And that's fair, but there's no exception for that and judges have no power to create them on the fly without any backing whatsoever.
Hrm. I'm not entirely convinced, but you've surely given me some food for thought. I certainly won't mock this ruling; there seems to have a solid basis even if I ultimately may not agree with it. It's good t'see knowledgeable folks who can articulate and back up their opinions, here and anywhere, so thanks for that.
And you probably don't want no groggin' and revelin' and wrenchin' and rummin' either, I s'pose?
Well... deep down? You want to know the truth? It's not me. I don't want it.
Well, what do you want?
I want to... sing and dance, and --
I know, I know, and wear your tight little shiny pants. Ugh! Okay. We'll all sing... and dance. (Grumbling from pirates) I SAID, WE'LL ALL SING AND DANCE OR YOU'LL WALK THE PLANK! A'one, a'two, free!
(chorus)
I want to sing and dance,
I want to sing and dance
I want to be a pirate in the Pirates of Penzance.
Wear me silver-buckled slippers and me tight shiny pants...
1. Media meddling, hounding, and general drowning out of what's actually happening.
I fail to see how this is fundamentally worse than having reporters in a courtroom. If anything, broadcast should have the opposite effect; without it, the media has total control over what is and is not disseminated prior to a ruling.
2. Jury contamination....preliminary proceedings, stipulations, and rules of evidence are manifestly not followed by bloggers or even professional journalists.
The broadcast in question only involved oral legal argument, tho' - nothing the jury wouldn't see.
3. Witness tampering. Witnesses are supposed to present their testimony as preserved by their role in the proceedings, outside the influence of the media.
Again, a reasonable point made moot by the fact that we're only talking about oral legal arguments.
How does broadcasting the proceeding as it happens add to transparency, as opposed to making the record available after the fact, as is normal practice?
In a specific case, I'll grant you there's no great advantage. In a broader sense, it makes legal proceedings more accessible to a wide audience, familiarizing them somewhat with the court system. I'll grant you that your arguments convince me there's not a huge advantage, but I'm unconvinced of a disadvantage.
There are few things more serious than the bounds of discretion of a trial court. The review and the opinion isn't about broadcasting the trial, it's about the judge's application of the rules of court.
Hrm, I s'pose I'm reading the ruling differently than you are. I see it as interpreting how narrowly a rule of court should be interpreted. While the language of the ruling indicates that the rule is clearly violated, I don't see it as blatant. It's possible that I'm misunderstanding what the rule means by "perpetuation of the record".
From where I'm sitting, the manner of interpretation of a court rule in which the interpretation is harmless to the case doesn't seem to meet the tough standards for a writ.
Do you know of any trials broadcasted live in their entirety?
Well, there's those horrid small-claims television shows, and there was the O.J. trial back when. In real civil matters, no, although I'm certain I've seen portions of oral arguments broadcast. In fact, there's the oral arguments of this hearing regarding the writ.
If broadcasting were allowed for reasons completely outside the enumerated exceptions, what would stop the broadcast of your divorce?
The same thing that prevents the record from my divorce appearing in the local paper: Nobody cares. I do see your point, but the difference is that this trial is of some interest to the public at large. It deals with matters of law which potentially affect a large group of people.
I'll grant, as you point out, that the rule doesn't make such a distinction, however, and that's the best reason I can see for this ruling.
All that said, your reasoning is sound, except that which is based on complete coverage rather than just oral legal arguments. I disagree on the importance you (and the Circuit Court) attribute to how narrowly the rule should be interpreted - but I can see the chain of reasoning, at least.
My reasoning would be similar if i were to judge this case - publishing a stream would risk the trial turning into a circus.
Thanks for the info on advisory mandamus-type writs. A little googlery backs you up totally.
I'm curious as to what you mean by this, however. I hear the phrase used from time to time, but I just can't seem to apply the metaphor to a civil court proceeding in my head. What, precisely, do you see as the negative implications of broadcast? I'm only able to see the advantage of greater transparency.
I also have trouble with the idea that this is an important enough issue to warrant an extraordinary writ. It doesn't seem fundamental to the integrity of the courts or even particularly novel (except, perhaps, in that the ruling was appealed at all).
Might be slightly off-topic, but cannot help pointing out.... "The use of computers in offices is creating unemployment problems."
Not really off-topic at all. It's a valid concern that large-scale automation of labor can displace part of the workforce. For example, automation in the office contributed to massive layoffs in the 1980s.
Historically, the economy has adjusted well to automation. In some cases, the expansion of other industries and creation of new ones has taken care of the problem. In many parts of the world, people have gained increased leisure to squeeze the workforce into fewer slots.
The philosopher and novelist Robert Wilson considered giving people a direct economic interest in automation. Others propose purely communistic solutions. A few, like Yadav there, want to just halt the clock and hope for the best.
My opinions aren't fully formed, although I unquestionably favor automation of labor wherever possible. Given the historical context of automation, I don't think we need to panic just yet, but our societies should be considering the ramifications.
I don't find him funny; the persona he uses was worth a few laughs as a Daily Show occasional, but it got old fast. I find him unsubtle, too self-referential, and often purely tasteless.
But I think he's very sharp. Seeing him handle interviews, he uses his character to manage subjects very skillfully, does his homework scrupulously, and usually drives straight to the heart of an issue. An idiot he ain't.
What about the sort of passive-aggressive behaviour that I've seen in so many cops -- even when they're NOT on the job?
It's inexcusable behavior, but it's also a matter of visibility. You don't notice the police who are professional on duty and are well-adjusted human beings while off. I daresay the police draw a higher percentage of assholes than most other jobs, but even so, I think it's a pretty small number.
If you see a cop who behaves like a jerk, I strongly suggest writing a letter (yeah, pen-and-ink) to his or her department. This goes for off-duty, as well, if you feel that he or she is taking advantage of his or her position. It won't get a cop dismissed on its own, but a few such letters from folks can inhibit promotion and haunt the cop during any future disciplinary action. This is of course most effective if you're a witness or bystander, not a suspect. Like always, evil wins when good does nothing. Act!
Likewise, it's a good idea to write, even an email, when you've had a good experience with police. Let 'em know who the good guys are!
Now, maybe you're in the U.K. or somewhere in Europe, but my understanding is, at least in the U.S., is that truth is an absolute defense. You can say anything about someone, no matter how malicious you use it, as long as it is true.
Depends. In some states, that truth must be without malice to serve as a complete defense. Massachusetts is such a state.
Now, if you've got case law or some statute law to the contrary I'd love to hear about it.
Relevant statute: Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 231, section 92.
I've had a couple cop buddies, and probably more non-friendly interactions with police than average. I think you're spot on, for the most part. I'd like to add a little, tho'.
Still the reason why cop abuse stories hit the news so hard is because it isn't commonplace
That, plus police are in a position of strong public trust. When a cop does wrong, people feel extra-betrayed (as well they should). That goes double when it's someone high-ranking, and triple when that person is or appears to be covering for his or her underlings' misbehavior. Police are held to a higher standard by the public; they should be held to that standard by law and practice, but often are not, which fuels discontent.
As to intelligence, what you said. Police often appear to be dumber than they are, because often they're following carefully-designed and intensely-trained procedures. Particularly when gathering evidence, police are trained to do so carefully and pedantically in a Socratic way.
A good law enforcement officer usually should appear as dumb as a box of rocks. When handling routine matters, he or she is following a routine procedure in a standard way. When gathering evidence, this helps ensure that the chain of evidence is complete (and doesn't include unwarranted logical leaps or assumptions by the police), and helps avoid the police equivalent of researcher bias (leading a suspect or witness into saying what the cop wants to hear).
The smartest cops are the ones that appear to be stupid. Stupid cops try to act smart, joking with or about suspects, making "clever" threats, and so forth.
When the laws specifically stipulate the printed word, and given that the internet is not printed, libels laws do not cover the internet in most states I've seen. But what would I know? I only work for a newspaper and took two years of journalism classes.
Did those classes teach you the part about using a dictionary? The word "print" is not limited to ink-on-paper. Words that are stored, transmitted, and displayed electronically are indeed printed, by definition.
(In most jurisdictions, however, it's my understanding that slander and libel are treated equally as torts, and often lumped together as defamation.)
No, Qwest and Verizon are mutually exclusive. Qwest serves the area of Seattle itself and north a bit (east, I'm sure, also) while Verizon has territory north of Seattle.
Ah, my mistake. (Although I don't by any means disagree with you on the underlying issue.)
when Jagex banned all IPs connected to gold selling, "they lost 10 per cent of their membership...there were four million players, there are now two million players, of which less than one million actually subscribe."
Lost 10%...went from four million to two million players. Maybe someone should have spent less time playing WoW and more time doing their school work...
That's not what TFA says at all. I should report you for ellipses abuse.
What the article actually said was that once instance of banning gold buyers and sellers bumped 10% of their users; since then, their efforts have further reduced their player base to about half of what it once was.
Why? Because 3rd party gold sellers are no saints.
No, that's not a good reason. If gold selling is allowed, then it would be trivial to buy through trusted third-party sites like eBay (although eBay's terms disallow that right now) or from the game company itself.
There are lots of good reasons not to have gold selling, mostly relating to perceptions of integrity and fairness by the player base and developers. Especially in smaller games, some semblance of market stability is a consideration, as well.
Many Chinese MMOs sell gold directly and some do quite well at it, so there's prolly a market in the West for such a thing (but I won't be part of it). Items purchased for real money and fungible in game, like EVE's not-so-innovative PLEXen or the Kingdom of Loathing's Item-of-the-Month are a compromise (particularly in a self-styled casual game like KoL).
Do I have a solution? No. Although I think the market is ripe for a major western MMO with gold selling as a profit center. With luck, it'd draw enough gold buyers out of other games to make spamming/farming less tenable.
So do we punish him and turn him to the Dark Side? Or do we show him love and respect and turn him?
Ideally, a little from column A and a little from column B. Naturally he should be punished; as a society we cannot dare tolerate allowing this sort of thing. He didn't do too much damage; Twitter'll have t'spend a few bucks to undo his work, tho'.
If I had my druthers, I'd leave prison time out of his sentence, but make him pay reparations to Twitter and a small fine, shut down his site, put him on probation, and give him a large pile of community service related to programming and/or web design.
Trademarks are registered for specific market segments.
Trademarks are registered for one or more classes of goods or services, not market segments, which are something else entirely. These classes are codified by the USPTO rules. However, the famous trademark provision shows that trademarks are not restricted to the class(es) under which they're registered, as you claimed.
It is intended for marks that are not only well known but associated with diverse market segments
That is absolutely not one of the criteria used when determining whether a trademark is famous:
(i) The duration, extent, and geographic reach of advertising and publicity of the mark, whether advertised or publicized by the owner or third parties.
(ii) The amount, volume, and geographic extent of sales of goods or services offered under the mark.
(iii) The extent of actual recognition of the mark.
(iv) Whether the mark was registered under the Act of March 3, 1881, or the Act of February 20, 1905, or on the principal register.
Even if Goldman Sachs is very well known in the financial services area, the fact that it is restricted to this one market segment and, for that matter, is unknown to people who know nothing about financial services, militate rather strongly against "famous mark" status.
That's an interesting theory. As a counterpoint, I'll note that Goldman Sachs' trademark was (one of?) the first to be explicitly found famous under the new law (Goldman, Sachs & Co. v. Lis Wevers c/o Goldman Advertising Services BV) and was used as an example of a famous trademark during EU hearings prior to trademark legislation. It's moot, of course, since using their trademark for criticism is protected.
Spitfire Pub? Really? They should've canceled the project for pure, simple lack of creativity.
Some suggestions, blatantly stolen from responses on an MS blog: Foo Bar, the Status Bar, the Tool Bar, the Task Bar, the Information Bar, Hello World.
Trademarks are restricted to particular market segments.
In the US, at least, you are mistaken. I'm not a lawyer, but the Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006 makes it pretty clear that injunctive relief (as opposed to damages) does not rely upon competition within a market if the trademark has achieved certain requirements for fame:
Subject to the principles of equity, the owner of a famous mark that is distinctive, inherently or through acquired distinctiveness, shall be entitled to an injunction against another person who, at any time after the owner's mark has become famous, commences use of a mark or trade name in commerce that is likely to cause dilution by blurring or dilution by tarnishment of the famous mark, regardless of the presence or absence of actual or likely confusion, of competition, or of actual economic injury.
However, TDRA has a specific exclusion for criticism:
The following shall not be actionable as dilution by blurring or dilution by tarnishment under this subsection:
...(ii) identifying and parodying, criticizing, or commenting upon the famous mark owner or the goods or services of the famous mark owner
The pictures seems to be taken near NYU ( Broadway and Waverly and WSP ).
The words seems to indicates that these was entirely done at WSP.
Is there any evidence of the author trying tougher challenges like union square or handling traffic lights?
My super-secret sources tell me that this was the first in a series and that you can be notified of upcoming missions (and new bot designs) by sending a note to a super-secret email address.
Slashdot Mirror
I wind up in trouble. I hope the NSA does too
That's because you don't take it seriously. If you did, like the NSA does, you'd be fine.
And that's fair, but there's no exception for that and judges have no power to create them on the fly without any backing whatsoever.
Hrm. I'm not entirely convinced, but you've surely given me some food for thought. I certainly won't mock this ruling; there seems to have a solid basis even if I ultimately may not agree with it. It's good t'see knowledgeable folks who can articulate and back up their opinions, here and anywhere, so thanks for that.
We'll dig up the box, (the box!)
We know it's full of precious booty!
I don't like it.
You don't want no treasurin', eh?
I don't want it.
And you probably don't want no groggin' and revelin' and wrenchin' and rummin' either, I s'pose?
Well... deep down? You want to know the truth? It's not me. I don't want it.
Well, what do you want?
I want to... sing and dance, and --
I know, I know, and wear your tight little shiny pants. Ugh! Okay. We'll all sing... and dance. (Grumbling from pirates) I SAID, WE'LL ALL SING AND DANCE OR YOU'LL WALK THE PLANK! A'one, a'two, free!
(chorus)
I want to sing and dance,
I want to sing and dance
I want to be a pirate in the Pirates of Penzance.
Wear me silver-buckled slippers and me tight shiny pants...
I want to sing and dance!
1. Media meddling, hounding, and general drowning out of what's actually happening.
I fail to see how this is fundamentally worse than having reporters in a courtroom. If anything, broadcast should have the opposite effect; without it, the media has total control over what is and is not disseminated prior to a ruling.
2. Jury contamination. ...preliminary proceedings, stipulations, and rules of evidence are manifestly not followed by bloggers or even professional journalists.
The broadcast in question only involved oral legal argument, tho' - nothing the jury wouldn't see.
3. Witness tampering. Witnesses are supposed to present their testimony as preserved by their role in the proceedings, outside the influence of the media.
Again, a reasonable point made moot by the fact that we're only talking about oral legal arguments.
How does broadcasting the proceeding as it happens add to transparency, as opposed to making the record available after the fact, as is normal practice?
In a specific case, I'll grant you there's no great advantage. In a broader sense, it makes legal proceedings more accessible to a wide audience, familiarizing them somewhat with the court system. I'll grant you that your arguments convince me there's not a huge advantage, but I'm unconvinced of a disadvantage.
There are few things more serious than the bounds of discretion of a trial court. The review and the opinion isn't about broadcasting the trial, it's about the judge's application of the rules of court.
Hrm, I s'pose I'm reading the ruling differently than you are. I see it as interpreting how narrowly a rule of court should be interpreted. While the language of the ruling indicates that the rule is clearly violated, I don't see it as blatant. It's possible that I'm misunderstanding what the rule means by "perpetuation of the record".
From where I'm sitting, the manner of interpretation of a court rule in which the interpretation is harmless to the case doesn't seem to meet the tough standards for a writ.
Do you know of any trials broadcasted live in their entirety?
Well, there's those horrid small-claims television shows, and there was the O.J. trial back when. In real civil matters, no, although I'm certain I've seen portions of oral arguments broadcast. In fact, there's the oral arguments of this hearing regarding the writ.
If broadcasting were allowed for reasons completely outside the enumerated exceptions, what would stop the broadcast of your divorce?
The same thing that prevents the record from my divorce appearing in the local paper: Nobody cares. I do see your point, but the difference is that this trial is of some interest to the public at large. It deals with matters of law which potentially affect a large group of people.
I'll grant, as you point out, that the rule doesn't make such a distinction, however, and that's the best reason I can see for this ruling.
All that said, your reasoning is sound, except that which is based on complete coverage rather than just oral legal arguments. I disagree on the importance you (and the Circuit Court) attribute to how narrowly the rule should be interpreted - but I can see the chain of reasoning, at least.
My reasoning would be similar if i were to judge this case - publishing a stream would risk the trial turning into a circus.
Thanks for the info on advisory mandamus-type writs. A little googlery backs you up totally.
I'm curious as to what you mean by this, however. I hear the phrase used from time to time, but I just can't seem to apply the metaphor to a civil court proceeding in my head. What, precisely, do you see as the negative implications of broadcast? I'm only able to see the advantage of greater transparency.
I also have trouble with the idea that this is an important enough issue to warrant an extraordinary writ. It doesn't seem fundamental to the integrity of the courts or even particularly novel (except, perhaps, in that the ruling was appealed at all).
Might be slightly off-topic, but cannot help pointing out.... "The use of computers in offices is creating unemployment problems."
Not really off-topic at all. It's a valid concern that large-scale automation of labor can displace part of the workforce. For example, automation in the office contributed to massive layoffs in the 1980s.
Historically, the economy has adjusted well to automation. In some cases, the expansion of other industries and creation of new ones has taken care of the problem. In many parts of the world, people have gained increased leisure to squeeze the workforce into fewer slots.
The philosopher and novelist Robert Wilson considered giving people a direct economic interest in automation. Others propose purely communistic solutions. A few, like Yadav there, want to just halt the clock and hope for the best.
My opinions aren't fully formed, although I unquestionably favor automation of labor wherever possible. Given the historical context of automation, I don't think we need to panic just yet, but our societies should be considering the ramifications.
Colbert's a bombastic idiot and he's not funny.
I don't find him funny; the persona he uses was worth a few laughs as a Daily Show occasional, but it got old fast. I find him unsubtle, too self-referential, and often purely tasteless.
But I think he's very sharp. Seeing him handle interviews, he uses his character to manage subjects very skillfully, does his homework scrupulously, and usually drives straight to the heart of an issue. An idiot he ain't.
What about the sort of passive-aggressive behaviour that I've seen in so many cops -- even when they're NOT on the job?
It's inexcusable behavior, but it's also a matter of visibility. You don't notice the police who are professional on duty and are well-adjusted human beings while off. I daresay the police draw a higher percentage of assholes than most other jobs, but even so, I think it's a pretty small number.
If you see a cop who behaves like a jerk, I strongly suggest writing a letter (yeah, pen-and-ink) to his or her department. This goes for off-duty, as well, if you feel that he or she is taking advantage of his or her position. It won't get a cop dismissed on its own, but a few such letters from folks can inhibit promotion and haunt the cop during any future disciplinary action. This is of course most effective if you're a witness or bystander, not a suspect. Like always, evil wins when good does nothing. Act!
Likewise, it's a good idea to write, even an email, when you've had a good experience with police. Let 'em know who the good guys are!
Now, maybe you're in the U.K. or somewhere in Europe, but my understanding is, at least in the U.S., is that truth is an absolute defense. You can say anything about someone, no matter how malicious you use it, as long as it is true.
Depends. In some states, that truth must be without malice to serve as a complete defense. Massachusetts is such a state.
Now, if you've got case law or some statute law to the contrary I'd love to hear about it.
Relevant statute: Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 231, section 92.
Case-type law: Noonan v. Staples (.pdf warning).
Still the reason why cop abuse stories hit the news so hard is because it isn't commonplace
That, plus police are in a position of strong public trust. When a cop does wrong, people feel extra-betrayed (as well they should). That goes double when it's someone high-ranking, and triple when that person is or appears to be covering for his or her underlings' misbehavior. Police are held to a higher standard by the public; they should be held to that standard by law and practice, but often are not, which fuels discontent.
As to intelligence, what you said. Police often appear to be dumber than they are, because often they're following carefully-designed and intensely-trained procedures. Particularly when gathering evidence, police are trained to do so carefully and pedantically in a Socratic way.
A good law enforcement officer usually should appear as dumb as a box of rocks. When handling routine matters, he or she is following a routine procedure in a standard way. When gathering evidence, this helps ensure that the chain of evidence is complete (and doesn't include unwarranted logical leaps or assumptions by the police), and helps avoid the police equivalent of researcher bias (leading a suspect or witness into saying what the cop wants to hear).
The smartest cops are the ones that appear to be stupid. Stupid cops try to act smart, joking with or about suspects, making "clever" threats, and so forth.
When the laws specifically stipulate the printed word, and given that the internet is not printed, libels laws do not cover the internet in most states I've seen. But what would I know? I only work for a newspaper and took two years of journalism classes.
Did those classes teach you the part about using a dictionary? The word "print" is not limited to ink-on-paper. Words that are stored, transmitted, and displayed electronically are indeed printed, by definition.
(In most jurisdictions, however, it's my understanding that slander and libel are treated equally as torts, and often lumped together as defamation.)
Downloadable content
Ah, thank you. That makes this much easier t'read.
Am I the only person who hasn't a clue what DLC means? Neither the summary nor the fucking article can be bothered to tell me.
No, Qwest and Verizon are mutually exclusive. Qwest serves the area of Seattle itself and north a bit (east, I'm sure, also) while Verizon has territory north of Seattle.
Ah, my mistake. (Although I don't by any means disagree with you on the underlying issue.)
There are LOTS of fundamentalist Christians in the US and how much terrorism are they responsible for?
Oh, quite a lot, really, since you you ask. Yes, these groups are all currently active, although only some are in the US.
TFA:
when Jagex banned all IPs connected to gold selling, "they lost 10 per cent of their membership...there were four million players, there are now two million players, of which less than one million actually subscribe."
Lost 10%...went from four million to two million players. Maybe someone should have spent less time playing WoW and more time doing their school work...
That's not what TFA says at all. I should report you for ellipses abuse.
What the article actually said was that once instance of banning gold buyers and sellers bumped 10% of their users; since then, their efforts have further reduced their player base to about half of what it once was.
Why? Because 3rd party gold sellers are no saints.
No, that's not a good reason. If gold selling is allowed, then it would be trivial to buy through trusted third-party sites like eBay (although eBay's terms disallow that right now) or from the game company itself.
There are lots of good reasons not to have gold selling, mostly relating to perceptions of integrity and fairness by the player base and developers. Especially in smaller games, some semblance of market stability is a consideration, as well.
Many Chinese MMOs sell gold directly and some do quite well at it, so there's prolly a market in the West for such a thing (but I won't be part of it). Items purchased for real money and fungible in game, like EVE's not-so-innovative PLEXen or the Kingdom of Loathing's Item-of-the-Month are a compromise (particularly in a self-styled casual game like KoL).
Do I have a solution? No. Although I think the market is ripe for a major western MMO with gold selling as a profit center. With luck, it'd draw enough gold buyers out of other games to make spamming/farming less tenable.
What I have in Western Washington (near Seattle) is Comcast and Verizon. They both charge basically the same price for all services.
You left out Qwest, which services that area. They charge (surprise!) basically the same price.
Who the fuck is Edward Dijkstra? You mean Edsger W. Dijkstra maybe?
One and the same. Dijkstra published a fair bit using the first name "Edward".
So do we punish him and turn him to the Dark Side? Or do we show him love and respect and turn him?
Ideally, a little from column A and a little from column B. Naturally he should be punished; as a society we cannot dare tolerate allowing this sort of thing. He didn't do too much damage; Twitter'll have t'spend a few bucks to undo his work, tho'.
If I had my druthers, I'd leave prison time out of his sentence, but make him pay reparations to Twitter and a small fine, shut down his site, put him on probation, and give him a large pile of community service related to programming and/or web design.
Trademarks are registered for specific market segments.
Trademarks are registered for one or more classes of goods or services, not market segments, which are something else entirely. These classes are codified by the USPTO rules. However, the famous trademark provision shows that trademarks are not restricted to the class(es) under which they're registered, as you claimed.
It is intended for marks that are not only well known but associated with diverse market segments
That is absolutely not one of the criteria used when determining whether a trademark is famous:
(i) The duration, extent, and geographic reach of advertising and publicity of the mark, whether advertised or publicized by the owner or third parties.
(ii) The amount, volume, and geographic extent of sales of goods or services offered under the mark.
(iii) The extent of actual recognition of the mark.
(iv) Whether the mark was registered under the Act of March 3, 1881, or the Act of February 20, 1905, or on the principal register.
Even if Goldman Sachs is very well known in the financial services area, the fact that it is restricted to this one market segment and, for that matter, is unknown to people who know nothing about financial services, militate rather strongly against "famous mark" status.
That's an interesting theory. As a counterpoint, I'll note that Goldman Sachs' trademark was (one of?) the first to be explicitly found famous under the new law (Goldman, Sachs & Co. v. Lis Wevers c/o Goldman Advertising Services BV) and was used as an example of a famous trademark during EU hearings prior to trademark legislation. It's moot, of course, since using their trademark for criticism is protected.
Spitfire Pub? Really? They should've canceled the project for pure, simple lack of creativity. Some suggestions, blatantly stolen from responses on an MS blog: Foo Bar, the Status Bar, the Tool Bar, the Task Bar, the Information Bar, Hello World.
Trademarks are restricted to particular market segments.
In the US, at least, you are mistaken. I'm not a lawyer, but the Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006 makes it pretty clear that injunctive relief (as opposed to damages) does not rely upon competition within a market if the trademark has achieved certain requirements for fame:
Subject to the principles of equity, the owner of a famous mark that is distinctive, inherently or through acquired distinctiveness, shall be entitled to an injunction against another person who, at any time after the owner's mark has become famous, commences use of a mark or trade name in commerce that is likely to cause dilution by blurring or dilution by tarnishment of the famous mark, regardless of the presence or absence of actual or likely confusion, of competition, or of actual economic injury.
However, TDRA has a specific exclusion for criticism:
The following shall not be actionable as dilution by blurring or dilution by tarnishment under this subsection:
...(ii) identifying and parodying, criticizing, or commenting upon the famous mark owner or the goods or services of the famous mark owner
All it needs is some "anonymizing" P2P network to appear
Like the one mentioned in the summary, you mean?
The pictures seems to be taken near NYU ( Broadway and Waverly and WSP ).
The words seems to indicates that these was entirely done at WSP.
Is there any evidence of the author trying tougher challenges like union square or handling traffic lights?
My super-secret sources tell me that this was the first in a series and that you can be notified of upcoming missions (and new bot designs) by sending a note to a super-secret email address.