Oh please. You're telling me that you don't see a difference between the U.S. exerting it's power to protect an allied--yet controversial (to put it lightly)--democratic country
A few details here...
Not to invoke Godwin, but Hitler got to power through (ab)use of a democratic system. What is more, initially, he was seen by many as an ally against communism. Are you arguing that his regime should have been protected maybe? I believe the results of a policy of appeasement was bad enough already.
Iran is maybe not a democracy to western standards, but is way more democratic then most of the Islamic world, yet its a member of the axis of evil according to the USA.
The Palestinian territories have a verifiable democratic system even to western standards, how about them?
When Israel violates human rights and international law, they need to be dealt with, that there are others whom are worse does in no way change that.
and tyrannical regimes voting reciprocally to protect each other? The former is politics (maybe even dirty politics), the latter is a sick joke that parades itself as "international justice."
Given what I said above, and given that none of those tyranical regimes have any veto power in the security council, whereas the USA does, your argument is seriously flawed.
And yes, of course I do see the difference between say Israel and Sudan, no argument there, but BOTH should be dealt with, and if you don't deal with obvious and long standing issues because of protecting your friends then you also lose any right to demand that others are being dealt with. The actual severity of the issues is hardly relevant for that.
As things stand now, you would be able to sue the independent creator despite your work not have being distributed.
That is a good point, I can indeed sue.
However, it will be relatively easy for the independent author to show that she didn't copy or derive from my work, and I'll have a hard time showing that it is in fact my original work, so chances on actually winning the case aren't very big.
It's not important whether you never show it or give it to anyone else, because nothing you create will be so unique that some other individual won't eventually create something very similar to it.
That is a nice variation on the infinite number of monkeys randomly banging away on keyboards...
It is true given infinite time and people. In reality both time and people are limited.
In other words, while there is definitely a chance of someone else creating it instead, there is no guarantee whatsoever that it will actually happen.
There are many works of which the equal still has to be created, despite them having existed for hundreds or even thousands of years, and not just because they were already created. There have been many people that could not have been aware of the existance of those works (realize that for most of human history, long distance communications were virtually non existant, and where they existed they were very limited and slow), yet their equal was never created.
Hence there is some historic evidence suggesting that at least some works will be created only once.
This is also pretty easy to understand. A creative work is the product of its creator(s) and their circumstances. Chances on the exact same conditions repeating themselves are pretty low.
Of course the 'complexity' of the work and the amount of influence of circumstances on its creator(s) play quite some role in this.
By granting you a monopoly on a creation, copyright law prohibits others from expressing the idea behind your creation in same manner as you thus removing that expression from the public domain.
If copyright law would work, it would withhold my work from the public domain for a limited time, not remove it permanently. If I never ever show it to anyone, it won't enter the public domain at all.
Also, if you could prove that you came to the same expression completely independently, copyright law might very well not apply since you neither copied or derived from my work. This is pretty difficult if not impossible to show in most cases of course.
But what is your point? Anything I keep completely to myself never enters the public domain in any meaningful way, regardless of copyright because it does not become available to anyone. That someone else might create something similar at some point in time is not going to change that at all.
It's not a weak argument, it's simple fact. The federal government does not have the authority to supercede the Constitutional powers given to the states nor the people.
It is a weak argument first of all because that same federal government has done that a lot anyway. Using an argument only when it is convenient makes the argument pretty weak.
This isn't the same thing as a bilateral extradition agreement, where the crimes in question are committed in the jurisdictional context of another sovereign power. This is subjugating the rights of a U.S. citizen (not the U.S. government) to an international body in any context.
Too bad you are also citizens of a larger place called earth. You can refuse to be that, but you'll have to move off the planet first.
Beyond all that, if you want to see what kind of utterly ineffectual enforcement comes from an omnibus world government, take a gander at Iran and Darfour. Thank god we have the UN looking out for the little guy, let's expand the idea to interfere with our citizens' rights!!
That argument would hold if the USA and its "we are exempt from any rules" wasn't one of the major causes of that inefficiency (read carefully, I am NOT saying the only one)
With regards to Iran, if you are from the USA, you have to put in a lot of efford to get any proper information about Iran. For example, the USA and its policies regarding Iran are a very big factor in why Iran is what it is today.
This starts back in the days of the Sjah. The USA was a strong supporter of him, despite blatant human rights violations and oppression.
The result was the Islamic revolution and lots of bad feelings towards everyone who had supported the tirant.
We all know what this resulted in, occupation of the embasy and a hostage crisis.
That Iran has turned into one of the more democratic countries in the Islamic world is simply never ever mentioned in the USA, and rather then carefully supporting this, the USA has been calling Iran all kinds of things, thereby just confirming the already existing feelings in Iran that the USA is in fact an oppressor (or at least a big supporter of it).
Now, the Iranians have voted in a clown as president, but the USA is hardly in a position to comment on that, seeing their own president.
Last but not least, ever heard about the non-proliferation treaty? Ever figured out the ideas behind it?
The obvious idea is to limit nukes to the few countries that already had them before the treaty came into place.
The USA and European countries have ignored that with regards to those they regarded as friends (Israel) or usefull (Pakistan). It is no surprise that a country that feels threatened by those who have nukes will strive to obtain them as well. Do I think they should be allowed to? no. But I do believe that if you deal with them, you also have to deal with the others that have them despite that same 'holy' treaty, which means Israel, Pakistan and India (and obviously North Korea, but that is an entirely different issue)
That said, while I would not be surprised if Iran tries to develop nukes, there is no proof of that whatsoever, there are suspicions t best.
Also, while I don't think the current Pakistani government will go nuts and use nukes, there is a substantial danger of that country being overrun by islamic fundamentalists of a kind very similar to those who blew up the world trade center. For that simple reason removing nukes from Pakistan should have a much higher priority then Iran.
Welcome to the real world. Any country with power does this. There is no idealism in international politics.
And that makes it right?
Not to mention that no such country survives on the long term. Count on those who feel wronged to come get their revenge.
What are you gonna tell me next, that the countries that founded the UN hold a disproportionate amount of power in that body? Countries that already have nukes want to prevent those they dislike from gaining them? Say it ain't so!
Still doesn't make it right, rather, it is one of the root causes of the UN failing in many things.
Nope, I have to strenuously disagree. Copyright being automatic fosters the belief that it is some sort of natural right while the formalities of registration makes it clear that the protection is a contract with society.
I do not have to disclose what is in my head (at least in most cases). If I however publish whats in my head for the benefit of society, the contract is that for a certain time, I get some exclusive rights regarding what I published. That is the exact same social contract and no registration is required at all.
Registration serves an entirely different purpose, it makes sure that after expiration of copyright, a copy is available at the library of congress.
Term lengths are definitely a problem, but not nearly as large as the problem as authors believing that their works are not part of the public domain the moment they are created.
And those authors are quite correct in believing that. As long as I create something and never ever show or give it to anyone else, it is also not part of the public domain, at least not in any meaningfull way.
the ethnic Muslims that were the targets of the genocide were ethnic Albanians. its why I said that.
Good call there.
I don't think the Kroatians were tho, and it is quite unusual to refer to people from Bosnia as Albanians, but technically correct..
Now, if you want to call the Nuremberg trials an international court system(as was implied by the GP) then you would have to ignore the fact that no person put on trial was part of a country that signed such a treaty. as that was inferred by the GP, I merely said that as an international court, to say the US wanted to apply the rules for its own gains and benefits is a foolish thing to assert because there were no gains.
That is a very simplistic look at things.
The USA did not want to become involved in yet another world war in a few decades, and had a lot to gain by trying to impose justice because of that.
At any rate, I never claimed they did so purely for their own benefits and gains, but they did have no problem whatsoever forcing this onto a country, despite the fact that that country did never sign up to any treaties that created such a court.
Now, just as the US has forced others to comply with international laws, any country that wants to have some US person put on trial can force the US to do it in exactly the same way..... I'm not saying its fair to the little guy but then again, that wasn't the point of any of those institutions.
The point was to create a proper way of dealing with conflicts and prevent them from turning into wars. As soon as you make it unfair to (a very large) part of the world that will fail, and guess what, that is exactly what happened.
Hence, it definitely was the point of the UN at least to make it fair also for the small guys. The same applies to the ICC.
You would be a lot more correct when talking about the WTO or G8.
Which is what I'm trying to get at - Blair shouldn't be "dealt with" by his own country's justice system, as he hasn't really done anything criminal;
Hmm, so you are his judge then?
You believe he didn't do anything wrong, others believe he did. Without proof from either side, the answer to the question if he did anything criminal remains open, but we assume innocense.
I still believe that this is upto a judge to determine. It may well be that such charges will be dismissed on good grounds, and that would als be end of story. Seeing the controvery here I don't see anything wrong however wit the UK justice system dealing with this (note that dealing with doesn't mean that they must find him guilty, it mens they must properly handle the case to determine guilt or innocense)
Mugabe can't be, because he's a tyrannical dictator.
Tell that to mister Pinnochet (spelling?) or quite a few other dictators whoms reign ended before their life ended.
The UK (and the US) already have robust, mature and independent criminal justice systems...
Better then many places? sure. Anywhere near perfect? nope. Any guarantee that that will remain as good as it is? nope.
Are charges against mr. Bush and members of his government regarding possible war crimes ever going to be dealt with by the US justice system? I strongly doubt that, completely independent from how valid such charges might be.
This is a bit closer to the kind of situation where the ICC might become involved.
many LDCs and dictatorial regimes do not.
Just as a sidenote, the USA has been quite supportive of such governments for decades.. as long as they claim to be anti communism and nowadays anti terrorism. Goal justifies the means I guess..
The fear here, and I don't think it qualifies as FUD, is that placing the US under the influence of a system that could place both Blair and Mugabe in similar jeopardy (or worse, Blair but not Mugabe) would be immoral. I use the HRC as an example of how that could happen.
I believe you just argued that both places have a working justice system. Since the ICC only comes into play when that justice system fails to deal with such charges (note that deal can also mean that they are declared innocent, it means that it has to properly handle a case) I fail to see why this is not FUD.
As far as your point about the US veto and Israel: yes, the US is very protective of Israel, but I hesitate to put the Israelis on the same level as the other nations I mentioned. It's a matter of scale.
"Others are worse!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
That my friend is not a valid argument.
With regards to if Israel is in the same league or not, its simply irrelevant. Israel is in blatant violation of the UN founding charter to which they are a party, and to many resolutions telling them to comply, and as a consequence punitive action against them is justified by the rules they themselves agreed to (and that the USA agreed to as well, not to mention that the USA was one of the major players in creating those rules).
Others who also violate those rules will have to be dealt with as well, no exceptions.
The problem here is really that the USA accuses others of things that they do themselves, and try to keep themselves and their close friends immune from any punishment, while having no problem using military force on others to make them comply or punnish them.
That situation won't last forever, and by prolonging it and doing it very blatantly, the price for it will only become higher and higher.
As everyone can now see, signing the Berne Convention has brought nothing but trouble to the US. Before that the default was for works to be in the public domain and creators had to register for protection. And what really gets me is we did it at a time when creating an electronically searchable database of copyrighted works was becoming a real possibility. I have a great respect for the modern liberal ideals of Europe and would like to see the US incorporate many of them, but Berne is simply unforgivable.
The problem of the Berne convention is not automatic copyright. Automatic copyright protects small and individual producers and allows them to concentrate on creating content instead of being bogged down with formalities. It protects creators from their content being stolen (as in, a draft copy of a book being stolen for example) and published before they could register it and so on.
The real problem is that copyright lasts virtually forever, preventing works from entering the public domain.
because I'm sure the Jews in Europe, Chinese or Koreans in East asia, or the ethnic Albanians in Serbia would never call for some form of court to hold people to crimes. no, it was the US because the US had so much to gain in any of those circumstances.....
The USA and the USSR setup the Neurenburg trials, (imho rightfully) forcing those who were in charge of the Nazi regime to submit to it, eventho those people often acted in line with the laws and constitution of their country, which also never signed up to such an international trinunal or court.
It was not the jews, not the Cinese, not the Koreans, not even the gypsies doing this, they had no power to do so. They may have helped with ffiling charges, but the USA was most definitely one of the big players that forced tis situation with their military might.
With regards to Serbia, you seem to not know what those cases are about at all. Ever heard about Bosnia? Kroatia? Again it was the USA using its military ight to force Serbia to comply and extradite some of its leaders to face trial. Albanians did not play a role in this at all, rather, they are still involved in a conflict over if they live in a province of Serbia or in an independent country.
I am not at all saying the USA was wrong to do so. I am however saying that if they believe this can be forced onto others, they must accept that it can be forced onto them, and actually agreeing with the concept of international justice would indeed make their own actions a lot easier to justify.
The problem, of course, is that some one-third of the countries in the world are "free", according to Freedom House. This makes any international system subject to the concerted actions of blocs of undemocratic nations. Look at the UN Human Rights Commission, which has made almost all of its injunctions against Israel, rather than Sudan, Zimbabwe, Burma, or Uzbekistan - amongst others - which deserve far more criticism. Why? Because the OIC votes as a bloc to block (heh!) punitive measures against its members and affiliates, and to ram forward its own agendas.
Hmm.. you mean like how the USA uses its veto every time any kind of punitive action against Israel is proposed?
Pot, meet kettle.
The ICC would be subject to similar pressures - it wouldn't be Robert Mugabe standing trial, but Tony Blair (for example, and no matter what you think of Blair's decision to go along with the invasion, he's no Mugabe)
Robert Mugabe should and hopefully will be dealt with by his own people. Same for Tony Blair. And I fully agree that Mugabe is a criminal, while I don't see that as clearly with regards to Tony Blair.
What you ignore in your reasoning however is that as long as the UK deals with this itself, the ICC is effectively powerless.
- the U.S. fears frivolous accusations being given the weight of international law. We (the U.S.) should have no obligation to join an unjust international association just for the sake of being "international".
No, you should join it and help it being a real platform for justice.
So far there are absolutely no incidents regarding the ICC that suggest your fear holds any water, rather, the opposite seems true.
The ICC is relatively small and has a limited capacity. The risk of frivolous lawsuits actually being accepted by the ICC is virtually zero as a result.
At any rate, sorry to say, but your opinion doesn't seem to be based on actual facts, rather it seems based on what would properly be called FUD.
Now, if the argument would be to disqualify countries from filing charges at the ICC unless they meet certain criteria of proper and fair government, that would be an entirely different story.
Is it truly piracy when companies/people in China are basically emulating what the Chinese government teaches them? Heck, look at China's military, would they be anywhere close to where they are today without "piracy?" I think not.
If you would have said copying instead of piracy, your statement would have been a lot more to the point and actually somewhat insightfull.
Of course, it is exactly how the USA got to where it is now as well.
Maybe this is an entirely new idea for you, but virtually all progress of humanity is the result of copying eachother. Sure, there are truely new things invented or produced every now and then, and that is the real progress, but that could not happen if everyone was spending time reinventing the wheel over and over.
I believe this is a consequence of things like the Berne convention and automatic copyright.
Copyright has been 'automatic' for a long time in for example Europe, but not so in the USA, hence, for a long time to get your copyright recognized in the USA, you had to register it in the USA, else no copyright protection for you.
The other way around, US produced material has had copyright protection in Europe for a long time.
As a result, there was no problem for those in the USA 'pirating' productions from outside the USA since the automatic copyrights were simply not recognized, while things produed in the USA would be protected in for example Europe.
However if you say the world court has jurisdiction over US citizens, over the supreme court, then you are subjecting them to a court that doesn't recognise those rights. Not that they might not have a similar set, but the Constitution is pretty clear on this point.
There are a few problems with this reasoning.
First of all, if the USA deals with USA citizens commiting war crimes or the other things the ICC deals with, then the ICC never comes into play. It only becomes a problem when the USA refuses to deal with war crimes or similar commited by its own citizens.
The ICC is a last resort for those cases where countries refuse to deal with things themselves.
The USA (as usual according to many) has had no problem whatsoever forcing such things onto others (going back to at least the end ofWorld War II, and much more recently, Serbia).
So, again the USA wants to force things onto others, while being exempt from those things itself. What is more, they want to be able to let war criminals go unpunished if that comes in handy for whatever reason.
because of this, I find the constitutional argument a weak one at best, a theoretical argument that as long as the US justice system works properly will never ever become more then theoretical.
The grantparent is off-topic, just like your reply is. Wh?
The fact that the USA locks up people without due process and such does in no way change what the Chinese did and do. Its the "but but.. they are much worse!!" type of argument.
Following the same line of thought, your comment about what the Chinese did is of no relevance for determining the wrongdoing of the USA.
As a matter of fact, both of you make invalid arguments.
Copyright tends to work not by telling what "users" can do, but rather what they can't do (by giving those things as exclusive to the copyright holder). Everything else is not covered or regulated by copyright law.
Both provide exceptions to the exclusive rights of copyright owners, and by that also provide certain rights to owners of a copy.
This is for the USA.
In the EU, and for example in Canada, copyright grants certain rights to users either directly or indirectly that allow for making private copies of copyrighted works on media for which a levy has been payed.
I'm not very familiar with the laws of other parts of the world, but I bet that somewhat similar provisions exist in many places.
One can have a long argument over if those things are exceptions to exclusive rights or rights granted to others then the copyright holder, but effectively that is the same thing in this case.
Yeah, I never understood that. There is nothing about the display that forces it to be 30fps. Why can't it be automatically configured on the fly?
A 'multisync' display does exactly that. Note however that automatically syncing displays are relatively new when comppared to the NTSC standard, and I'd guess that this was initially simply not possible, and at any rate it is way more expensive to make.
With NTSC, the field rate is 60/1.001, which is based upon the cycle of alternating power in the USA. Usually we just say 60, and 60 fields/sec combine into 30 frames/sec. In the world of PAL/SECAN, the field rate is (usually) 50, which again is based on the cycle of alternating power (50hz in many countries)
480i and 1080i exist for somewhat similar reasons. initially, when ntsc and pal standards were set, electronics were not fast enough to display 60 (or 50) full frames/sec, but 60 (or 50) fields (so 30 or 25 full frames) was within reach.
The alternatives would have been to use 30 frames/sec progressive, but that causes a level of flicker that is visible to (almost) everyone.
The reason for 1080i is related to bandwidth use. I don't know the exact details, but the basic idea is the same. You save half the bandwidth, can use cheaper electronics, and at least untill recently, processing 1080p with consumer grade (read utterly cheap) electronics was not affordable.
Most modern ntsc displays undo the framerate conversion for movies and end up at 24 real frames/sec, each of which is displayed 3 times to give 72hz refresh rate. Many modern pal displays do something similar to end up at a 75 or 100 hz refresh rate.
Well, there are also countries that don't have a provision in copyright law at all for this situation, in which case you can only run it if you have a license specifically allowing that.
Copyright law is supposedly 'harmonized' among those who signed the Berne convention, but to me it seems that only aplies to things like how long it lasts and the automatic aspect of it, but not to the rights that users have.
I'm afraid that you'll have to deal with the laws of the country in which you are using the product (since automatic copyright applies and the work is protected, but your rigts as a user are based on local law)
EXCEPT that I think the issue Blizzard is really going to be trying is whether or not the RAM copy is infringing once you violate the ToS/EULA (and thereby void your license).
I believe Blizzard is arguing (like many software companies) that you never ever become owner of a copy of the software, rather, you buy a license to use. The copy in their idea never becomes your property.
Title 117 gives rights to the owner of a copy, and since (if we follow the reasoning of Blizzard and quite a few others) you never become the owner of said copy, you also don't have the rights granted in title 117.
Of course I believe this line of reasoning should be considered a loophole and be laughed out of court, but that is not going to happen.
A bit of history (sorry, I don't have the references at hand)
Before title 117 was introduced, it was unclear but thought likely that a copy of a program in ram in order to execute that program would infringe copyright (we get into the transient copy mess here that is nicely discussed in the article by Kirsten Mathews)
Because of this, a license to use was thought to be required for actually running software protected by copyright.
Title 117 was meant to address this, but if I remember correctly, congress actually discussed the issue of software licenses and how title 117 does not apply in many cases where a software usage license is used that does not transfer ownership, in other words, the 'loophole' was knowingly (and possibly even intentionally) left in place.
Bottomline, as long as you are actually the owner of (a copy of) the program, you do not need any special permission or license to run it. The intention seems to have been for software use licenses to go away, but sadly that never happened, they just got a lot worse.
If anyone recalls, there were people who insisted that you couldn't really tell the difference between a progressive and interlaced picture.
Well, provided that there is no temporal difference between both fields and they are combined properly, you can't.
What you can see is the difference between progressive and interlaced video, and even that is not always true, depending on content and the exact display you are using.
A 480i resolution picture is roughly 2 fields of 640x240, combined to 640x480. A 480p resolution picture is roughly 640x480
First problem with interlaced video is that the 2 fields that make up a frame do not always represent the exact same moment in time (video recorded with an old fashioned, natively interlaced camera for example). This would better be called 240p at double frame rate.
Second problem is sortof specific to NTSC and has to do with conversion of 24 frames/sec movies to 30/1.001 frames/sec video. The technique used for that results in tearing, which in turn results in visible artifacts.
Properly interlaced video (meaning that both fields that make up a frame do not have a temporal difference) that is displayed on a device that properly combines both fields before displaying them is identical to non-interlaced video, provided the field rate of the interlaced video is double the frame rate of the progressive video.
If they distribute unaltered binaries with source, that is no different than Novell distributing them (think: torrents).
For all I know this is correct.
If they make modifications of the source or binaries, they can't distribute them anyway, as that would infringe on Novell's trademarks (think: the recent issues with various linux distributions distributing modified versions of Firefox without changing the name/icons).
You cannot use the name or logo because it is no longer what the name and logo stand for. You can however distribute a renamed and modified version without any additional restrictions.
Or is it now illegal to download SuSE via torrent? (I really don't know. Is it available for purchase, only?)
They cannot both comply with the GPL and forbid you from redistributing it. They can however stop you from modifying it and representing it as the unmodified version.
The issue you are pointing at is that neither the name or the logo of firefox is covered by the GPL (same with for example Redhat, or even Debian). Possible cleartype code integrated or linked to a GPLed program however is covered by the GPL.
(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. -- Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or
(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.
If copying into RAM for the purpose of using the program is a reproduction or not is an interesting detail, but if it is a reproduction then it still is one explicitly allowed by law (just like there are some other cases of reproduction which while being a reproduction are still not a violation of copyright law)
The text you refered to is an interesting read, but is mostly stating that faulty defense is to blame for cases that have been lost over this. There are problems with title 117, esp. when looking at fixed disks and such, but the copying into RAM for the purpose of using a program is pretty clear I'd say.
The question is, with the Novell/MSFT deal, can SuSE (not openSuSE) now enable it at compile time?
Short answer, no.
Long answer:
When they do enable it at compile-time and distribute the result, then they are still bound by the GPL which means that anyone receiving those binaries has the right of getting the source code and distributing both binaries and source (including the patented technology in compiled form). While I am not familiar with all the details of this deal, I do believe that this is not the case. Since that would mean additional restrictions on top of the GPL, this would not be legal for Novell to do.
One thing that needs to be addressed here and that I overlooked in my previous reply..
Absolutely not. Trademarks don't go away just because your friends are all idiots who don't know that AIM refers to a proprietary system (for the record, I know no one who does that). They only go away if the company who owns the trademark stops enforcing it. Clearly AOL has not stopped enforcing theirs, as evidenced by this story. They don't have to sue each and every person who doesn't know the difference between different instant messaging tools.
* First, the continued validity of a trademark registration is dependent upon actual use of the trademark. In this sense, trademarks are not true property rights in that an express, or circumstantially proven, permanent intention to abandon the trademark is sufficient grounds to cancel a federal trademark registration.
* Trademark rights can also be lost through dilution. Dilution commonly occurs where competitors adopt very similar trademarks and the trademark holder takes no action to defend the mark.
* Another means of losing trademark rights occurs when the trademark becomes so identified with the particular, precise goods to the point where the mark loses its distinctiveness and instead becomes a generic descriptive term. An example most people are familiar with is aspirin, which was originally a trademark (owned by Bayer), but became so identified with acetylsalicylic acid tablets that it eventually turned into a generic term. Other companies are fighting to keep their trademarks from being found generic. These include Xerox ® for photocopiers.
So, there are 3 things that can invalidate a trademark instead of one as you claim.
As you can see, the first item listed is an issue for AOL because of them initially not actually using AIM to indentify their product. That AIM is an acronym of what they did use as their product name does not change that at all. THEY have to ACTIVELY use it.
What they are trying to prevent is item 2 from this list by getting gaim to change its name
What I refered to specifically, and what you seem to think is not true, is item 3 on this list.
Note that any of those 3 on its own is enough to make a trademark no longer enforcable, which means that even if AIM in itself is a valid trademark, there is good reason to assume that at least one and possibly two of those items are true in this case.
From that same FAQ:
# A Common Law Trademark (unregistered)- The first and easiest way to obtain a trademark, and unfortunately the most common way, is to do nothing--just adopt the name and use it in commerce. If it becomes distinctive, either to the business or the product, a common law trademark comes into existence. Generally speaking, common law trademarks are limited to those particular products to which they have become distinctive, in the limited geographic region where the goods or services are marketed. This type of trademark is the most limited, but does give the holder certain rights.
This could mean that gaim is a common law trademark and that aim is infringing on it.
Last but not least, most non technical users have no clue about proprietary systems, don't know that MSN, AIM and what not work differently under the cover. What they do know is that all of them are extremely similar and allow them to chat with others. For many people all of those systems are the same thing just with a different logo/packaging. Those who do know about the differences either have more technical knowledge or informed themselves about this due to having run into the consequences (hey, why can't I talk to blabla@yahoo.com, I have AIM installed )for that matter, more often
Regardless of the legal nitpicking of who came up with what first, this is a clear violation of the spirit of trademark law if not the law itself.
I don't know how much clearer I can make this. I am discussing the SPIRIT of the law, not the law itself. I'll leave that to the lawyers (who, since gaim eventually went along with the name change, probably agree with AOL). I have repeated that statement in virtually every post I've made. If you are too much of an idiot to read the posts you are responding to in the first place, well I really don't have any more time to waste on y
Spirit of the law is to prevent confusion among customers and deluting the value of a brand. It is specifically not preventing similarities or even identical names if such confusion does not occur.
That GAIM complied with a name change might just have to do with the fact that regardless of trademark law, AOL can make part of GAIM non-functional anytime they feel like it, and actually fighting this in court is expensive, a waste of time, and not something a non-profit project can afford easily. It in no way indicates that AOL is right.
Its quite telling that you have to call someone an idiot and some other things because of your own misunderstanding of the spirit as well as the details of trademark law. No, I'm not a lawyer, but my girlfriend is, and for various reasons we dealt with this thing a few times.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh please. You're telling me that you don't see a difference between the U.S. exerting it's power to protect an allied--yet controversial (to put it lightly)--democratic country
A few details here...
Not to invoke Godwin, but Hitler got to power through (ab)use of a democratic system. What is more, initially, he was seen by many as an ally against communism. Are you arguing that his regime should have been protected maybe? I believe the results of a policy of appeasement was bad enough already.
Iran is maybe not a democracy to western standards, but is way more democratic then most of the Islamic world, yet its a member of the axis of evil according to the USA.
The Palestinian territories have a verifiable democratic system even to western standards, how about them?
When Israel violates human rights and international law, they need to be dealt with, that there are others whom are worse does in no way change that.
and tyrannical regimes voting reciprocally to protect each other? The former is politics (maybe even dirty politics), the latter is a sick joke that parades itself as "international justice."
Given what I said above, and given that none of those tyranical regimes have any veto power in the security council, whereas the USA does, your argument is seriously flawed.
And yes, of course I do see the difference between say Israel and Sudan, no argument there, but BOTH should be dealt with, and if you don't deal with obvious and long standing issues because of protecting your friends then you also lose any right to demand that others are being dealt with. The actual severity of the issues is hardly relevant for that.
As things stand now, you would be able to sue the independent creator despite your work not have being distributed.
That is a good point, I can indeed sue.
However, it will be relatively easy for the independent author to show that she didn't copy or derive from my work, and I'll have a hard time showing that it is in fact my original work, so chances on actually winning the case aren't very big.
It's not important whether you never show it or give it to anyone else, because nothing you create will be so unique that some other individual won't eventually create something very similar to it.
That is a nice variation on the infinite number of monkeys randomly banging away on keyboards...
It is true given infinite time and people. In reality both time and people are limited.
In other words, while there is definitely a chance of someone else creating it instead, there is no guarantee whatsoever that it will actually happen.
There are many works of which the equal still has to be created, despite them having existed for hundreds or even thousands of years, and not just because they were already created. There have been many people that could not have been aware of the existance of those works (realize that for most of human history, long distance communications were virtually non existant, and where they existed they were very limited and slow), yet their equal was never created.
Hence there is some historic evidence suggesting that at least some works will be created only once.
This is also pretty easy to understand. A creative work is the product of its creator(s) and their circumstances. Chances on the exact same conditions repeating themselves are pretty low.
Of course the 'complexity' of the work and the amount of influence of circumstances on its creator(s) play quite some role in this.
By granting you a monopoly on a creation, copyright law prohibits others from expressing the idea behind your creation in same manner as you thus removing that expression from the public domain.
If copyright law would work, it would withhold my work from the public domain for a limited time, not remove it permanently. If I never ever show it to anyone, it won't enter the public domain at all.
Also, if you could prove that you came to the same expression completely independently, copyright law might very well not apply since you neither copied or derived from my work. This is pretty difficult if not impossible to show in most cases of course.
But what is your point? Anything I keep completely to myself never enters the public domain in any meaningful way, regardless of copyright because it does not become available to anyone. That someone else might create something similar at some point in time is not going to change that at all.
It's not a weak argument, it's simple fact. The federal government does not have the authority to supercede the Constitutional powers given to the states nor the people.
It is a weak argument first of all because that same federal government has done that a lot anyway. Using an argument only when it is convenient makes the argument pretty weak.
This isn't the same thing as a bilateral extradition agreement, where the crimes in question are committed in the jurisdictional context of another sovereign power. This is subjugating the rights of a U.S. citizen (not the U.S. government) to an international body in any context.
Too bad you are also citizens of a larger place called earth. You can refuse to be that, but you'll have to move off the planet first.
Beyond all that, if you want to see what kind of utterly ineffectual enforcement comes from an omnibus world government, take a gander at Iran and Darfour. Thank god we have the UN looking out for the little guy, let's expand the idea to interfere with our citizens' rights!!
That argument would hold if the USA and its "we are exempt from any rules" wasn't one of the major causes of that inefficiency (read carefully, I am NOT saying the only one)
With regards to Iran, if you are from the USA, you have to put in a lot of efford to get any proper information about Iran. For example, the USA and its policies regarding Iran are a very big factor in why Iran is what it is today.
This starts back in the days of the Sjah. The USA was a strong supporter of him, despite blatant human rights violations and oppression.
The result was the Islamic revolution and lots of bad feelings towards everyone who had supported the tirant.
We all know what this resulted in, occupation of the embasy and a hostage crisis.
That Iran has turned into one of the more democratic countries in the Islamic world is simply never ever mentioned in the USA, and rather then carefully supporting this, the USA has been calling Iran all kinds of things, thereby just confirming the already existing feelings in Iran that the USA is in fact an oppressor (or at least a big supporter of it).
Now, the Iranians have voted in a clown as president, but the USA is hardly in a position to comment on that, seeing their own president.
Last but not least, ever heard about the non-proliferation treaty? Ever figured out the ideas behind it?
The obvious idea is to limit nukes to the few countries that already had them before the treaty came into place.
The USA and European countries have ignored that with regards to those they regarded as friends (Israel) or usefull (Pakistan). It is no surprise that a country that feels threatened by those who have nukes will strive to obtain them as well. Do I think they should be allowed to? no. But I do believe that if you deal with them, you also have to deal with the others that have them despite that same 'holy' treaty, which means Israel, Pakistan and India (and obviously North Korea, but that is an entirely different issue)
That said, while I would not be surprised if Iran tries to develop nukes, there is no proof of that whatsoever, there are suspicions t best.
Also, while I don't think the current Pakistani government will go nuts and use nukes, there is a substantial danger of that country being overrun by islamic fundamentalists of a kind very similar to those who blew up the world trade center. For that simple reason removing nukes from Pakistan should have a much higher priority then Iran.
Welcome to the real world. Any country with power does this. There is no idealism in international politics.
And that makes it right?
Not to mention that no such country survives on the long term. Count on those who feel wronged to come get their revenge.
What are you gonna tell me next, that the countries that founded the UN hold a disproportionate amount of power in that body? Countries that already have nukes want to prevent those they dislike from gaining them? Say it ain't so!
Still doesn't make it right, rather, it is one of the root causes of the UN failing in many things.
Nope, I have to strenuously disagree. Copyright being automatic fosters the belief that it is some sort of natural right while the formalities of registration makes it clear that the protection is a contract with society.
I do not have to disclose what is in my head (at least in most cases). If I however publish whats in my head for the benefit of society, the contract is that for a certain time, I get some exclusive rights regarding what I published. That is the exact same social contract and no registration is required at all.
Registration serves an entirely different purpose, it makes sure that after expiration of copyright, a copy is available at the library of congress.
Term lengths are definitely a problem, but not nearly as large as the problem as authors believing that their works are not part of the public domain the moment they are created.
And those authors are quite correct in believing that. As long as I create something and never ever show or give it to anyone else, it is also not part of the public domain, at least not in any meaningfull way.
just so you know...
g enocide.htm
http://www.unitedhumanrights.org/Genocide/bosnia_
the ethnic Muslims that were the targets of the genocide were ethnic Albanians. its why I said that.
Good call there.
I don't think the Kroatians were tho, and it is quite unusual to refer to people from Bosnia as Albanians, but technically correct..
Now, if you want to call the Nuremberg trials an international court system(as was implied by the GP) then you would have to ignore the fact that no person put on trial was part of a country that signed such a treaty. as that was inferred by the GP, I merely said that as an international court, to say the US wanted to apply the rules for its own gains and benefits is a foolish thing to assert because there were no gains.
That is a very simplistic look at things.
The USA did not want to become involved in yet another world war in a few decades, and had a lot to gain by trying to impose justice because of that.
At any rate, I never claimed they did so purely for their own benefits and gains, but they did have no problem whatsoever forcing this onto a country, despite the fact that that country did never sign up to any treaties that created such a court.
Now, just as the US has forced others to comply with international laws, any country that wants to have some US person put on trial can force the US to do it in exactly the same way..... I'm not saying its fair to the little guy but then again, that wasn't the point of any of those institutions.
The point was to create a proper way of dealing with conflicts and prevent them from turning into wars. As soon as you make it unfair to (a very large) part of the world that will fail, and guess what, that is exactly what happened.
Hence, it definitely was the point of the UN at least to make it fair also for the small guys. The same applies to the ICC.
You would be a lot more correct when talking about the WTO or G8.
Which is what I'm trying to get at - Blair shouldn't be "dealt with" by his own country's justice system, as he hasn't really done anything criminal;
Hmm, so you are his judge then?
You believe he didn't do anything wrong, others believe he did. Without proof from either side, the answer to the question if he did anything criminal remains open, but we assume innocense.
I still believe that this is upto a judge to determine. It may well be that such charges will be dismissed on good grounds, and that would als be end of story. Seeing the controvery here I don't see anything wrong however wit the UK justice system dealing with this (note that dealing with doesn't mean that they must find him guilty, it mens they must properly handle the case to determine guilt or innocense)
Mugabe can't be, because he's a tyrannical dictator.
Tell that to mister Pinnochet (spelling?) or quite a few other dictators whoms reign ended before their life ended.
The UK (and the US) already have robust, mature and independent criminal justice systems...
Better then many places? sure. Anywhere near perfect? nope. Any guarantee that that will remain as good as it is? nope.
Are charges against mr. Bush and members of his government regarding possible war crimes ever going to be dealt with by the US justice system? I strongly doubt that, completely independent from how valid such charges might be.
This is a bit closer to the kind of situation where the ICC might become involved.
many LDCs and dictatorial regimes do not.
Just as a sidenote, the USA has been quite supportive of such governments for decades.. as long as they claim to be anti communism and nowadays anti terrorism. Goal justifies the means I guess..
The fear here, and I don't think it qualifies as FUD, is that placing the US under the influence of a system that could place both Blair and Mugabe in similar jeopardy (or worse, Blair but not Mugabe) would be immoral. I use the HRC as an example of how that could happen.
I believe you just argued that both places have a working justice system. Since the ICC only comes into play when that justice system fails to deal with such charges (note that deal can also mean that they are declared innocent, it means that it has to properly handle a case) I fail to see why this is not FUD.
As far as your point about the US veto and Israel: yes, the US is very protective of Israel, but I hesitate to put the Israelis on the same level as the other nations I mentioned. It's a matter of scale.
"Others are worse!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
That my friend is not a valid argument.
With regards to if Israel is in the same league or not, its simply irrelevant. Israel is in blatant violation of the UN founding charter to which they are a party, and to many resolutions telling them to comply, and as a consequence punitive action against them is justified by the rules they themselves agreed to (and that the USA agreed to as well, not to mention that the USA was one of the major players in creating those rules).
Others who also violate those rules will have to be dealt with as well, no exceptions.
The problem here is really that the USA accuses others of things that they do themselves, and try to keep themselves and their close friends immune from any punishment, while having no problem using military force on others to make them comply or punnish them.
That situation won't last forever, and by prolonging it and doing it very blatantly, the price for it will only become higher and higher.
As everyone can now see, signing the Berne Convention has brought nothing but trouble to the US. Before that the default was for works to be in the public domain and creators had to register for protection. And what really gets me is we did it at a time when creating an electronically searchable database of copyrighted works was becoming a real possibility. I have a great respect for the modern liberal ideals of Europe and would like to see the US incorporate many of them, but Berne is simply unforgivable.
The problem of the Berne convention is not automatic copyright. Automatic copyright protects small and individual producers and allows them to concentrate on creating content instead of being bogged down with formalities. It protects creators from their content being stolen (as in, a draft copy of a book being stolen for example) and published before they could register it and so on.
The real problem is that copyright lasts virtually forever, preventing works from entering the public domain.
I'm afraid your idea about history is a bit off..
because I'm sure the Jews in Europe, Chinese or Koreans in East asia, or the ethnic Albanians in Serbia would never call for some form of court to hold people to crimes. no, it was the US because the US had so much to gain in any of those circumstances.....
The USA and the USSR setup the Neurenburg trials, (imho rightfully) forcing those who were in charge of the Nazi regime to submit to it, eventho those people often acted in line with the laws and constitution of their country, which also never signed up to such an international trinunal or court.
It was not the jews, not the Cinese, not the Koreans, not even the gypsies doing this, they had no power to do so. They may have helped with ffiling charges, but the USA was most definitely one of the big players that forced tis situation with their military might.
With regards to Serbia, you seem to not know what those cases are about at all. Ever heard about Bosnia? Kroatia?
Again it was the USA using its military ight to force Serbia to comply and extradite some of its leaders to face trial.
Albanians did not play a role in this at all, rather, they are still involved in a conflict over if they live in a province of Serbia or in an independent country.
I am not at all saying the USA was wrong to do so. I am however saying that if they believe this can be forced onto others, they must accept that it can be forced onto them, and actually agreeing with the concept of international justice would indeed make their own actions a lot easier to justify.
The problem, of course, is that some one-third of the countries in the world are "free", according to Freedom House. This makes any international system subject to the concerted actions of blocs of undemocratic nations. Look at the UN Human Rights Commission, which has made almost all of its injunctions against Israel, rather than Sudan, Zimbabwe, Burma, or Uzbekistan - amongst others - which deserve far more criticism. Why? Because the OIC votes as a bloc to block (heh!) punitive measures against its members and affiliates, and to ram forward its own agendas.
Hmm.. you mean like how the USA uses its veto every time any kind of punitive action against Israel is proposed?
Pot, meet kettle.
The ICC would be subject to similar pressures - it wouldn't be Robert Mugabe standing trial, but Tony Blair (for example, and no matter what you think of Blair's decision to go along with the invasion, he's no Mugabe)
Robert Mugabe should and hopefully will be dealt with by his own people. Same for Tony Blair. And I fully agree that Mugabe is a criminal, while I don't see that as clearly with regards to Tony Blair.
What you ignore in your reasoning however is that as long as the UK deals with this itself, the ICC is effectively powerless.
- the U.S. fears frivolous accusations being given the weight of international law. We (the U.S.) should have no obligation to join an unjust international association just for the sake of being "international".
No, you should join it and help it being a real platform for justice.
So far there are absolutely no incidents regarding the ICC that suggest your fear holds any water, rather, the opposite seems true.
The ICC is relatively small and has a limited capacity. The risk of frivolous lawsuits actually being accepted by the ICC is virtually zero as a result.
At any rate, sorry to say, but your opinion doesn't seem to be based on actual facts, rather it seems based on what would properly be called FUD.
Now, if the argument would be to disqualify countries from filing charges at the ICC unless they meet certain criteria of proper and fair government, that would be an entirely different story.
Is it truly piracy when companies/people in China are basically emulating what the Chinese government teaches them? Heck, look at China's military, would they be anywhere close to where they are today without "piracy?" I think not.
If you would have said copying instead of piracy, your statement would have been a lot more to the point and actually somewhat insightfull.
Of course, it is exactly how the USA got to where it is now as well.
Maybe this is an entirely new idea for you, but virtually all progress of humanity is the result of copying eachother. Sure, there are truely new things invented or produced every now and then, and that is the real progress, but that could not happen if everyone was spending time reinventing the wheel over and over.
I believe this is a consequence of things like the Berne convention and automatic copyright.
Copyright has been 'automatic' for a long time in for example Europe, but not so in the USA, hence, for a long time to get your copyright recognized in the USA, you had to register it in the USA, else no copyright protection for you.
The other way around, US produced material has had copyright protection in Europe for a long time.
As a result, there was no problem for those in the USA 'pirating' productions from outside the USA since the automatic copyrights were simply not recognized, while things produed in the USA would be protected in for example Europe.
However if you say the world court has jurisdiction over US citizens, over the supreme court, then you are subjecting them to a court that doesn't recognise those rights. Not that they might not have a similar set, but the Constitution is pretty clear on this point.
There are a few problems with this reasoning.
First of all, if the USA deals with USA citizens commiting war crimes or the other things the ICC deals with, then the ICC never comes into play. It only becomes a problem when the USA refuses to deal with war crimes or similar commited by its own citizens.
The ICC is a last resort for those cases where countries refuse to deal with things themselves.
The USA (as usual according to many) has had no problem whatsoever forcing such things onto others (going back to at least the end ofWorld War II, and much more recently, Serbia).
So, again the USA wants to force things onto others, while being exempt from those things itself. What is more, they want to be able to let war criminals go unpunished if that comes in handy for whatever reason.
because of this, I find the constitutional argument a weak one at best, a theoretical argument that as long as the US justice system works properly will never ever become more then theoretical.
I nominate this kind of comment for automatic internet argument loss. Especially when coming from an AC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square_prot ests_of_1989
The grantparent is off-topic, just like your reply is. Wh?
The fact that the USA locks up people without due process and such does in no way change what the Chinese did and do. Its the "but but.. they are much worse!!" type of argument.
Following the same line of thought, your comment about what the Chinese did is of no relevance for determining the wrongdoing of the USA.
As a matter of fact, both of you make invalid arguments.
Copyright tends to work not by telling what "users" can do, but rather what they can't do (by giving those things as exclusive to the copyright holder). Everything else is not covered or regulated by copyright law.
"tends to", yes, but thats not the whole story.
The specific rights we were discussing are granted by http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#117 which is definitely part of copyright law in the USA.
Another nice example is fair-use.
Both provide exceptions to the exclusive rights of copyright owners, and by that also provide certain rights to owners of a copy.
This is for the USA.
In the EU, and for example in Canada, copyright grants certain rights to users either directly or indirectly that allow for making private copies of copyrighted works on media for which a levy has been payed.
I'm not very familiar with the laws of other parts of the world, but I bet that somewhat similar provisions exist in many places.
One can have a long argument over if those things are exceptions to exclusive rights or rights granted to others then the copyright holder, but effectively that is the same thing in this case.
Yeah, I never understood that. There is nothing about the display that forces it to be 30fps. Why can't it be automatically configured on the fly?
A 'multisync' display does exactly that. Note however that automatically syncing displays are relatively new when comppared to the NTSC standard, and I'd guess that this was initially simply not possible, and at any rate it is way more expensive to make.
With NTSC, the field rate is 60/1.001, which is based upon the cycle of alternating power in the USA. Usually we just say 60, and 60 fields/sec combine into 30 frames/sec. In the world of PAL/SECAN, the field rate is (usually) 50, which again is based on the cycle of alternating power (50hz in many countries)
480i and 1080i exist for somewhat similar reasons. initially, when ntsc and pal standards were set, electronics were not fast enough to display 60 (or 50) full frames/sec, but 60 (or 50) fields (so 30 or 25 full frames) was within reach.
The alternatives would have been to use 30 frames/sec progressive, but that causes a level of flicker that is visible to (almost) everyone.
The reason for 1080i is related to bandwidth use. I don't know the exact details, but the basic idea is the same. You save half the bandwidth, can use cheaper electronics, and at least untill recently, processing 1080p with consumer grade (read utterly cheap) electronics was not affordable.
Most modern ntsc displays undo the framerate conversion for movies and end up at 24 real frames/sec, each of which is displayed 3 times to give 72hz refresh rate. Many modern pal displays do something similar to end up at a 75 or 100 hz refresh rate.
Well, there are also countries that don't have a provision in copyright law at all for this situation, in which case you can only run it if you have a license specifically allowing that.
Copyright law is supposedly 'harmonized' among those who signed the Berne convention, but to me it seems that only aplies to things like how long it lasts and the automatic aspect of it, but not to the rights that users have.
I'm afraid that you'll have to deal with the laws of the country in which you are using the product (since automatic copyright applies and the work is protected, but your rigts as a user are based on local law)
EXCEPT that I think the issue Blizzard is really going to be trying is whether or not the RAM copy is infringing once you violate the ToS/EULA (and thereby void your license).
I believe Blizzard is arguing (like many software companies) that you never ever become owner of a copy of the software, rather, you buy a license to use. The copy in their idea never becomes your property.
Title 117 gives rights to the owner of a copy, and since (if we follow the reasoning of Blizzard and quite a few others) you never become the owner of said copy, you also don't have the rights granted in title 117.
Of course I believe this line of reasoning should be considered a loophole and be laughed out of court, but that is not going to happen.
A bit of history (sorry, I don't have the references at hand)
Before title 117 was introduced, it was unclear but thought likely that a copy of a program in ram in order to execute that program would infringe copyright (we get into the transient copy mess here that is nicely discussed in the article by Kirsten Mathews)
Because of this, a license to use was thought to be required for actually running software protected by copyright.
Title 117 was meant to address this, but if I remember correctly, congress actually discussed the issue of software licenses and how title 117 does not apply in many cases where a software usage license is used that does not transfer ownership, in other words, the 'loophole' was knowingly (and possibly even intentionally) left in place.
Bottomline, as long as you are actually the owner of (a copy of) the program, you do not need any special permission or license to run it. The intention seems to have been for software use licenses to go away, but sadly that never happened, they just got a lot worse.
If anyone recalls, there were people who insisted that you couldn't really tell the difference between a progressive and interlaced picture.
Well, provided that there is no temporal difference between both fields and they are combined properly, you can't.
What you can see is the difference between progressive and interlaced video, and even that is not always true, depending on content and the exact display you are using.
A 480i resolution picture is roughly 2 fields of 640x240, combined to 640x480.
A 480p resolution picture is roughly 640x480
First problem with interlaced video is that the 2 fields that make up a frame do not always represent the exact same moment in time (video recorded with an old fashioned, natively interlaced camera for example). This would better be called 240p at double frame rate.
Second problem is sortof specific to NTSC and has to do with conversion of 24 frames/sec movies to 30/1.001 frames/sec video. The technique used for that results in tearing, which in turn results in visible artifacts.
Properly interlaced video (meaning that both fields that make up a frame do not have a temporal difference) that is displayed on a device that properly combines both fields before displaying them is identical to non-interlaced video, provided the field rate of the interlaced video is double the frame rate of the progressive video.
If they distribute unaltered binaries with source, that is no different than Novell distributing them (think: torrents).
For all I know this is correct.
If they make modifications of the source or binaries, they can't distribute them anyway, as that would infringe on Novell's trademarks (think: the recent issues with various linux distributions distributing modified versions of Firefox without changing the name/icons).
You cannot use the name or logo because it is no longer what the name and logo stand for. You can however distribute a renamed and modified version without any additional restrictions.
Or is it now illegal to download SuSE via torrent? (I really don't know. Is it available for purchase, only?)
They cannot both comply with the GPL and forbid you from redistributing it. They can however stop you from modifying it and representing it as the unmodified version.
The issue you are pointing at is that neither the name or the logo of firefox is covered by the GPL (same with for example Redhat, or even Debian). Possible cleartype code integrated or linked to a GPLed program however is covered by the GPL.
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#117
Specifically:
(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. -- Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or
(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.
If copying into RAM for the purpose of using the program is a reproduction or not is an interesting detail, but if it is a reproduction then it still is one explicitly allowed by law (just like there are some other cases of reproduction which while being a reproduction are still not a violation of copyright law)
The text you refered to is an interesting read, but is mostly stating that faulty defense is to blame for cases that have been lost over this. There are problems with title 117, esp. when looking at fixed disks and such, but the copying into RAM for the purpose of using a program is pretty clear I'd say.
The question is, with the Novell/MSFT deal, can SuSE (not openSuSE) now enable it at compile time?
Short answer, no.
Long answer:
When they do enable it at compile-time and distribute the result, then they are still bound by the GPL which means that anyone receiving those binaries has the right of getting the source code and distributing both binaries and source (including the patented technology in compiled form). While I am not familiar with all the details of this deal, I do believe that this is not the case. Since that would mean additional restrictions on top of the GPL, this would not be legal for Novell to do.
Absolutely not. Trademarks don't go away just because your friends are all idiots who don't know that AIM refers to a proprietary system (for the record, I know no one who does that). They only go away if the company who owns the trademark stops enforcing it. Clearly AOL has not stopped enforcing theirs, as evidenced by this story. They don't have to sue each and every person who doesn't know the difference between different instant messaging tools.
From http://www.dykaslaw.com/trademark.html#rights
So, there are 3 things that can invalidate a trademark instead of one as you claim.
As you can see, the first item listed is an issue for AOL because of them initially not actually using AIM to indentify their product. That AIM is an acronym of what they did use as their product name does not change that at all. THEY have to ACTIVELY use it.
What they are trying to prevent is item 2 from this list by getting gaim to change its name
What I refered to specifically, and what you seem to think is not true, is item 3 on this list.
Note that any of those 3 on its own is enough to make a trademark no longer enforcable, which means that even if AIM in itself is a valid trademark, there is good reason to assume that at least one and possibly two of those items are true in this case.
From that same FAQ:
This could mean that gaim is a common law trademark and that aim is infringing on it.
Last but not least, most non technical users have no clue about proprietary systems, don't know that MSN, AIM and what not work differently under the cover. What they do know is that all of them are extremely similar and allow them to chat with others. For many people all of those systems are the same thing just with a different logo/packaging. Those who do know about the differences either have more technical knowledge or informed themselves about this due to having run into the consequences (hey, why can't I talk to blabla@yahoo.com, I have AIM installed )for that matter, more often
From the post you first responded to:
Regardless of the legal nitpicking of who came up with what first, this is a clear violation of the spirit of trademark law if not the law itself.
I don't know how much clearer I can make this. I am discussing the SPIRIT of the law, not the law itself. I'll leave that to the lawyers (who, since gaim eventually went along with the name change, probably agree with AOL). I have repeated that statement in virtually every post I've made. If you are too much of an idiot to read the posts you are responding to in the first place, well I really don't have any more time to waste on y
Spirit of the law is to prevent confusion among customers and deluting the value of a brand. It is specifically not preventing similarities or even identical names if such confusion does not occur.
That GAIM complied with a name change might just have to do with the fact that regardless of trademark law, AOL can make part of GAIM non-functional anytime they feel like it, and actually fighting this in court is expensive, a waste of time, and not something a non-profit project can afford easily. It in no way indicates that AOL is right.
Its quite telling that you have to call someone an idiot and some other things because of your own misunderstanding of the spirit as well as the details of trademark law. No, I'm not a lawyer, but my girlfriend is, and for various reasons we dealt with this thing a few times.