Well, the trademark is usually something people will shell out extra money for to gain the status symbol effect. If everyone could have a cheap knock off the people who spent extra to get the status symbol would no longer stand out and no longer want to pay extra for the privilege. Therefore the knockoffs cause real damage even if noone's selling them as the real thing, the person wearing them still looks as if he has a genuine one.
Besides, there's no reason to permit using other people's trademarks on your wares in a way that looks like they are the manufacturer, if the trademark is worthless surely you have no need to put it there, if it isn't surely random people shouldn't be able to take it?
Al Qaeda is a civilian group like the mafia, they can be normally tried under criminal law and if an Al Qaeda member is citizen of a country that has a treaty with your country about how to treat its citizens that guy is covered by it whether he's with Al Qaeda or the boy scouts. Of course I don't believe any country has a deal with the US granting its citizens legal immunity on US soil (I know there are treaties in the other direction for military personell, though, AFAIK no US soldier may be tried before an international court for war crimes). The US can normally arrest those terrorists and try them under existing law for civilians which AFAIK should (under the constitution) include the right to a fair and speedy trial before they are held as prisoners. Of course I know the US doesn't care about that but the govt members who supported Gitmo (off-shore facility to prevent US law from applying to the prisoners? That govt can't even be held to the laws it wrote?) should have been arrested long ago. Anyway, I'm going off topic.
A sympathetic govt could protect Al Qaeda (well, as far as their diplomats can get other countries to sign those treaties, never happening), of course that would be a diplomatic desaster for them and other countries could obviously declare war on them (AFAIK there is no global treaty that forbids wars, just individually negotiated nonagression pacts) and it would be effectively suicide.
Piracy can also mean air-to-air or surface-to-air attacks, e.g. a privately owned missile cruiser blowing a 747 out of the sky. It was defined to handle crimes that fall under noone's jurisdiction by stating that it someone can be tried for piracy in any country, no matter where he commited the act. An attack like the destruction of the WTC doesn't happen outside all jurisdictions, it's clearly within US jurisdiction and as such a normal crime like murder or treason.
Al-Qaeda is a non-government organization and as such won't sign such treaties. You have to determine a nation that Al-Qaeda is incorporated in (I suggest Saudi Arabia) and look at their international treaties or consider it for each involved individual depending on his nationality.
That's a really dumb idea, piracy is already defined as an attack on a ship or airplane but the important limitation is that it has to happen over international waters (attacks in space on spacecraft would probably be considered piracy, too), any attack within a national border is not piracy.
Yes but 360/Windows is the best choice for making a graphically intensive game if you aren't going to make it API independent, seeing how the PS3 is struggling to sell (and Vista's OpenGL support is awful, especially with Ati) and the Wii isn't meant for graphically intense titles. Besides, how many Macs are sold with hardware that can handle graphically intense games? They come with nice CPUs but Apple skimps on the graphics card like a second rate OEM.
I know that Microsoft perceives the Wii as being, essentially, for a different demographic than its own Xbox 360 consoles
I doubt it. They say that in public to prevent news about Wii success from being bad news for MS but they know that they have to fight for the very same dollars as Nintendo and the Wii is better at it by making people open their wallets that would never consider a 360.
MS had a temporary pricedrop for the Premium to 300€ around the time of the PS3 launch, I'd expect a real pricedrop to be the same, premium priced like the core, core abolished.
Yes but getting the exploiting code in place can be very difficult with some systems and some can't be used for warez without a modchip, which can often be detected and is illegal to sell thanks to the DMCA which means it's not easy to get. Generally the more illegal tools are required the harder it becomes to buy all the required stuff (bonus points for requiring some kind of ritual each bootup). For emulated games that cost a fiver a piece you'd need quite a few to even make up for the modding expenses. Also it's pretty hard to get Nintendo ROMs since they are quick to target ROM sites and most have removed all ROMs of Nintendo games.
The harder you make it the more people will say "screw it, I'm buying the games".
There are trustworthy individuals out there but if it was my money I wouldn't bet it on those being more numerous than the dishonest ones so I'd make sure firmware patches make it as hard as possible to use warez on the system so the effort to play illegal content on the system becomes greater than the value of the money I ask for legal copies.
Not in the real world. If it did any company could just set up a puppet opponent that would never manage to actually get anything done but still provide "competition" to avoid falling under monopoly laws. In real world practice a company with a 60% marketshare can already be subject to antitrust laws if they act in the wrong way since they have the power to do as much damage as a monopoly and gain a full monopoly by using underhanded tactics.
There can, monopoly means you have the de-facto power to force changes in your product (including preventing people from selling it and causing damage for them instead of you) upon people without leaving them with a viable alternative, it doesn't mean there is no alternative at all, just none that can really compete with you.
if they can't deliver what they promise you don't need to pay what you promised.
No. Breach of contract does not mean you don't have to fulfill your obligations unless the contract explicitely states so. It does give you legal recourse and probably the option to delay your obligations until the problem is sorted out. Of course the judge can decide that you don't have to pay but it's not your job to decide that.
In Germany they have decided that PCs that can access the internet are subject to TV fees. Got quite an outrage from companies since AFAIK you're required to file your taxes electronically so they have to pay these stupid fees just because they have to fulfill another requirement.
A difference is that the last time they tried to legislate software patents into existence they almost got a law back that explicitely forbade them. Also note that common law is not used by most parts of the EU.
Lobbyists. Strangely large companies still want software patents to be allowed despite the only winners being the patent trolls as shown by their lobbying in the EU.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, the trademark is usually something people will shell out extra money for to gain the status symbol effect. If everyone could have a cheap knock off the people who spent extra to get the status symbol would no longer stand out and no longer want to pay extra for the privilege. Therefore the knockoffs cause real damage even if noone's selling them as the real thing, the person wearing them still looks as if he has a genuine one.
Besides, there's no reason to permit using other people's trademarks on your wares in a way that looks like they are the manufacturer, if the trademark is worthless surely you have no need to put it there, if it isn't surely random people shouldn't be able to take it?
Al Qaeda is a civilian group like the mafia, they can be normally tried under criminal law and if an Al Qaeda member is citizen of a country that has a treaty with your country about how to treat its citizens that guy is covered by it whether he's with Al Qaeda or the boy scouts. Of course I don't believe any country has a deal with the US granting its citizens legal immunity on US soil (I know there are treaties in the other direction for military personell, though, AFAIK no US soldier may be tried before an international court for war crimes). The US can normally arrest those terrorists and try them under existing law for civilians which AFAIK should (under the constitution) include the right to a fair and speedy trial before they are held as prisoners. Of course I know the US doesn't care about that but the govt members who supported Gitmo (off-shore facility to prevent US law from applying to the prisoners? That govt can't even be held to the laws it wrote?) should have been arrested long ago. Anyway, I'm going off topic.
A sympathetic govt could protect Al Qaeda (well, as far as their diplomats can get other countries to sign those treaties, never happening), of course that would be a diplomatic desaster for them and other countries could obviously declare war on them (AFAIK there is no global treaty that forbids wars, just individually negotiated nonagression pacts) and it would be effectively suicide.
Piracy can also mean air-to-air or surface-to-air attacks, e.g. a privately owned missile cruiser blowing a 747 out of the sky. It was defined to handle crimes that fall under noone's jurisdiction by stating that it someone can be tried for piracy in any country, no matter where he commited the act. An attack like the destruction of the WTC doesn't happen outside all jurisdictions, it's clearly within US jurisdiction and as such a normal crime like murder or treason.
I know but people still make graphically intense games.
It's still trademark infringement.
Al-Qaeda is a non-government organization and as such won't sign such treaties. You have to determine a nation that Al-Qaeda is incorporated in (I suggest Saudi Arabia) and look at their international treaties or consider it for each involved individual depending on his nationality.
That's a really dumb idea, piracy is already defined as an attack on a ship or airplane but the important limitation is that it has to happen over international waters (attacks in space on spacecraft would probably be considered piracy, too), any attack within a national border is not piracy.
Yes but 360/Windows is the best choice for making a graphically intensive game if you aren't going to make it API independent, seeing how the PS3 is struggling to sell (and Vista's OpenGL support is awful, especially with Ati) and the Wii isn't meant for graphically intense titles. Besides, how many Macs are sold with hardware that can handle graphically intense games? They come with nice CPUs but Apple skimps on the graphics card like a second rate OEM.
What's there to explain? That was a top of the line card when Doom 3 came out.
I played through most of Doom 3 on a Radeon 8500, it's choppy but playable. I don't know how the 8500 and the 9200 compare, though.
I know that Microsoft perceives the Wii as being, essentially, for a different demographic than its own Xbox 360 consoles
I doubt it. They say that in public to prevent news about Wii success from being bad news for MS but they know that they have to fight for the very same dollars as Nintendo and the Wii is better at it by making people open their wallets that would never consider a 360.
MS had a temporary pricedrop for the Premium to 300€ around the time of the PS3 launch, I'd expect a real pricedrop to be the same, premium priced like the core, core abolished.
Ask questions like "after how many iterations at most does this algorithm halt?" or "Prove the following claims:"...
It also links your identity to a real site. Makes it easy for law enforcement to catch you.
It's a fancy way of saying "God was stoned when he made the universe".
Yes but getting the exploiting code in place can be very difficult with some systems and some can't be used for warez without a modchip, which can often be detected and is illegal to sell thanks to the DMCA which means it's not easy to get. Generally the more illegal tools are required the harder it becomes to buy all the required stuff (bonus points for requiring some kind of ritual each bootup). For emulated games that cost a fiver a piece you'd need quite a few to even make up for the modding expenses. Also it's pretty hard to get Nintendo ROMs since they are quick to target ROM sites and most have removed all ROMs of Nintendo games.
The harder you make it the more people will say "screw it, I'm buying the games".
There are trustworthy individuals out there but if it was my money I wouldn't bet it on those being more numerous than the dishonest ones so I'd make sure firmware patches make it as hard as possible to use warez on the system so the effort to play illegal content on the system becomes greater than the value of the money I ask for legal copies.
Not in the real world. If it did any company could just set up a puppet opponent that would never manage to actually get anything done but still provide "competition" to avoid falling under monopoly laws. In real world practice a company with a 60% marketshare can already be subject to antitrust laws if they act in the wrong way since they have the power to do as much damage as a monopoly and gain a full monopoly by using underhanded tactics.
There can, monopoly means you have the de-facto power to force changes in your product (including preventing people from selling it and causing damage for them instead of you) upon people without leaving them with a viable alternative, it doesn't mean there is no alternative at all, just none that can really compete with you.
Few people can get a legal copy for such an emulator, though.
Of course Nintendo will issue a patch soon after no matter what and we'll see a PSP-style catch-up cycle
if they can't deliver what they promise you don't need to pay what you promised.
No. Breach of contract does not mean you don't have to fulfill your obligations unless the contract explicitely states so. It does give you legal recourse and probably the option to delay your obligations until the problem is sorted out. Of course the judge can decide that you don't have to pay but it's not your job to decide that.
Starcraft had a demo version that's explicitely released for evaluation purposes. Use that instead of illegally downloading the full game.
In Germany they have decided that PCs that can access the internet are subject to TV fees. Got quite an outrage from companies since AFAIK you're required to file your taxes electronically so they have to pay these stupid fees just because they have to fulfill another requirement.
A difference is that the last time they tried to legislate software patents into existence they almost got a law back that explicitely forbade them. Also note that common law is not used by most parts of the EU.
Lobbyists. Strangely large companies still want software patents to be allowed despite the only winners being the patent trolls as shown by their lobbying in the EU.