 20 percent one refers to the total number of Win95/98 machines out there. If the companies who have Win95/98 machines only have 25% of their computers running Win95/98, then everything's pretty much squared up. (It's an oversimplification that doesn't take into account home users, but you get my point)
Presumably, this was passed under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Hence, the commercial spam requirement. Congress doesn't have the power to regulate anything that they choose to. The Federal government is a government of limited powers, and they can only pass legislation when it falls under one of those powers.
If a non-Apple computer is a better solution for you, for whatever reason, you'd be silly to pick an Apple
For me, though, Apple is a pretty good solution. There's no bargain basement model, sure, but I've managed to save up enough money for a new Apple recently (first one in a while, but my old one was ticking along just fine).
I like Apple because their computers make me want to do things with their computers. (I'm setting someone up for a +5, Funny post with that line, I know) I want to make movies with iMovie and iDVD. I want to find out about new music with the iTMS. I don't doubt that I could do all those things on another machine, and probably fairly well. But I don't think the other machine would make me _want_ to do it the way my Mac does.
But like you said, they're not for everyone, for a host of different reasons. And that's... OK
IANAL, but as I understand it, lots of administrative agencies have in-house judicial systems, with administrative judges or something similar. The IRS has an internal appeals system in place, for instance. Obviously, their jurisdiction is limited to the scope of their agency, but it's kinda nice that you can go to specialized judges for these matters. And you can of course appeal their decisions to actual courts, but as a previous poster said, they usually get a substantial amount of deference.
As far as the authorization to create this administrative review, here's a few thoughts. Congress doesn't have the authority to make judicial decisions, but they definitely have the ability to create Article III courts. However, if the Copyright office is an Executive agency, I don't know that that's relevant. I think the easier answer is that this isn't a real court. It's something more like arbitration. Just because it's run like a court doesn't mean that there are authority issues. This proceeding seems to be SCC asking the Copyright office for an exemption under the DMCA, which the Copyright office is presumably allowed to grant, under the DMCA (and there's some Article III authority for you there, maybe), and Lexmark either was dragged into the proceeding as an adverse party, or came in to contest it. They had to decide legal issues, sure, but these decisions, while they may be entitled to deference, are reviewable by actual courts, and their decisions of law are only binding on the Copyright office itself.
The Federal Junk Fax Law provides for penalties of $500 for sending a junk fax. This punishment can be increased to as much as $1500, if the violation of the law was willful or knowing.
I know that there's more of a problem with externalizing costs with a single junk fax than there is with a single spam e-mail, but in both cases, the punishment is orders of magnitude above the actual damages. That's because you're encouraging the public to take action on this themselves, and there's a significant amount of time and work involved.
Trade secret law is generally a state law issue, although there is a Federal anti-espionage law on the books, too, I believe.
Generally, something's a trade secret if it was secret initially, you made reasonable efforts to keep is secret, and it's commercially valuable. The formula for Coke, for example, is a trade secret.
Of course, if you let it out into the public domain, there's nothing you can do. Liability can only arise if there's a breach of confidence or if improper means were used to discover the trade secret. Continuing with the Coke example, if someone who was given the formula in confidence gives it away, they're liable. Similarly, if somebody breaks into the Coke building and takes the formula, they're liable.
However, people other than those who breached the confidence or used improper means can still be liable if they knew it was a trade secret. So if Generic Cola Maker buys the formula, knowing that it was stolen, and starts selling soda made with the Coke formula, they're liable too. You can be liable even in the absence of knowledge, although the remedy in that case is often an injunction against using the trade secret, rather than damages.
Not saying that this body of law sits well with me, but hey, there's a poor summary of it.
Almost.
Like everyone else has said, the standard is reasonable doubt.
Also, if one juror votes innocent, and the rest vote guilty, that's not an acquittal. That's a hung jury, and the prosecutor will likely have the option of retrying the case. You're probably off the hook, but there's no guarantee.
Slashdot Mirror
The poster never called it something that it wasn't. In the post, he specifically returned to it as "copyright infringement."
In the title of his post, he was referring to the content of other posts, like yours, which highlight the distinction between copyright infringement and stealing. In the post itself, he was arguing that the distinction is irrelevant.
Whether you disagree with his actual point or not, he isn't making the mistake in terminology that you seem convinced he's making.
The new iPod didn't win anything, yes, but I assume that the grandparent was talking about the iPod Mini, which did win Gold in the Consumer Products division
Parent is correct, as I understand U.S. Trademark law.
What the parent is alluding to are "field of use" restrictions. More so than many other countries, the U.S. requires that a person registering a trademark provide fairly specific fields in which the trademark is being used or will soon be used.
That's why Lindows/Windows was a problem (both are computer software), but Blade Runner/BladeRunner shouldn't be a problem
Joss Whedon doesn't talk until Sunday. :)
Better yet, recursion is as much fun as recursion! :D
After the RIAA and Apple take their share, how much of the money from their downloaded lectures are the professors gonna see?
The Duke freshmen who download these lectures from iTunes are just supporting an exploitative, dying industry! ;)
Hey! This is Mountain Dew!
Courts have referred to that as "initial interest confusion."
There's no chance of confusion once they get to the website and take a look around, but if it wasn't for their use of the TM's, they never would have gotten there in the first place.
The two statistics aren't in conflict. The 80 percent one only refers to companies that still have some number of machines running Windows 95 or 98. The 20 percent one refers to the total number of Win95/98 machines out there. If the companies who have Win95/98 machines only have 25% of their computers running Win95/98, then everything's pretty much squared up. (It's an oversimplification that doesn't take into account home users, but you get my point)
Because it wasn't a cop who shot the XBox. :)
Presumably, this was passed under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Hence, the commercial spam requirement. Congress doesn't have the power to regulate anything that they choose to. The Federal government is a government of limited powers, and they can only pass legislation when it falls under one of those powers.
At least, that's my take on it. Oh yeah, IANAL.
It's a nice, safe, social sharing event without the drawbacks and risks of ... mental impairment.
You haven't been listening to music on the radio much lately, have you?
"Is this just a blip as some analysts believe, or is it the beginnings of a resurgence for the technology sector?"
Have you Meta Analyzed lately?
Re: The Economy
by Anonymous_Analyst on Thursday, October 30 ,@8:32 AM
I think this is just a blip.
Rating: Insightful.
This rating is Unfair/Fair
If a non-Apple computer is a better solution for you, for whatever reason, you'd be silly to pick an Apple
For me, though, Apple is a pretty good solution. There's no bargain basement model, sure, but I've managed to save up enough money for a new Apple recently (first one in a while, but my old one was ticking along just fine).
I like Apple because their computers make me want to do things with their computers. (I'm setting someone up for a +5, Funny post with that line, I know) I want to make movies with iMovie and iDVD. I want to find out about new music with the iTMS. I don't doubt that I could do all those things on another machine, and probably fairly well. But I don't think the other machine would make me _want_ to do it the way my Mac does.
But like you said, they're not for everyone, for a host of different reasons. And that's ... OK
IANAL, but as I understand it, lots of administrative agencies have in-house judicial systems, with administrative judges or something similar. The IRS has an internal appeals system in place, for instance. Obviously, their jurisdiction is limited to the scope of their agency, but it's kinda nice that you can go to specialized judges for these matters. And you can of course appeal their decisions to actual courts, but as a previous poster said, they usually get a substantial amount of deference.
As far as the authorization to create this administrative review, here's a few thoughts. Congress doesn't have the authority to make judicial decisions, but they definitely have the ability to create Article III courts. However, if the Copyright office is an Executive agency, I don't know that that's relevant. I think the easier answer is that this isn't a real court. It's something more like arbitration. Just because it's run like a court doesn't mean that there are authority issues. This proceeding seems to be SCC asking the Copyright office for an exemption under the DMCA, which the Copyright office is presumably allowed to grant, under the DMCA (and there's some Article III authority for you there, maybe), and Lexmark either was dragged into the proceeding as an adverse party, or came in to contest it. They had to decide legal issues, sure, but these decisions, while they may be entitled to deference, are reviewable by actual courts, and their decisions of law are only binding on the Copyright office itself.
The Federal Junk Fax Law provides for penalties of $500 for sending a junk fax. This punishment can be increased to as much as $1500, if the violation of the law was willful or knowing.
I know that there's more of a problem with externalizing costs with a single junk fax than there is with a single spam e-mail, but in both cases, the punishment is orders of magnitude above the actual damages. That's because you're encouraging the public to take action on this themselves, and there's a significant amount of time and work involved.
As for rights being stripped away (the Patriot Act - and yes, they actively are being stripped away, ask a certain former employee of Intel
Are you talking about Ken Hamidi? Because he won his appeal, you know (http://www.intelhamidi.com/victory.htm).
I don't get it. Why would people want to sell a song they downloaded?
::listens to Mandy Moore song just downloaded from iTMS::
Oh. Now I get it. ;)
You're right. Whoops. I guess I need more conffee.
Yes, but when are they gonna test it against the other noble gases?
Five bucks says Argon wipes the floor with the G5, :)
I'm not positive, but my guess would be no. I don't believe that analysis of that sort would be considered "improper means."
[insert obligatory don't-get-legal-advice-from-non-lawyers-on-Slashdo t disclaimer here]
You're wrong. ;)
Trade secret law is generally a state law issue, although there is a Federal anti-espionage law on the books, too, I believe.
Generally, something's a trade secret if it was secret initially, you made reasonable efforts to keep is secret, and it's commercially valuable. The formula for Coke, for example, is a trade secret.
Of course, if you let it out into the public domain, there's nothing you can do. Liability can only arise if there's a breach of confidence or if improper means were used to discover the trade secret. Continuing with the Coke example, if someone who was given the formula in confidence gives it away, they're liable. Similarly, if somebody breaks into the Coke building and takes the formula, they're liable.
However, people other than those who breached the confidence or used improper means can still be liable if they knew it was a trade secret. So if Generic Cola Maker buys the formula, knowing that it was stolen, and starts selling soda made with the Coke formula, they're liable too. You can be liable even in the absence of knowledge, although the remedy in that case is often an injunction against using the trade secret, rather than damages.
Not saying that this body of law sits well with me, but hey, there's a poor summary of it.
Aww. What did Run-DMCA ever do to you? :(
Only 4 out of 10 films turn a profit.
6 out of 10 films suck.
And odds are, at least three of those films fall into both categories. ;)
Almost. Like everyone else has said, the standard is reasonable doubt. Also, if one juror votes innocent, and the rest vote guilty, that's not an acquittal. That's a hung jury, and the prosecutor will likely have the option of retrying the case. You're probably off the hook, but there's no guarantee.