Question is... who decide if something is a parody or not?
Technically the courts do, but it should be us. To me Booble is a parody - it comments on Google's expansion ambitions and including more and more search tools. And it's funny. The fact that they might make a few bucks along the way is irrelevant, it's a parody nonetheless. And Google really sucks. They have a "famous" trademark, huh? I hope it becomes a generic name soon, those fuckers deserve it. Meanwhile I will google for everything I need at AllTheWeb, google for music on KaZaA, google for books on Amazon, google for movies on IMDB and right now I will go google for some snacks in my fridge.
Google really fell in my eyes, even more than they did after their DMCA fiasco... Altavista had much more dignity when they treated the domain owner with much more respect, while they were still at altavista.digital.com. And they didn't send C&D letters to AstaLaVista, a search engine for cracks.
Google sucks. Let's show them by turning "google" into a generic term! Use this word when you google for hot deal on eBay, google for information on AllTheWeb and google for porn at Booble (not that there is much porn to google for).:)
Yes, yes, yes, but why should it be illegal? Why are my consumer rights to use a porn-search engine with a name that I find funny should be trumped by Google's right to exclusive use of similar trademarks? I don't care if they make money or not, I don't care how much money they raise with their IPO, I don't care how expensive are their cars and how many bedrooms they have in their houses. They have some very good programmers, but as a corporation (not technically a corporation yet) they are just as greedy and evil as any other (except for MS and COS).
Well, searching is great when done right, like at Cat List. I tried Booble, but was disappointed, since it apparently only finds you a few paysites even for some common words. May be there is something there, but to me the best part of Booble is th? Google parody part, not the actual search.
I would be really disappointed if I didn't knew better.:) The very same thing happens all the time. When cornered, people like you tend to pretend (or do they actually deceive themselves to feel that way) they are no longer interested. Face it, there is simply no other way for you to finish the debate while saving the face (admitting you were wrong is not an option for a stupid person). I've seen it a lot and you won't fool me.:)
As for the Google, well, you proved you are stupid a long time ago, but I will still explain. There is no reason for me to equally condemn Google in a very different situation. When MS was fighting Lindows I was quite tolerant to MS as well. Unlike you, I do not have allegiance to companies or brandnames, I try to judge their specific actions in specific circumstances.
P.S. Anyway, that was fun (in a perverted way) and somewhat useful. The only question that I still have is whether you are just pretending to have won the debate or you are retarded enough to honestly believe that.:)
Apparently, according to MS lawyers the use of MikeRoweSoft.com was. Again, it matters not what you or I think, the legal experts think so.
I thought so - you didn't do what I asked. I ask you again, please name JUST ONE product or service, which "Microsoft" stands greater-than-zero chances becoming a generic name for. Just name a product, such as "fresh apples are a product that Microsoft may become a generic name for" or a service, such as "helping old ladies cross the street is a service that Microsoft may become a generic name for". As simple as that, just name one, don't jump around pretending that some irrelevant quote are an answer.
What do you think of this?: Google Tells Booble to Cease and Desist. Is this the 'Evil' Google suing? First, in this case there is actual "competition", since Booble is a search engine. Second, Booble is a parody and so is somewhat protected. And third, yes, Google is quite "evil", like any monopoly, although not as evil as Microsoft. I use AllTheWeb, since it doesn'tfilter my search results. And fourth, they are specifically evil for overzealously protecting their trademark, including trying to spot "google" becoming a generic verb (but at least they have some point here, unlike MS, because "google" might actually turn into a generic name for "do an Internet search").
"it becomes generic name for a product or service" is what the MS lawyers are concerned with. It doesn't matter what you and your finely tuned 'reasoning' skills think.
Oh, thanks for the easy one. Now could you please name JUST ONE product or service, which "Microsoft" stands greater-than-zero chances becoming a generic name for?
Your continued attempt to personalize this debate are pathetic. Continue giving it a shot at explaining to poor, little non-reasoning me. I enjoy watching a person who is so ate up with hatred flounder about.
It's easy to persuade a person who is open to different opinion, is willing to admit his mistakes, and ready to change his mind when proved wrong. But to finetune the reasoning skills one needs to become adept at explaining things to and persuading intellectually challenged as well.
They used an open (if not common) format for their audio (sorry, does Ogg have DRM? No? Then Apple can't use it).
AFAIK (I am not a Mac/iTunes user), AAC iTunes uses is not DRMed. The.m4p (or whatever the extention is) is an encrypted containter for AAC audio files. That's what the Windows iTunes crack is based on - it intercepts the AAC files after they've been decrypted. So it didn't really matter to Apple what format to use - they could have used MP3. Obviously there were some factors they considered, but DRM doesn't seem to be one of them...
I really have to ask myself, is that author of the article smart? He bought a laptop he is not happy with because of faulty logic boards, but he feels he must use it instead of selling it on eBay and buying a Dell or Toshiba or IBM. He used OS X but managed not to write a single word about whether it is was good or bad. Now he is switching to Linux only to have an option of backing his laptop files to Linux box.
What is actually the point of all that? That he would like to run OS X on commodity PC hardware? I would like that too, but it's not happening yet. Other than that, I can't really see anything in that article about his needs, about his likes and dislikes about Apple OS X. Not a terribly informative reading...
Here is a quote from a great E2 writeup by wheloc:
The fun thing about bosons is that any collection of things which acts sortta like a particle, and who's spins sum to some integer value, will act like a boson. If, for example, you get two electrons traveling together and reduce their temperature sufficiently under the right conditions they will begin to act like a single particle. If one has a spin of +1/2 and the other has a spin of -1/2 then the composite "particle" will have a total spin of 0, effectively making it a boson (this special type of boson is called a "Cooper pair"). Fermions bump into each other, bosons do not. Resistance in a wire (as in Ohm's Law) is caused by electrons bumping into each other. If all the electrons form Cooper pairs then this no longer happens, and electricity can flow through a material much better. This is the principle behind superconductivity.
Apparently, what these guys did was closely related to forming Cooper pairs. When they found out other things related to this, we might be able to understand how to create these pairs at +25C. Right now one of the requirements seems to be to cool down the fermions, but if we find a way around...
First of all, let me just say that in some way they are correct, since we can expect their work to eventually have some practical applications. But this is not terribly relevant today. What is relevant is that scientists are forced by our society to lie about these uses to get public support and public funding. Read any press releas? and it will claim the invention/discovery will help fight terrorism, fight SARS, bring fusion to reality, save people from falling skyscrapers, save soldiers' lives in the battlefield, or at least create faster computers and more effective batteries.
Here is a relevant quote from the adorable Feynman:
I would like to add something that's not essential to the science, hut something I kind of believe, which is that you should not fool the layman when you're talking as a scientist. I am not trying to tell you what to do about cheating on your wife, or fooling your girlfriend, or something like that, when you're not trying to be a scientist, but just trying to be an ordinary human being. We'll leave those problems up to you and your rabbi. I'm talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you're maybe wrong, that you ought to have when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen.
For example, I was a little surprised when I was talking to a friend who was going to go on the radio. He does work on cosmology and astronomy, and he wondered how he would explain what the applications of this work were. "Well," I said, "there aren't any." He said, "Yes, hut then we won't get support for more research of this kind." I think that's kind of dishonest. If you're representing yourself as a scientist, then you should explain to the layman what you're doing--and if they don't want to support you under those circumstances, then that's their decision.
I pity you... Here, have another link. You seem to lack logic and reasoning skills and that causes an inability to realise that deficiency - a truly miserable sight. I, on the other hand, have higher than average reasoning skills, which, according to this paper, makes me overestimate the abilities of others and causes me to behave in such a way as if you were an intelligent person, capable of rational thought. Thus I will have another shot at explaining this to you.
According to Section 15 of Title I of Lanham (Trademark) Act (paragraph 1065 of Title 15 of the United States Code), the trademark used for 5 years is incontestable, except when
Microsoft stops using the trademark
someone at Microsoft screws up (miriads of irrelevant formalities, wrong registration, etc.)
it becomes generic name for a product or service
First case is unlikely, second case is completely irrelevant to Mike Rowe's case (you have to believe me, because I've actually read that law and because I am smarter than you), third case is completely unrealistic, because Microsoft does not describe any product in the first place, it's the name of the company. The dilution of the trademark has nothing whatsoever with losing it, in this case it only means that since Microsoft doesn't want anyone using names vaguely resembling its own and has a "famous" trademark, it must stop others from doing it. If they allow Mike to keep his domain name, they might have to allow "Nike Cross Soft" shoes, etc. In no case will they lose
the rights to the trademark
the right to prevent competitors from using it (even Mike, if he starts to compete)
the right to prevent anybody from using it if there is a likelihood of confusion
So to sum it up, the only reason for MS to attack Mike is that they keep the right to attack someone else next time without any compelling reason. Which is pretty pathetic and morally corrupt, if you ask me.
From your own link: "A trademark is protected when the law allows the mark owner to stop competitors from infringement by these confusingly similar marks."
Duh! Thank you, Captain Obvious. How come you didn't notice that this was the whole point - whether Mike was infringing on Microsoft trademark or not. But if you think that it somehow follows from this sentence that MS was in danger of losing the trademark, you are dangerously delusional. And if you also have memory problems, let me remind you that the topic we are discussing is whether the company can lose a trademark as a result of others using similar names or not.
Your attempt to personalize the debate by inquiring about my employment status is rather pathetic.
You might want to check out this ebay auction (and this one as well, while you are at it).
My question about your employment status just follows your derogatory remark about server room (actually it would only be derogatory if there was anything bad about working in a server room and if I actually worked there - none of these requirements is met). Apparently, that was too subtle for you.
Now go away and come back when you can come up with something better than a lame-ass wiki link that does more to prove my point than your own.
Could you point me to the part of the HTML specification dedicated to NON-LAME-ASS links?
Your point ("if a company does not actively protect it's trademarks and tradenames then it can actually lose the legal right to them") was disproved in every post I made in this thread. I think it is you who should find some proof instead of throwing insults left and right. Or may be you should quit your well-paid job and actually get some basic education. Or ask one of your kids to read my posts and explain to you in very simple terms why you are wrong.
I can't be wasting your time, since I am not forcing you to read Slashdot or my comment specifically. You are wasting your time yourself. As for the facts, I've already gave you a plenty, but here are some more:
The worst thing that could happen if Microsoft doesn't effectively enforce its trademark is losing the "famous" status, which grants them a protection from dilition, which in turn gives them a right to sue everyone for using a similar looking/sounding trademark.
Microsoft is happy to not have anyone in the world (except for some underwear manufacturer) using similar name and wants this to continue. Stupid trademark law allows them to do that, but obviously, in order to retain the exclusivity they need to sue left and right.
This has NOTHING WHATSOEVER IN COMMON with losing the trademark itself. They can only lose the trademark if Microsoft becomes a generic term for something, e.g. if people start using this name for crappy software in general ("this version of Mozilla browser is so Microsoft" or "my students can't write anything but Microsoft code"). Or if MS itself stops using it for a few years, of course.
The comment about fighting stupidity was clearly intended as a joke. The fact that you were unable to understand hints at your lack of humour, not at me being an arrogant prick. And probably at you being insecure, since you obviously need to pick on others and call people names in order to feel better about yourself.
As for my ego, I just checked an it is completely fine, no pity needed. It just seems that you overestimate your ability to hurt others, among other things.:)
You may repeat that Microsoft was protecting its trademark a million times right now. The only outcome would be Slashdot blocking your IP for spamming, it won't make your argument (or whatever you are trying to masquerade as an argument) stronger. Although it looks like an exercise in futility, I kindly recomment you to reread my post, the relevant laws (or legal opinions) you were trying to quote, and some articles on Mike Rowe's case. It happens sometimes that intensive thinking about a particular problem may lead to surprising insights. It can happen with you as well, try it.
P.S. May I politely ask you about your qualifications in law and business? Judging from your previous derogatory comment about server rooms, you appear to be a supervisor or a middle-level manager, am I correct?
In my own world, I have successfully switched my Mom, my Dad, my Sister, and my Aunt to Mozilla. I consider that a major accomplishment for the cause.
You no more "switched" them than MS "switched" Internet users from Netscape to IE. You forced them to use a different product because you have unfair leverage in that particular computing environment.:) Just the same way I forced my relatives to use Opera and The Bat! (e-mail).
I don't know about Spain, but here in Russia most plains carry extremely realistic and detailed maps of terrain (1:1 scale), updated in real-time. The only drawback appears to be portability.
Perhaps if you valued opinions of others as something other than an opportunity to insult them, you would notice the point I was making. I admit that the sentence was ambiguous, but I meant that others using similar names can't lead to losing a trademark, not that a trademark can't be lost at all. Hopefully with this confusion cleared up you are better intellectually equipped to understand my original post. Go back to rereading it and try to understand how your quotations of "world's best legal scholars" are completely irrelevant to the Mike Rowe's case.
Well, you just managed to write a post in 100% pure ASCII.:) Do the same with resume. Write a few paragraphs of text where you need them. Use bullet lists in other places, such as: - job history - education - specific skills
It always helps to have thousands of unemployed overqualified IT specialists desperate for any job somewhat related to computers. It also helps to have a sexy office and a popular blog.
But in other times and in other places his rants are irrelevant. A small management consultancy company I just left is desperate for new employees. The pay is nice, the working environment is nice. But there are simply not enough qualified people on the market. So every resume gets read, almost every candidate gets interviewed by phone and even people who don't speak English get a chance, even though proficiency in English is one of the prerequisites.
When you are a person (i.e. always) it's nice to have seller's market with labour.:) And it's also extremely nice leaving a life completely devoid of worries about unemployment, when the only reason for being unemployed is that you currently have other plans.
In this hypothetical case what is a problem with a bland resume, listing my achievements in photoshopping, and a link to my personal website where you can see the examples of my work? The real question again is: "Why do you need idiotic questions in the interview?"
Secondly, Microsoft HAS to protect their trademark... However, if MSFT's trademark was dilted in any way, or it is even perceivable that their trademark is being tested, MSFT is responsible (to their shareholders) to fight tooth and nail to preserve that trademark.
Sorry, you are an idiot, just like a few other hundreds idiots here on Slashdot and elsewhere who prefer to perpetrate misinformation instead of actually reading the relevant laws.
The trademark can only be diluted if the name Microsoft becomes generic for something, like elevator, walkman or kleenex. If you have at least an ounce of brain matter, you would realise this is impossible, since Microsoft doesn't really mean anything other then the company. Other MS brands, like Windows or DOS could be diluted, though, but MS-Windows and MS-DOS can't.
Having other companies use similar looking/sounding names for their products cannot dilute your trademark. It is impossible, the law is very clear and nowhere it says anything else. The only way to lose the trademark was described it in the above paragraph.
The only case when Microsoft (and its shareholders) migh lose anything is when a similar brand is used to promote competing products, like in Lindows case. But even if Mike starts selling his text editor at mikerowesoft.com, the only thing in danger will be Microsoft profits (not really), not Microsoft trademark.
Hope you feel smarter and more informed after reading this post.
It is now my mission to fight stupidity on Slashdot. But since fighting stupidity here is hopeless and therefore stupid, I will limit myself to debunking this common myth about the need to protect trademarks.
It's pretty simple, really. If you read the laws, you will find out that the only way to lose the trademark is for it to become a generic term, like walkman, kleenex, elevator, xerox (potentially), etc. It is COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE to lose a trademark because others are using similar names to promote their products.
If I start selling Cocain-Cola and nobody stops me, the world's most valuable trademark will not be invalidated. There might be some customer confusion and Coca-Cola might lose some money because of that, but their trademark is theirs to keep.
If, on the other hand, I start calling any cola drink "Coca-Cola" and ask all my buddies to do the same, Coca-Cola trademark will be diluted and eventually lost. In the latter case Coca-Cola lawyers should be frantically calling everyone and asking them not to use the term (threatening to sue).
So, in conclusion: 1) it is impossible for MS to lose their trademark because mikerowesoft.com is owned by Mike 2) Mike had the right to own the domain and use it in any way he wanted 3) MS sucks
Slashdot Mirror
Question is... who decide if something is a parody or not?
Technically the courts do, but it should be us. To me Booble is a parody - it comments on Google's expansion ambitions and including more and more search tools. And it's funny. The fact that they might make a few bucks along the way is irrelevant, it's a parody nonetheless. And Google really sucks. They have a "famous" trademark, huh? I hope it becomes a generic name soon, those fuckers deserve it. Meanwhile I will google for everything I need at AllTheWeb, google for music on KaZaA, google for books on Amazon, google for movies on IMDB and right now I will go google for some snacks in my fridge.
Google really fell in my eyes, even more than they did after their DMCA fiasco... Altavista had much more dignity when they treated the domain owner with much more respect, while they were still at altavista.digital.com. And they didn't send C&D letters to AstaLaVista, a search engine for cracks.
:)
Google sucks. Let's show them by turning "google" into a generic term! Use this word when you google for hot deal on eBay, google for information on AllTheWeb and google for porn at Booble (not that there is much porn to google for).
Yes, yes, yes, but why should it be illegal? Why are my consumer rights to use a porn-search engine with a name that I find funny should be trumped by Google's right to exclusive use of similar trademarks? I don't care if they make money or not, I don't care how much money they raise with their IPO, I don't care how expensive are their cars and how many bedrooms they have in their houses. They have some very good programmers, but as a corporation (not technically a corporation yet) they are just as greedy and evil as any other (except for MS and COS).
Well, searching is great when done right, like at Cat List. I tried Booble, but was disappointed, since it apparently only finds you a few paysites even for some common words. May be there is something there, but to me the best part of Booble is th? Google parody part, not the actual search.
I would be really disappointed if I didn't knew better. :) The very same thing happens all the time. When cornered, people like you tend to pretend (or do they actually deceive themselves to feel that way) they are no longer interested. Face it, there is simply no other way for you to finish the debate while saving the face (admitting you were wrong is not an option for a stupid person). I've seen it a lot and you won't fool me. :)
:)
As for the Google, well, you proved you are stupid a long time ago, but I will still explain. There is no reason for me to equally condemn Google in a very different situation. When MS was fighting Lindows I was quite tolerant to MS as well. Unlike you, I do not have allegiance to companies or brandnames, I try to judge their specific actions in specific circumstances.
P.S. Anyway, that was fun (in a perverted way) and somewhat useful. The only question that I still have is whether you are just pretending to have won the debate or you are retarded enough to honestly believe that.
Apparently, according to MS lawyers the use of MikeRoweSoft.com was. Again, it matters not what you or I think, the legal experts think so.
I thought so - you didn't do what I asked. I ask you again, please name JUST ONE product or service, which "Microsoft" stands greater-than-zero chances becoming a generic name for. Just name a product, such as "fresh apples are a product that Microsoft may become a generic name for" or a service, such as "helping old ladies cross the street is a service that Microsoft may become a generic name for". As simple as that, just name one, don't jump around pretending that some irrelevant quote are an answer.
What do you think of this?: Google Tells Booble to Cease and Desist. Is this the 'Evil' Google suing?
First, in this case there is actual "competition", since Booble is a search engine. Second, Booble is a parody and so is somewhat protected. And third, yes, Google is quite "evil", like any monopoly, although not as evil as Microsoft. I use AllTheWeb, since it doesn't filter my search results. And fourth, they are specifically evil for overzealously protecting their trademark, including trying to spot "google" becoming a generic verb (but at least they have some point here, unlike MS, because "google" might actually turn into a generic name for "do an Internet search").
"it becomes generic name for a product or service" is what the MS lawyers are concerned with. It doesn't matter what you and your finely tuned 'reasoning' skills think.
Oh, thanks for the easy one. Now could you please name JUST ONE product or service, which "Microsoft" stands greater-than-zero chances becoming a generic name for?
Your continued attempt to personalize this debate are pathetic. Continue giving it a shot at explaining to poor, little non-reasoning me. I enjoy watching a person who is so ate up with hatred flounder about.
It's easy to persuade a person who is open to different opinion, is willing to admit his mistakes, and ready to change his mind when proved wrong. But to finetune the reasoning skills one needs to become adept at explaining things to and persuading intellectually challenged as well.
They used an open (if not common) format for their audio (sorry, does Ogg have DRM? No? Then Apple can't use it).
.m4p (or whatever the extention is) is an encrypted containter for AAC audio files. That's what the Windows iTunes crack is based on - it intercepts the AAC files after they've been decrypted. So it didn't really matter to Apple what format to use - they could have used MP3. Obviously there were some factors they considered, but DRM doesn't seem to be one of them...
AFAIK (I am not a Mac/iTunes user), AAC iTunes uses is not DRMed. The
I really have to ask myself, is that author of the article smart? He bought a laptop he is not happy with because of faulty logic boards, but he feels he must use it instead of selling it on eBay and buying a Dell or Toshiba or IBM. He used OS X but managed not to write a single word about whether it is was good or bad. Now he is switching to Linux only to have an option of backing his laptop files to Linux box.
What is actually the point of all that? That he would like to run OS X on commodity PC hardware? I would like that too, but it's not happening yet. Other than that, I can't really see anything in that article about his needs, about his likes and dislikes about Apple OS X. Not a terribly informative reading...
Apparently, what these guys did was closely related to forming Cooper pairs. When they found out other things related to this, we might be able to understand how to create these pairs at +25C. Right now one of the requirements seems to be to cool down the fermions, but if we find a way around...
Here is a relevant quote from the adorable Feynman:
I pity you... Here, have another link. You seem to lack logic and reasoning skills and that causes an inability to realise that deficiency - a truly miserable sight. I, on the other hand, have higher than average reasoning skills, which, according to this paper, makes me overestimate the abilities of others and causes me to behave in such a way as if you were an intelligent person, capable of rational thought. Thus I will have another shot at explaining this to you.
According to Section 15 of Title I of Lanham (Trademark) Act (paragraph 1065 of Title 15 of the United States Code), the trademark used for 5 years is incontestable, except when
First case is unlikely, second case is completely irrelevant to Mike Rowe's case (you have to believe me, because I've actually read that law and because I am smarter than you), third case is completely unrealistic, because Microsoft does not describe any product in the first place, it's the name of the company. The dilution of the trademark has nothing whatsoever with losing it, in this case it only means that since Microsoft doesn't want anyone using names vaguely resembling its own and has a "famous" trademark, it must stop others from doing it. If they allow Mike to keep his domain name, they might have to allow "Nike Cross Soft" shoes, etc. In no case will they lose
So to sum it up, the only reason for MS to attack Mike is that they keep the right to attack someone else next time without any compelling reason. Which is pretty pathetic and morally corrupt, if you ask me.
And just in case you can find the Trademark Act yourself, here is the link: http://www.bitlaw.com/source/15usc/index.html
Please note that it is from the US Code and not the first page of some half-assed Google search.
Duh! Thank you, Captain Obvious. How come you didn't notice that this was the whole point - whether Mike was infringing on Microsoft trademark or not. But if you think that it somehow follows from this sentence that MS was in danger of losing the trademark, you are dangerously delusional. And if you also have memory problems, let me remind you that the topic we are discussing is whether the company can lose a trademark as a result of others using similar names or not.
You might want to check out this ebay auction (and this one as well, while you are at it).
My question about your employment status just follows your derogatory remark about server room (actually it would only be derogatory if there was anything bad about working in a server room and if I actually worked there - none of these requirements is met). Apparently, that was too subtle for you.
Could you point me to the part of the HTML specification dedicated to NON-LAME-ASS links?
Your point ("if a company does not actively protect it's trademarks and tradenames then it can actually lose the legal right to them") was disproved in every post I made in this thread. I think it is you who should find some proof instead of throwing insults left and right. Or may be you should quit your well-paid job and actually get some basic education. Or ask one of your kids to read my posts and explain to you in very simple terms why you are wrong.
I can't be wasting your time, since I am not forcing you to read Slashdot or my comment specifically. You are wasting your time yourself. As for the facts, I've already gave you a plenty, but here are some more:
i pedia.org/wiki/Trademark
The worst thing that could happen if Microsoft doesn't effectively enforce its trademark is losing the "famous" status, which grants them a protection from dilition, which in turn gives them a right to sue everyone for using a similar looking/sounding trademark.
Microsoft is happy to not have anyone in the world (except for some underwear manufacturer) using similar name and wants this to continue. Stupid trademark law allows them to do that, but obviously, in order to retain the exclusivity they need to sue left and right.
This has NOTHING WHATSOEVER IN COMMON with losing the trademark itself. They can only lose the trademark if Microsoft becomes a generic term for something, e.g. if people start using this name for crappy software in general ("this version of Mozilla browser is so Microsoft" or "my students can't write anything but Microsoft code"). Or if MS itself stops using it for a few years, of course.
http://www.visomark.com/process/
http://en.wik
Happy now? It's your turn to find (or will you choose to make up them?) some facts to back up your assertions.
And if you are not a manager, then who are you? Temporarily unemployed? Or what?
The comment about fighting stupidity was clearly intended as a joke. The fact that you were unable to understand hints at your lack of humour, not at me being an arrogant prick. And probably at you being insecure, since you obviously need to pick on others and call people names in order to feel better about yourself.
:)
As for my ego, I just checked an it is completely fine, no pity needed. It just seems that you overestimate your ability to hurt others, among other things.
You may repeat that Microsoft was protecting its trademark a million times right now. The only outcome would be Slashdot blocking your IP for spamming, it won't make your argument (or whatever you are trying to masquerade as an argument) stronger. Although it looks like an exercise in futility, I kindly recomment you to reread my post, the relevant laws (or legal opinions) you were trying to quote, and some articles on Mike Rowe's case. It happens sometimes that intensive thinking about a particular problem may lead to surprising insights. It can happen with you as well, try it.
P.S. May I politely ask you about your qualifications in law and business? Judging from your previous derogatory comment about server rooms, you appear to be a supervisor or a middle-level manager, am I correct?
In my own world, I have successfully switched my Mom, my Dad, my Sister, and my Aunt to Mozilla. I consider that a major accomplishment for the cause.
:) Just the same way I forced my relatives to use Opera and The Bat! (e-mail).
You no more "switched" them than MS "switched" Internet users from Netscape to IE. You forced them to use a different product because you have unfair leverage in that particular computing environment.
I don't know about Spain, but here in Russia most plains carry extremely realistic and detailed maps of terrain (1:1 scale), updated in real-time. The only drawback appears to be portability.
Perhaps if you valued opinions of others as something other than an opportunity to insult them, you would notice the point I was making. I admit that the sentence was ambiguous, but I meant that others using similar names can't lead to losing a trademark, not that a trademark can't be lost at all. Hopefully with this confusion cleared up you are better intellectually equipped to understand my original post. Go back to rereading it and try to understand how your quotations of "world's best legal scholars" are completely irrelevant to the Mike Rowe's case.
Well, you just managed to write a post in 100% pure ASCII. :) Do the same with resume. Write a few paragraphs of text where you need them. Use bullet lists in other places, such as:
- job history
- education
- specific skills
It always helps to have thousands of unemployed overqualified IT specialists desperate for any job somewhat related to computers. It also helps to have a sexy office and a popular blog.
:) And it's also extremely nice leaving a life completely devoid of worries about unemployment, when the only reason for being unemployed is that you currently have other plans.
But in other times and in other places his rants are irrelevant. A small management consultancy company I just left is desperate for new employees. The pay is nice, the working environment is nice. But there are simply not enough qualified people on the market. So every resume gets read, almost every candidate gets interviewed by phone and even people who don't speak English get a chance, even though proficiency in English is one of the prerequisites.
When you are a person (i.e. always) it's nice to have seller's market with labour.
In this hypothetical case what is a problem with a bland resume, listing my achievements in photoshopping, and a link to my personal website where you can see the examples of my work? The real question again is: "Why do you need idiotic questions in the interview?"
Secondly, Microsoft HAS to protect their trademark... However, if MSFT's trademark was dilted in any way, or it is even perceivable that their trademark is being tested, MSFT is responsible (to their shareholders) to fight tooth and nail to preserve that trademark.
Sorry, you are an idiot, just like a few other hundreds idiots here on Slashdot and elsewhere who prefer to perpetrate misinformation instead of actually reading the relevant laws.
The trademark can only be diluted if the name Microsoft becomes generic for something, like elevator, walkman or kleenex. If you have at least an ounce of brain matter, you would realise this is impossible, since Microsoft doesn't really mean anything other then the company. Other MS brands, like Windows or DOS could be diluted, though, but MS-Windows and MS-DOS can't.
Having other companies use similar looking/sounding names for their products cannot dilute your trademark. It is impossible, the law is very clear and nowhere it says anything else. The only way to lose the trademark was described it in the above paragraph.
The only case when Microsoft (and its shareholders) migh lose anything is when a similar brand is used to promote competing products, like in Lindows case. But even if Mike starts selling his text editor at mikerowesoft.com, the only thing in danger will be Microsoft profits (not really), not Microsoft trademark.
Hope you feel smarter and more informed after reading this post.
It is now my mission to fight stupidity on Slashdot. But since fighting stupidity here is hopeless and therefore stupid, I will limit myself to debunking this common myth about the need to protect trademarks.
It's pretty simple, really. If you read the laws, you will find out that the only way to lose the trademark is for it to become a generic term, like walkman, kleenex, elevator, xerox (potentially), etc. It is COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE to lose a trademark because others are using similar names to promote their products.
If I start selling Cocain-Cola and nobody stops me, the world's most valuable trademark will not be invalidated. There might be some customer confusion and Coca-Cola might lose some money because of that, but their trademark is theirs to keep.
If, on the other hand, I start calling any cola drink "Coca-Cola" and ask all my buddies to do the same, Coca-Cola trademark will be diluted and eventually lost. In the latter case Coca-Cola lawyers should be frantically calling everyone and asking them not to use the term (threatening to sue).
So, in conclusion:
1) it is impossible for MS to lose their trademark because mikerowesoft.com is owned by Mike
2) Mike had the right to own the domain and use it in any way he wanted
3) MS sucks
What can the average person do to promote constructive change in the US patent system?
First you get a truck full of explosives...
Other tips
P.S. Terrorism is free speech.
You don't like Elves in Helm's Deep? Check the Purist Edit out, you might like it.