The parent implied that the Supreme Court should rule the law unconstitutional partly because its "what any sane person would want." My point was that it is not the duty of the court to rule based on what people want, or should have, but rather only on whether or not a law fits within the framework of the constitution.
Just because a law is bad does not make it unconstitutional. The Supreme Court cannot make laws, and allowing them to do so in cases we favor only grants them the power to do so in cases we don't. This is a fight that belongs in congress, not the courts.
And what is wrong with that? Are you telling me I can't have a car company named Axle just because its a part of a car? I fail to see the issue as trademarking my Axle brand doesn't stop other car manufacturers from including Axles in their car. Instead, it only stops them from naming their company Axle
Actually, their sole responsibility to is to maximize share price for their stockholders. They are under no obligation to issue dividends, in fact some shareholders would prefer the company keep and reinvest the money.
The idea is that by creating a space tourism industry companies will need to invest in the advancement of space technology to accomodate the tourism. The resulting advancement of space technology is needed to propel the world into space for non-tourism activities.
At least, that is what I think.
You completely miss the point of the lawsuit. The point isn't that people can share files. Despite the biased crap you read on slashdot, the RIAA does know that software companies can't be held responsible for the uninitentional use of their products. The distinction, however, is that these networks are designed specifically with the intent to facilitate copyright infringement. Or atleast, so goes the RIAA's argument.
Pissing you off and infringing on your right to freely practice your own religion without fear of reprisal are two totally different things.
Re:Lets hope that the result is progress
on
Google v. Microsoft
·
· Score: 1
Ok... So you prove that Microsoft's current search engine is fair and comprehensive, and then you use that fact to argue their next one won't be? Makes perfect sense!
The argument that it is a generic term makes ense.
The argument that Windows shouldn't be trademarkable because it is an english word, on the other hand, is bullshit. Apple, Macintosh, Canon, Blizzard, American Airlines also use real english words. Should their trademarks be invalidated too? The point of trademarks are to prevent confusion within a particular industry. Microsoft's Windows trademark does not apply to other industries. Anderson Windows, for example, is not being sued by Microsoft. Therefor, I fail to see why more than one company should be allowed to use an english term in one industry. Are you telling me people wouldn't be confused if there were two camera companies named Canon? or two software companies named Blizzard?
now? I run the department and WILL NOT hire anyone that is certified, I only hire people with expierience.
That is fucked up. You won't hire someone because they have a certification? I can completely understand _ignoring_ certifications, but how the hell do certifications hurt someones qualifications? You know, it IS possible to have certications _and_ experience.
It almost sounds as if you're jealous and taking it out on everyone who managed to get a certification you couldn't.
I don't think they'll have much success with just IP addresses though.
Thats all they had to work with before and it seems to have worked for them. The only difference is now they have to issue a _real_ subpoena to ISPs instead of a bullshit DMCA one
Slashdot Mirror
The parent implied that the Supreme Court should rule the law unconstitutional partly because its "what any sane person would want." My point was that it is not the duty of the court to rule based on what people want, or should have, but rather only on whether or not a law fits within the framework of the constitution.
Just because a law is bad does not make it unconstitutional. The Supreme Court cannot make laws, and allowing them to do so in cases we favor only grants them the power to do so in cases we don't. This is a fight that belongs in congress, not the courts.
Um, how did they claim anything under penalty of purgery during the IBM trial when the trial hasn't even begun yet?
I'm pretty sure Mozilla named their browser Firebird because it closely resembled their previous name, Phoenix.
Microsofts days are numbered because IBM is trying to expand the number of people who can use Microsoft software? How can one argue with such logic?!
You can ask the FBI to investigate any cybercrime that has damages of, I believe, $5000 or more.
Excellent post! Why are you AC?
Hardly. Need I mention Eolas? You people seriously need to get over this whole 'The corporations rule the world' crap.
Or... Perhaps they've improved their code.
Read the NET act
Ironic? No. It is a coincidence, however..
And what is wrong with that? Are you telling me I can't have a car company named Axle just because its a part of a car? I fail to see the issue as trademarking my Axle brand doesn't stop other car manufacturers from including Axles in their car. Instead, it only stops them from naming their company Axle
As far as I recall it is Steve Jobs, not Apple, who bought Pixar from Lucas.
Actually, their sole responsibility to is to maximize share price for their stockholders. They are under no obligation to issue dividends, in fact some shareholders would prefer the company keep and reinvest the money.
The idea is that by creating a space tourism industry companies will need to invest in the advancement of space technology to accomodate the tourism. The resulting advancement of space technology is needed to propel the world into space for non-tourism activities. At least, that is what I think.
America wouldn't exist if the British were able to tell what clothes were in style so they could sell things people actually want? Please elaborate!
You completely miss the point of the lawsuit. The point isn't that people can share files. Despite the biased crap you read on slashdot, the RIAA does know that software companies can't be held responsible for the uninitentional use of their products. The distinction, however, is that these networks are designed specifically with the intent to facilitate copyright infringement. Or atleast, so goes the RIAA's argument.
They're still releasing PSX games (granted, not many) Exactly why backwards compatability was a bad idea for Sony, and a bad idea for Microsoft.
Monopolies are not illegal. Abusing monopolies are illegal.
Pissing you off and infringing on your right to freely practice your own religion without fear of reprisal are two totally different things.
Ok... So you prove that Microsoft's current search engine is fair and comprehensive, and then you use that fact to argue their next one won't be? Makes perfect sense!
The argument that it is a generic term makes ense. The argument that Windows shouldn't be trademarkable because it is an english word, on the other hand, is bullshit. Apple, Macintosh, Canon, Blizzard, American Airlines also use real english words. Should their trademarks be invalidated too? The point of trademarks are to prevent confusion within a particular industry. Microsoft's Windows trademark does not apply to other industries. Anderson Windows, for example, is not being sued by Microsoft. Therefor, I fail to see why more than one company should be allowed to use an english term in one industry. Are you telling me people wouldn't be confused if there were two camera companies named Canon? or two software companies named Blizzard?
How do you suppose people are to download alternative browsers without a browser to begin with?
now? I run the department and WILL NOT hire anyone that is certified, I only hire people with expierience. That is fucked up. You won't hire someone because they have a certification? I can completely understand _ignoring_ certifications, but how the hell do certifications hurt someones qualifications? You know, it IS possible to have certications _and_ experience. It almost sounds as if you're jealous and taking it out on everyone who managed to get a certification you couldn't.
I don't think they'll have much success with just IP addresses though. Thats all they had to work with before and it seems to have worked for them. The only difference is now they have to issue a _real_ subpoena to ISPs instead of a bullshit DMCA one