What about commercial users who pay for Gmail? I think it's on the order of $50 per year per user. Google Mail is much more than just a free mail service.
>No, they are not. If the use is clearly not violating the trademark, then they are not required to sue over it
Perhaps just as importantly, if the use is not a violation and they do actually sue, and the defendant actually presents the least amount of defense (e.g., by showing up at the hearing), this kind of action could end badly for the plaintiff. But the idea has become an accepted truism that merely being named as a defendant in a lawsuit will in every case be a bankrupting, life destroying event, that people have become willing to give up their rights and shut down their business at the first hint that a lawyer might write them an angry letter. You should at least wait until they are willing to write that letter to a judge.
It is a severe misunderstanding of the problem of trademark dilution to say that companies are *required to sue* anyone and everyone who uses their trademark. The actual situation is nowhere near that simple.
When you can run Firefox with Adblock Plus and NoScript, why would anyone care about IE in the first place? Who even uses IE in this day and age, and why?
120Hz is not beyond the threshold of human perception, and it certainly can be an annoyance, or even a hazard in the case of someone susceptible to seizures or migraines.
Ok, an edge case. He was eventually released. If the US wanted to do something like this to Assange, they'd just grab him directly, wouldn't they? There's no need for any theatre of "due process", and no need for him to leave Britain.
Just how far did the governments of Germany, Macedonia, Lebanon or Kuwait go to help their man, by the way? It doesn't look like any of them actually lifted a finger. In fact, it looks a hell of a lot like the German authorities knew all about it. And did absolutely nothing.
Anyway, whenever the US accuses Assange of a crime, I'll take notice. Until then, I'll just yawn.
Please come up with a plot that isn't based on one of these basic conflicts:
man vs. nature man vs. man man vs. the environment man vs. machines/technology man vs. the supernatural man vs. self man vs. god/religion
I like to point out that "Dude, Where's My Car" has subplots from among all of these categories: Quest, Adventure, Pursuit, Rescue, Escape, Revenge, Riddle, Rivalry, Underdog, Temptation, Metamorphosis, Transformation, Maturation, Love, Forbidden Love, Sacrifice, Discovery, Wretched Excess, Ascension, and Decision.
Does that make it better than your usual "underdog goes through a transformation and falls in love while on a quest", e.g. "Rocky" or maybe even "Coming to America"?
During wartime, he could be court-martialed in the field, convicted and executed on the spot with no appeal. He's at least receiving some modicum of due process.
I'm not sure how much sympathy I could muster for an organization that can clearly afford regular merchant banking. Why on earth would the Burning Man folks -- rolling in money -- need to use PayPal?
>So yeah, it sucks for people who like what this group is doing.
One of those people could care enough to provide them with a free merchant bank account so that they could take credit cards, ACH, EFT, paper checks, cash in various currencies, other negotiable instruments, etc.
Yeah I don't understand the story, for want of details. I have a feeling that when you get the whole story, it's a case of PayPal needing to mitigate its own risk. Maybe they want to be able to compensate for uncollected funds if clearing house transfers bounce?
The circumstances are quite explicable: The relationship with these users is a liability to them, and is not beneficial to their business. There's no government conspiracy here, and unless PayPal seized cash, no civil or criminal issue here either.
If they froze the account with a positive balance, I care (because that's seizure of assets, a Big Deal.) If they froze the account with a zero balance, I don't care, because I understand and support their right to do that.
>If Amazon suddenly said "sorry, we aren't going to carry any of your books anymore", are you going to sue them for violation of your 1st Amendment rights against >free speech?
If Amazon (assuming you mean Amazon.com and not one of the other Amazons) suddenly said 'we are going to stop selling books by negro and jew authors because they are written by negros and jews', there very well could be an issue.
When you can identify one individual who has been extradited to the US, without even being accused of a crime, and subsequently executed, then I may give some credence to Assange's position.
There are civil rights issues and certainly political issues with the situation of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, but there is no connection to Assange that you could realistically draw. If Assange were to be taken from the UK or from Sweden and incarcerated in Guantanamo, his experience would be completely unprecedented.
>Is it that the Soviet Empire has been forgotten by the masses without education?
During the Cold War, real information about the Soviet Union was actively suppressed from Americans, and fully replaced with whatever propaganda was convenient. Most Americans who grew up in that period don't really know much about it. I had to go well out of my way to learn about the Vietnam War (while it was happening, it was never mentioned one single time in school), and did the same to learn anything meaningful about Russia.
Slashdot Mirror
What about commercial users who pay for Gmail? I think it's on the order of $50 per year per user. Google Mail is much more than just a free mail service.
>No, they are not. If the use is clearly not violating the trademark, then they are not required to sue over it
Perhaps just as importantly, if the use is not a violation and they do actually sue, and the defendant actually presents the least amount of defense (e.g., by showing up at the hearing), this kind of action could end badly for the plaintiff. But the idea has become an accepted truism that merely being named as a defendant in a lawsuit will in every case be a bankrupting, life destroying event, that people have become willing to give up their rights and shut down their business at the first hint that a lawyer might write them an angry letter. You should at least wait until they are willing to write that letter to a judge.
"Requiring you to sue" would amount to a tax on trademarks.
It is a severe misunderstanding of the problem of trademark dilution to say that companies are *required to sue* anyone and everyone who uses their trademark. The actual situation is nowhere near that simple.
>He wasn't sued
Precisely. Action was taken against him without a court ordered mandate to take such action.
When you can run Firefox with Adblock Plus and NoScript, why would anyone care about IE in the first place? Who even uses IE in this day and age, and why?
ok.
120Hz is not beyond the threshold of human perception, and it certainly can be an annoyance, or even a hazard in the case of someone susceptible to seizures or migraines.
>Edge case? You're writing as if this was an isolated incident.
Somewhere much closer to "isolated incident" than "happens all the time, lots of people know people who have experienced it."
Assange is having delusions of grandeur. Wake me up when he is accused of a crime.
Ok, an edge case. He was eventually released. If the US wanted to do something like this to Assange, they'd just grab him directly, wouldn't they? There's no need for any theatre of "due process", and no need for him to leave Britain.
Just how far did the governments of Germany, Macedonia, Lebanon or Kuwait go to help their man, by the way? It doesn't look like any of them actually lifted a finger. In fact, it looks a hell of a lot like the German authorities knew all about it. And did absolutely nothing.
Anyway, whenever the US accuses Assange of a crime, I'll take notice. Until then, I'll just yawn.
Not everyone is cynical enough to equate "launch failure" with disaster.
>over-used, oft-repeated plots.
Please come up with a plot that isn't based on one of these basic conflicts:
man vs. nature
man vs. man
man vs. the environment
man vs. machines/technology
man vs. the supernatural
man vs. self
man vs. god/religion
I like to point out that "Dude, Where's My Car" has subplots from among all of these categories:
Quest, Adventure, Pursuit, Rescue, Escape, Revenge, Riddle, Rivalry, Underdog, Temptation, Metamorphosis, Transformation, Maturation, Love, Forbidden Love, Sacrifice, Discovery, Wretched Excess, Ascension, and Decision.
Does that make it better than your usual "underdog goes through a transformation and falls in love while on a quest", e.g. "Rocky" or maybe even "Coming to America"?
If you can't do your wonderful public service without money from a government, your plan is not sustainable in the first place.
Likewise if your government job is actually *important*, you won't stop doing it just because Congress stopped funding your agency.
During wartime, he could be court-martialed in the field, convicted and executed on the spot with no appeal.
He's at least receiving some modicum of due process.
>Paypal can't withdraw money from a bank account that has no money in it.
What is your source for this claim?
I'm not sure how much sympathy I could muster for an organization that can clearly afford regular merchant banking.
Why on earth would the Burning Man folks -- rolling in money -- need to use PayPal?
>So yeah, it sucks for people who like what this group is doing.
One of those people could care enough to provide them with a free merchant bank account so that they could take credit cards, ACH, EFT, paper checks, cash in various currencies, other negotiable instruments, etc.
Yeah I don't understand the story, for want of details.
I have a feeling that when you get the whole story, it's a case of PayPal needing to mitigate its own risk. Maybe they want to be able to compensate for uncollected funds if clearing house transfers bounce?
The circumstances are quite explicable: The relationship with these users is a liability to them, and is not beneficial to their business.
There's no government conspiracy here, and unless PayPal seized cash, no civil or criminal issue here either.
I wonder if someone could twist an argument that the discrimination against Manning is indeed based on his "Veteran Status".
If they froze the account with a positive balance, I care (because that's seizure of assets, a Big Deal.) If they froze the account with a zero balance, I don't care, because I understand and support their right to do that.
>If Amazon suddenly said "sorry, we aren't going to carry any of your books anymore", are you going to sue them for violation of your 1st Amendment rights against
>free speech?
If Amazon (assuming you mean Amazon.com and not one of the other Amazons) suddenly said 'we are going to stop selling books by negro and jew authors because they are written by negros and jews', there very well could be an issue.
When you can identify one individual who has been extradited to the US, without even being accused of a crime, and subsequently executed, then I may give some credence to Assange's position.
There are civil rights issues and certainly political issues with the situation of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, but there is no connection to Assange that you could realistically draw. If Assange were to be taken from the UK or from Sweden and incarcerated in Guantanamo, his experience would be completely unprecedented.
>This is what Assange is fighting for, claiming that Sweden will extradite him to the us, where he will be executed.
>Is it that the Soviet Empire has been forgotten by the masses without education?
During the Cold War, real information about the Soviet Union was actively suppressed from Americans, and fully replaced with whatever propaganda was convenient.
Most Americans who grew up in that period don't really know much about it. I had to go well out of my way to learn about the Vietnam War (while it was happening, it was never mentioned one single time in school), and did the same to learn anything meaningful about Russia.