Yes, you go right ahead and call your local police to inform them that you think your satellite provider is breaking the law by obeying a court order. They could probably use a good laugh.
You apparently only read the article summary, and not very well.
Apple has not threatened to sue Line6. The submitter of the article stated that Line6's "pod" products are older than the iPod, and that he associated the name "pod" with Line6.
There is exactly one occurence of the string "Line6" on the linked article page, and that's in a comment about how Line6 was using the term first.
Who the hell suggested that Apple was thinking about suing someone who was using a similar trademarked name before they were? They're warning people who started manufacturing similar devices with a similar name after Apple did in an attempt to create an assocation between the new product and Apple's wildly successful product in the minds of consumers.
Why would anyone assume that something that involves the government spending more money also involves taxpayers actually paying for it? We just need to raise the debt ceiling another trillion dollars and spend, spend, spend!
Oddly enough, the purpose of your bladder is to hold waste products, which are not generally reabsorbed into the bloodstream. I'd wager the short-term effects of toxins in the bladder wouldn't be too serious (and who cares about the long-term effects if you're planning to use those toxins to produce a large explosion?)
One can only wonder how long it will take some bright airport security guard to realize that blood is a liquid and insist that all passengers be cryonically frozen before boarding.
They could, but the government of France has no interest in eliminating copyright. If they did, why be sneaky about it at all? If they had the motives they'd need to have to do what you suggest, it would be far more logical to just abolish copyright altogether, or to abolish copyright on music or whatever content they deem no longer worthy of protection.
Their objection is not to DRM, but to Apple's sale of DRMed content that won't play on competitors' devices.
At the grocery store I use, they have a bunch of those lanes, and for some reason they decided to replace a couple of them with "express" self-checkout lanes featuring the annoying bagging area that can't tell if you've bagged something right.
Even if I have less than 12 items, I wait in line for the other lanes. It astounds me how they could be smart enough to install the only kind of self-checkout lane I've seen that actually works correctly most of the time, and then decide to switch some of those perfectly good lanes to the other, infinitely more annoying, type of self-checkout.
Like that's going to stop the ID people from harping on this.
"If theoretical physics can get some things wrong, it's exactly as likely that God built the entire universe as it is 6000 years ago as it is that we evolved over millions of years" sounds like a valid argument to these people.
I don't know much about the evolution of the formulas behind chemistry, but in high school physics when you study simple Newtonian mechanics the teacher will give you lots of algebraic formulas to memorize.
If you take a college physics course (and you're still doing simple Newtonian mechanics), you'll find that you're using calculus instead, because it works a lot better. You might conclude that physicists used to use algebra and refined it until they got calculus. You'd have it completely backwards. High schools use the "easy" formulas because they're easy, not because they're older.
Of course, as scientists gained knowledge and better instruments, they also learned that Newtonian mechanics is itself a gross simplification of reality, and that it stops working when you're dealing with things that are very small or moving very fast, but that's another issue altogether.
How is saying that something which is not the sharpest object ever made is 'sharp as a single atom tip formed by chemically assisted spatially controlled field evaporation' in any way "accurate"? I'd wager that the sharpness of whatever you're comparing is a lot closer to the sharpness of a tack than it is to a single atom tip.
They are awash with the ramblings of 17 year old conspiratists that believe they have a better understanding of things than someone with a degree in the subject.
Yeah, I didn't believe it when Marx used it to claim that Communism would inevitably arise through deterministic processes when the time was right, and I don't believe it now.
You have no idea what "obvious" means in the sense used in patent law.
The fact that everyone is doing something doesn't make it obvious, if they all started doing it after the person who patented it and showed them how it was done.
That said, when sixdegrees did it, this kind of social networking was innovative. And I don't believe for a second that the people at Friendster aren't aware of sixdegrees prior art or that they honestly believe they came up with an original idea.
I moved to cable originally to escape the damn ads, promising me that I would have them because I was paying for the cable TV already, but they lied.
Please provide some evidence that any cable company has ever promised that there would be no ads on cable TV?
Here's a hint: the earliest cable TV systems carried mostly broadcast channels, and were installed in areas with poor broadcast reception. The cable companies never stripped the commercials off those broadcast channels, nor did they ever promise to do so.
I don't think Xerox would be in any trouble, trademarkwise, if they accepted the usage of "xerox" as a verb to mean "to copy on a Xerox photocopier." The issue arises if they don't defend against the use of "xerox" as a noun to describe any photocopier and the use of "xerox" as a verb meaning to photocopy on a photocopier, including one not produced by Xerox.
Google's representative specifically says that the use of "to google" meaning "to use the Google search engine" is appropriate. You can bet that they'd have a problem if people started saying they were going to "google that on MSN."
How dare you attempt to bring an actual understanding of how patents work to a discussion of patents?!
This is Slashdot, where a patent on a device that cures every known type of cancer by pushing a button is obviously invalid because I had a device with a button on it YEARS ago.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, you go right ahead and call your local police to inform them that you think your satellite provider is breaking the law by obeying a court order. They could probably use a good laugh.
Apple has not threatened to sue Line6. The submitter of the article stated that Line6's "pod" products are older than the iPod, and that he associated the name "pod" with Line6.
There is exactly one occurence of the string "Line6" on the linked article page, and that's in a comment about how Line6 was using the term first.
We can just build a new moon. With blackjack. And hookers.
Line 6 isn't worried about all the consumers who really really wanted to buy their product getting confused and buying an iPod instead.
Who the hell suggested that Apple was thinking about suing someone who was using a similar trademarked name before they were? They're warning people who started manufacturing similar devices with a similar name after Apple did in an attempt to create an assocation between the new product and Apple's wildly successful product in the minds of consumers.
Why would anyone assume that something that involves the government spending more money also involves taxpayers actually paying for it? We just need to raise the debt ceiling another trillion dollars and spend, spend, spend!
Oddly enough, the purpose of your bladder is to hold waste products, which are not generally reabsorbed into the bloodstream. I'd wager the short-term effects of toxins in the bladder wouldn't be too serious (and who cares about the long-term effects if you're planning to use those toxins to produce a large explosion?)
One can only wonder how long it will take some bright airport security guard to realize that blood is a liquid and insist that all passengers be cryonically frozen before boarding.
Yeah, they're the new 20 minute commuter planes from the UK to the US.
My god, is it really too much to ask to read the first sentence in the summary?
Their objection is not to DRM, but to Apple's sale of DRMed content that won't play on competitors' devices.
Even if I have less than 12 items, I wait in line for the other lanes. It astounds me how they could be smart enough to install the only kind of self-checkout lane I've seen that actually works correctly most of the time, and then decide to switch some of those perfectly good lanes to the other, infinitely more annoying, type of self-checkout.
And two moderators further lowered the value of the network by modding up the broken link without clicking on it first.
And we've both lowered the value of the netowrk by posting offtopic comments.
I suspect this demostrates that the value of a network is closer to 1/n^2.
Like that's going to stop the ID people from harping on this.
"If theoretical physics can get some things wrong, it's exactly as likely that God built the entire universe as it is 6000 years ago as it is that we evolved over millions of years" sounds like a valid argument to these people.
If you take a college physics course (and you're still doing simple Newtonian mechanics), you'll find that you're using calculus instead, because it works a lot better. You might conclude that physicists used to use algebra and refined it until they got calculus. You'd have it completely backwards. High schools use the "easy" formulas because they're easy, not because they're older.
Of course, as scientists gained knowledge and better instruments, they also learned that Newtonian mechanics is itself a gross simplification of reality, and that it stops working when you're dealing with things that are very small or moving very fast, but that's another issue altogether.
(1) is true, it means we're entering that sort of post-Einsteinian "What the hell's going on here" phase in science
Been there, done that, got the quantum mechanics.
How is saying that something which is not the sharpest object ever made is 'sharp as a single atom tip formed by chemically assisted spatially controlled field evaporation' in any way "accurate"? I'd wager that the sharpness of whatever you're comparing is a lot closer to the sharpness of a tack than it is to a single atom tip.
They are awash with the ramblings of 17 year old conspiratists that believe they have a better understanding of things than someone with a degree in the subject.
Wait, were we talking about MySpace or wikipedia?
Well, aren't we 'oity-toity?
Ah, Hegelian metaphysics.
Yeah, I didn't believe it when Marx used it to claim that Communism would inevitably arise through deterministic processes when the time was right, and I don't believe it now.
You have no idea what "obvious" means in the sense used in patent law.
The fact that everyone is doing something doesn't make it obvious, if they all started doing it after the person who patented it and showed them how it was done.
That said, when sixdegrees did it, this kind of social networking was innovative. And I don't believe for a second that the people at Friendster aren't aware of sixdegrees prior art or that they honestly believe they came up with an original idea.
I moved to cable originally to escape the damn ads, promising me that I would have them because I was paying for the cable TV already, but they lied.
Please provide some evidence that any cable company has ever promised that there would be no ads on cable TV?
Here's a hint: the earliest cable TV systems carried mostly broadcast channels, and were installed in areas with poor broadcast reception. The cable companies never stripped the commercials off those broadcast channels, nor did they ever promise to do so.
You're the only liar here.
Are you offering to sell me a copy of Linux without the GPL included?
I'm not a lawyer, but I think you might want to avoid posting evidence of your criminally infringing copyright violations in a public forum.
I don't think Xerox would be in any trouble, trademarkwise, if they accepted the usage of "xerox" as a verb to mean "to copy on a Xerox photocopier." The issue arises if they don't defend against the use of "xerox" as a noun to describe any photocopier and the use of "xerox" as a verb meaning to photocopy on a photocopier, including one not produced by Xerox.
Google's representative specifically says that the use of "to google" meaning "to use the Google search engine" is appropriate. You can bet that they'd have a problem if people started saying they were going to "google that on MSN."
I still prefer the good old days of Web 19.
How dare you attempt to bring an actual understanding of how patents work to a discussion of patents?!
This is Slashdot, where a patent on a device that cures every known type of cancer by pushing a button is obviously invalid because I had a device with a button on it YEARS ago.