The "few people" statement seems like an awfully off-the-cuff remark with no facts to back it up. As he says, "CNN was indeed carrying the launch when the shuttle was destroyed...." CNN wasn't some local Wayne's World cable access channel. It started in 1980 and by 1985 was a major player in the news world. Most schools had it and were probably watching it due to the "first teacher in space" angle.
I switched a week ago to a new 12" PB. I owned an iBook a few years ago, but never really used it, unlike my PowerBook 5300cs years earlier. After so many years using Windows, I just got sick of it. Now I keep a cheap Dell server around for text sims and online poker.
As a patent attorney, I concur with your assessment that IP lawyers are God's gift to mankind. And I do have a liberal arts background along with my CS degree.
I'm looking at my new PB 12" and its Return/Enter combo key, its Page Up/Page Down keys, its Home/End keys, and its programmable F1-F12 keys, 3 of which activate Expose by default. Forward delete is handled by simply holding down the FN key while deleting. Perhaps you're referring to an old PB?
From the article: The $10 billion video game industry, which generates more revenue than Hollywood, has never released so many highly anticipated blockbuster titles in a single season.
So, by your logic, practically nobody goes to movies?
Sexual harassment is not a crime, so "charged" is inaccurate.
The reason companies try to stay on top of this is because they are the ones who get sued for a hostile work environment. The guy looking at the pr0n has shallow pockets.
Re:Convert friends - add top 10 reasons for FF her
on
Firefox 1.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
The "profit" thing is from an episode of South Park.
1. Steal underpants
2. ?
3. Profit!
I'd be happy to offer my opinions on the matters you raised.
Perhaps you can answer a question or two, re: Cease and Desist letters.
1) Why are they all written by someone with a chip on their shoulder, in such a threatening manner?
Many C&D letters are not threatening, and simply serve to notify the receiving party that they are using a mark in a manner which infringes the rights of our client. We lay out the relevant law, what we believe they are doing, and then ask them to rectify the solution. We need to give a date by which a response is expected, otherwise people would drag things out forever. I have used these types of letters many times, usually in the context of a likely innocent infringer (somebody who doesn't know they are doing something wrong).
These letters are rarely posted on the web, because they are boring. You hear about the agressive letters because they get a reaction, and that is generally why they are phrased as they are: they are intended to generate a reaction (see my earlier comment about dragging things out forever). Also, most attorneys are aggressive by nature and have learned things from people who are similarly aggressive. Another reason is because high-profile clients who are paying big bucks to a big firm like to see snappy letters.
Can lawyers be disbarred for telling you (on behalf of their clients) that something you're doing that is legal, isn't?
Well, what is legal is never black and white, although lawyers are paid to see things that way. If the law were so clear, there would be no need for lawyers. There are multiple sides to every story. We are paid to represent our clients zealously, and that includes taking all possible interpretations of law and fact in a light which most benefits our client. Privately, we may tell the client one thing, but there is no obligation to tell the other side any of our misgivings about our case. So, that is a long way of saying, "almost never."
With the case of the daycare using Disney's characters in a non-advertising context, why didn't Disney simply offer to license the appropriate rights to make the mural acceptable?
I am not familiar with this case, but perhaps Disney did make such an offer. Maybe Disney's terms weren't acceptable to the other side. Maybe a Disney lawyer was having a bad day. Who knows? Licensing of the sort you describe happens every day. Many firms and lawyers are able to resolve most conflicts in a more genteel manner than the ones your describe, but there are always some cases that get nasty. Some firms have a reputation for being nasty, and they get some clients because of it. Under the circumstances you describe, I agree that Disney seemed to drop the ball.
I hope I answered your questions. I'm always happy to answer any questions my fellow/. members have regarding intellectual property law.
Just in case any non-IP lawyers are interested: It is a basic tenet of trademark law that you must protect your mark from unauthorized use or run the risk of losing the right to exclude others from using the mark as a source indicator. Pick up a copy of Writer's Digest and look at the ads in the back. There are tons of ads from companies "reminding" writers not to use the companies' trademarks in a generic fashion. Most "cease & desist" letters are also meant as nothing more than to demonstrate that the mark owner is "policing" their mark. If necessary, these policing actions would be brought into court as evidence that a company had taken steps to prevent their mark from becoming generic and/or unprotectable.
Re:What I would appreciate as a customer...
on
eFax Hell?
·
· Score: 1
This is one of the most insightful comments I've seen at/. in a while. A business that went to this length to make up for a mistake would not lose my business; in fact, they would stand out from the crowd who just duck and cover.
It depends on your definition of "make." Courts can interpret existing laws in such a way as to basically create new laws. The legislature's only resort is to write another law expressly overturning a court's interpretation and clarifying the legislature's intent.
I tend to agree with your cynicism regarding Congress. However, as my original post dealt with legal matters, let me point out that "who wins" in court is often left up to a jury composed of citizens like you, not corporations.
This is obviously flamebait, but it is a good opportunity for me to follow the example of the DoJ lawyers and spread accurate information abour our current legal system.
Take patents, for example. The purpose of the patent laws is to ensure that the information does get to the public, after a reasonable time for the inventor to reap the rewards of his/her ingenuity (and rightly so).
Otherwise, the inventor(s) of life-saving drugs, for example, could choose never to reveal their secrets. This is what is called a "trade secret." The owner of a trade secret foregoes the legal protections granted by the patent system because they do not want to reveal their invention(s) to the public. The flip side is that the burden of keeping the secret is on them. If it gets out, then they are out of luck for the most part. This is why Coke, KFC, etc., have kept their secret formulas secret for so long.
Patent owners, on the other hand, have a legal monopoly on the subject of their patent for a limited time. In return for this limited monopoly, they make their "secrets" known to the public in the form of a patent. A patent is intended to be a document teaching the underlying invention to the reader. After the time period of the patent expires, anybody is free to use the patent to manufacture, etc. the underlying idea. If not for the patent system, we would not have generic pharmaceuticals. I wonder how much Tylenol would cost without them?
There are flaws in the system, of course, but it has served the U.S. and the world well up to this point.
Actually, many lawsuits are brought pro se by nonlawyers in both federal and state court. You will generally find that courts and the court system bend over backwards to assist these types of suits, often excusing procedural and substantive gaffes that would be sanctioned if a lawyer committed them.
The law does protect the man on the street for the most part, as long as that man or woman isn't a complete and utter idiot. Sometimes it protects them too, though.
As I have told many clients, anybody can sue anybody, it doesn't mean they will win.
Slashdot Mirror
The "few people" statement seems like an awfully off-the-cuff remark with no facts to back it up. As he says, "CNN was indeed carrying the launch when the shuttle was destroyed...." CNN wasn't some local Wayne's World cable access channel. It started in 1980 and by 1985 was a major player in the news world. Most schools had it and were probably watching it due to the "first teacher in space" angle.
Unfortunately, his opponent in the next election can back the Brinks truck up to Sony HQ at his convenience.
Don't forget the Newton. And the Cube.
I switched a week ago to a new 12" PB. I owned an iBook a few years ago, but never really used it, unlike my PowerBook 5300cs years earlier. After so many years using Windows, I just got sick of it. Now I keep a cheap Dell server around for text sims and online poker.
I am.
Ditto. Patent attorney.
As a "Qualified" patent attorney, I can say that everything you spewed is absolute bullshit. Legally speaking, of course.
As a patent attorney, I concur with your assessment that IP lawyers are God's gift to mankind. And I do have a liberal arts background along with my CS degree.
I'm looking at my new PB 12" and its Return/Enter combo key, its Page Up/Page Down keys, its Home/End keys, and its programmable F1-F12 keys, 3 of which activate Expose by default. Forward delete is handled by simply holding down the FN key while deleting. Perhaps you're referring to an old PB?
Here is the story of how they got that cloverleaf symbol.
I agree. Consoles provide me with all my gaming needs, except for text sims like Fast Break College Basketball, Front Office Football, and OOTP.
From the article: The $10 billion video game industry, which generates more revenue than Hollywood, has never released so many highly anticipated blockbuster titles in a single season.
So, by your logic, practically nobody goes to movies?
The reason companies try to stay on top of this is because they are the ones who get sued for a hostile work environment. The guy looking at the pr0n has shallow pockets.
The "profit" thing is from an episode of South Park. 1. Steal underpants 2. ? 3. Profit!
Hit CTRL+ to enlarge the text, then hit CTRL- to reduce it. Works every time for me.
Perhaps you can answer a question or two, re: Cease and Desist letters. 1) Why are they all written by someone with a chip on their shoulder, in such a threatening manner?
Many C&D letters are not threatening, and simply serve to notify the receiving party that they are using a mark in a manner which infringes the rights of our client. We lay out the relevant law, what we believe they are doing, and then ask them to rectify the solution. We need to give a date by which a response is expected, otherwise people would drag things out forever. I have used these types of letters many times, usually in the context of a likely innocent infringer (somebody who doesn't know they are doing something wrong).
These letters are rarely posted on the web, because they are boring. You hear about the agressive letters because they get a reaction, and that is generally why they are phrased as they are: they are intended to generate a reaction (see my earlier comment about dragging things out forever). Also, most attorneys are aggressive by nature and have learned things from people who are similarly aggressive. Another reason is because high-profile clients who are paying big bucks to a big firm like to see snappy letters.
Can lawyers be disbarred for telling you (on behalf of their clients) that something you're doing that is legal, isn't?
Well, what is legal is never black and white, although lawyers are paid to see things that way. If the law were so clear, there would be no need for lawyers. There are multiple sides to every story. We are paid to represent our clients zealously, and that includes taking all possible interpretations of law and fact in a light which most benefits our client. Privately, we may tell the client one thing, but there is no obligation to tell the other side any of our misgivings about our case. So, that is a long way of saying, "almost never."
With the case of the daycare using Disney's characters in a non-advertising context, why didn't Disney simply offer to license the appropriate rights to make the mural acceptable?
I am not familiar with this case, but perhaps Disney did make such an offer. Maybe Disney's terms weren't acceptable to the other side. Maybe a Disney lawyer was having a bad day. Who knows? Licensing of the sort you describe happens every day. Many firms and lawyers are able to resolve most conflicts in a more genteel manner than the ones your describe, but there are always some cases that get nasty. Some firms have a reputation for being nasty, and they get some clients because of it. Under the circumstances you describe, I agree that Disney seemed to drop the ball.
I hope I answered your questions. I'm always happy to answer any questions my fellow /. members have regarding intellectual property law.
Just in case any non-IP lawyers are interested: It is a basic tenet of trademark law that you must protect your mark from unauthorized use or run the risk of losing the right to exclude others from using the mark as a source indicator. Pick up a copy of Writer's Digest and look at the ads in the back. There are tons of ads from companies "reminding" writers not to use the companies' trademarks in a generic fashion. Most "cease & desist" letters are also meant as nothing more than to demonstrate that the mark owner is "policing" their mark. If necessary, these policing actions would be brought into court as evidence that a company had taken steps to prevent their mark from becoming generic and/or unprotectable.
As I posted above, take a look here.
Well, you'd be wrong about that.
This is one of the most insightful comments I've seen at /. in a while. A business that went to this length to make up for a mistake would not lose my business; in fact, they would stand out from the crowd who just duck and cover.
It depends on your definition of "make." Courts can interpret existing laws in such a way as to basically create new laws. The legislature's only resort is to write another law expressly overturning a court's interpretation and clarifying the legislature's intent.
I tend to agree with your cynicism regarding Congress. However, as my original post dealt with legal matters, let me point out that "who wins" in court is often left up to a jury composed of citizens like you, not corporations.
Take patents, for example. The purpose of the patent laws is to ensure that the information does get to the public, after a reasonable time for the inventor to reap the rewards of his/her ingenuity (and rightly so).
Otherwise, the inventor(s) of life-saving drugs, for example, could choose never to reveal their secrets. This is what is called a "trade secret." The owner of a trade secret foregoes the legal protections granted by the patent system because they do not want to reveal their invention(s) to the public. The flip side is that the burden of keeping the secret is on them. If it gets out, then they are out of luck for the most part. This is why Coke, KFC, etc., have kept their secret formulas secret for so long.
Patent owners, on the other hand, have a legal monopoly on the subject of their patent for a limited time. In return for this limited monopoly, they make their "secrets" known to the public in the form of a patent. A patent is intended to be a document teaching the underlying invention to the reader. After the time period of the patent expires, anybody is free to use the patent to manufacture, etc. the underlying idea. If not for the patent system, we would not have generic pharmaceuticals. I wonder how much Tylenol would cost without them?
There are flaws in the system, of course, but it has served the U.S. and the world well up to this point.
The law does protect the man on the street for the most part, as long as that man or woman isn't a complete and utter idiot. Sometimes it protects them too, though.
As I have told many clients, anybody can sue anybody, it doesn't mean they will win.