For comparison, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo cost almost the same amount of money, and didn't include any military hardware (where $10k probably gets you a spork and some beans, never mind a bomb suit) or internationally known talent. The Hurt Locker is a low-budget movie by international standards.
Hollywood accounting. Y'see, after the upfront production costs, there's still a bunch of ancillary companies to be paid for their services, for marketing, PR, the DVD, Oscar promotion... Those companies belong to the production company itself, sure, but that all drains away money.
You'd be amazed at how few movies actually make a profit. It's incredible that Hollywood stays in business.
The assumption is that you'll leave one charger plate sitting out in your house, and use all your Qi-based gadgets with it. One charger for you and your visitors, no fiddling with plugs, no misplacing the charger, great. The big hurdle is that they'll need a lot of adoption before people find themselves in that scenario. In the interim it's just a big expensive charger for that one big expensive thing you own that works with it, and unless they somehow push through that barrier it'll never sell.
It's opt-in, sadly. More here. I've also noticed that if you log in from a new geographical location, it forces you to go through an authentication process from a browser. It won't allow any API use from the new location until that's complete.
It's nuts. They've set it up so that the "B" plug is mechanically incompatible with the older system, but the "A" plug works fine. They should've made the "A" plug incompatible too. Then if you could connect two devices with a USB 3.0 cable, they would have to be USB 3.0 capable devices, which would be quite a good way of letting the user know whether they'll get the faster speeds.
That term's annoying because it's trivially true and means nothing. All technological changes are quantised. You don't get a continuous change from the iPod Classic to the iPod Touch, outside of a Cronenberg-and-cheese-sandwich-induced nightmare.
Actually cursive is faster, because you seldom have to lift the pen. It's like the difference between touch-typing and hunt and peck. You can probably write perfectly acceptably with block letters, but to get up to proper speed, you need to stop lifting the pen up after every character.
What you're describing isn't autorun, but the XP-and-onwards "hey, there's new storage" prompt. While they're both annoying to some degree, Autorun executed any autorun.inf in the root of the new storage without prompting, making it a useful way of spreading viruses. The prompt you're referring to doesn't.
I don't think it'll even fly on the "letter of the law". It's clearly bullshit, inasmuch as claiming infringement on a substring of a trademark is an uphill battle, especially for common words. They're hoping to scare this site into a juicy settlement which will give them ammo for scaring further sites.
I've never had an issue with echo when using speakers and a mic for VOIP. I'm not sure whether it's a hardware or software solution, but speakerphones have been a solved problem for a long time now, especially beyond computers. Where machines exist that have that problem, sure, you'll need a headset, but I've never burdened myself with that sort of setup.
I wonder if that USB port can also be used for data. Depending on how accessible the port is, you could have some fun uploading other vids to the magazines before sneaking away.
The use of "TM" is not required, it's a courtesy. If you actually knew anything about the law on this issue you'd be aware of that. Reducing the likelihood of confusion is nice, but it's not going to make much of a different in a case as clear-cut as this, any more than releasing a Buzz Lightyear grill set without "Toy Story" on it would be.
They were perfectly happy to let him carry on his business under another name. Only one of his products ("Jedi Mouse") even has the mark on it. The burden to his business would've been negligible. How is that stifling?
"Passing off" doesn't require a strict demonstration of confusion where the mark is distinctive enough, and sufficiently strongly associated with a particular maker that there's no good-faith reason for anyone else to be using it. And your requirement that the products bear no other trademark has no legal basis either.
"I still don't see any evidence of LucasFilm using Jedi as a trademark in the classical sense"
Their repeated use of the word "Jedi" in naming products is the use of a trademark in the classical (by which I assume you mean common law) sense. I think what you mean is "I still don't see any evidence of LucasFilm using Jedi as a trademark in the sense that I have defined to allow me to win this argument".
I'd say that the trademark system needs turning around in some respects too. There's a disproportionately large burden of proof placed on supposed infringers, in comparison to the burden of proof placed on trademark holders at trademark registration, for example.
"Passing off" can occur without there needing to be a strict overlap of product type. All that's required is the implication that the product comes from a particular source. This is especially the case where the trademark is unique and only appears in language in connection to, as is the case with "Jedi", or would be the case with "Optimus Prime". Neither Lucas nor Hasbro needs to put out a branded range of snow shovels with that name for me to infringe on their trademark with my own line of spades, and it'd be pretty difficult for me to argue that I have a good faith reason to be using those names.
If you want something more substantiative, there's Mattel's licenced Star Wars mind-controlled "Force Trainer" toy. Clearly Lucasfilm thinks there's enough of a connection between moving objects with thoughts and Jedis' use of the Force to manipulate objects with thoughts, for them to put out an official licenced product on that premise.
They'd already negotiated a deal (stop using the mark over the next year, and we'll say no more), which this guy has flaunted. It's hard to see much bad faith on Lucasfilm's side here.
Slashdot Mirror
For comparison, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo cost almost the same amount of money, and didn't include any military hardware (where $10k probably gets you a spork and some beans, never mind a bomb suit) or internationally known talent. The Hurt Locker is a low-budget movie by international standards.
Hollywood accounting. Y'see, after the upfront production costs, there's still a bunch of ancillary companies to be paid for their services, for marketing, PR, the DVD, Oscar promotion... Those companies belong to the production company itself, sure, but that all drains away money.
You'd be amazed at how few movies actually make a profit. It's incredible that Hollywood stays in business.
The assumption is that you'll leave one charger plate sitting out in your house, and use all your Qi-based gadgets with it. One charger for you and your visitors, no fiddling with plugs, no misplacing the charger, great. The big hurdle is that they'll need a lot of adoption before people find themselves in that scenario. In the interim it's just a big expensive charger for that one big expensive thing you own that works with it, and unless they somehow push through that barrier it'll never sell.
It's opt-in, sadly. More here. I've also noticed that if you log in from a new geographical location, it forces you to go through an authentication process from a browser. It won't allow any API use from the new location until that's complete.
It's nuts. They've set it up so that the "B" plug is mechanically incompatible with the older system, but the "A" plug works fine. They should've made the "A" plug incompatible too. Then if you could connect two devices with a USB 3.0 cable, they would have to be USB 3.0 capable devices, which would be quite a good way of letting the user know whether they'll get the faster speeds.
One must always make an exception for Scott Bakula.
That term's annoying because it's trivially true and means nothing. All technological changes are quantised. You don't get a continuous change from the iPod Classic to the iPod Touch, outside of a Cronenberg-and-cheese-sandwich-induced nightmare.
Actually cursive is faster, because you seldom have to lift the pen. It's like the difference between touch-typing and hunt and peck. You can probably write perfectly acceptably with block letters, but to get up to proper speed, you need to stop lifting the pen up after every character.
What you're describing isn't autorun, but the XP-and-onwards "hey, there's new storage" prompt. While they're both annoying to some degree, Autorun executed any autorun.inf in the root of the new storage without prompting, making it a useful way of spreading viruses. The prompt you're referring to doesn't.
I don't think it'll even fly on the "letter of the law". It's clearly bullshit, inasmuch as claiming infringement on a substring of a trademark is an uphill battle, especially for common words. They're hoping to scare this site into a juicy settlement which will give them ammo for scaring further sites.
I've never had an issue with echo when using speakers and a mic for VOIP. I'm not sure whether it's a hardware or software solution, but speakerphones have been a solved problem for a long time now, especially beyond computers. Where machines exist that have that problem, sure, you'll need a headset, but I've never burdened myself with that sort of setup.
I wonder if that USB port can also be used for data. Depending on how accessible the port is, you could have some fun uploading other vids to the magazines before sneaking away.
It's actually only eight minutes longer. Over the whole running time, it strikes me as not a great reason to go back.
I know plenty of people who dislike the movie. People aren't "sheep", and brainlessness is as much as a turn-off as running time for many of them.
The use of "TM" is not required, it's a courtesy. If you actually knew anything about the law on this issue you'd be aware of that. Reducing the likelihood of confusion is nice, but it's not going to make much of a different in a case as clear-cut as this, any more than releasing a Buzz Lightyear grill set without "Toy Story" on it would be.
LucasFilm has fifty registered trademarks containing the word "Jedi", many of which are just the word "Jedi", most of which are still live.
No, I'm talking about "passing off". Google it.
They were perfectly happy to let him carry on his business under another name. Only one of his products ("Jedi Mouse") even has the mark on it. The burden to his business would've been negligible. How is that stifling?
"Passing off" doesn't require a strict demonstration of confusion where the mark is distinctive enough, and sufficiently strongly associated with a particular maker that there's no good-faith reason for anyone else to be using it. And your requirement that the products bear no other trademark has no legal basis either.
"I still don't see any evidence of LucasFilm using Jedi as a trademark in the classical sense"
Their repeated use of the word "Jedi" in naming products is the use of a trademark in the classical (by which I assume you mean common law) sense. I think what you mean is "I still don't see any evidence of LucasFilm using Jedi as a trademark in the sense that I have defined to allow me to win this argument".
I'd say that the trademark system needs turning around in some respects too. There's a disproportionately large burden of proof placed on supposed infringers, in comparison to the burden of proof placed on trademark holders at trademark registration, for example.
...connection to the brand, as is the case...
"Passing off" can occur without there needing to be a strict overlap of product type. All that's required is the implication that the product comes from a particular source. This is especially the case where the trademark is unique and only appears in language in connection to, as is the case with "Jedi", or would be the case with "Optimus Prime". Neither Lucas nor Hasbro needs to put out a branded range of snow shovels with that name for me to infringe on their trademark with my own line of spades, and it'd be pretty difficult for me to argue that I have a good faith reason to be using those names.
If you want something more substantiative, there's Mattel's licenced Star Wars mind-controlled "Force Trainer" toy. Clearly Lucasfilm thinks there's enough of a connection between moving objects with thoughts and Jedis' use of the Force to manipulate objects with thoughts, for them to put out an official licenced product on that premise.
Well, there's the licenced Star Wars brand mind-controlled toy, for a start.
They'd already negotiated a deal (stop using the mark over the next year, and we'll say no more), which this guy has flaunted. It's hard to see much bad faith on Lucasfilm's side here.