What is trademark infringement?
Trademark infringement occurs when a business uses the same or similar name in commerce in a way that may lead to confusion with the trademark owner's service/product. Trademark infringement is based on this element of "confusion" that is a function of the mark's meaning. In general, infringement does not require the infringer to be a competitor, but infringement requires a similar product.
So, you're saying that you don'e think that Vista Windows' trademark, in the context of that simplistic explaination above, is infringed upon by Microsoft's Window Vista? Vista Windows, Windows Vista... It's true that you can trademark the same or similar names when used in different contexts, but you've infringed if you've introduced confusion about the other trademark's name.
The only reason I mentioned Lindows, as the case is obviously quite different, is that its outcome is similar to the one I predicted for this, should it come to be. An infringement suit is filed, Microsoft's case appears weak and they may lose a trademark, Microsoft settles of unknown (but sure to be large) sum of money, other company changes name as part of settlement.
I, personally, don't care. I've never owned any of the GTA line of games. I know people who do, but that doesn't change anything.
The big deal about the AO rating is that those morality police people have won to the extent that they've made the game much more difficult to obtain... for anyone. Most stores don't carry AO titles, which is part of the reason why all the previous ones have been complete flops. The rating is avoided, as it's a death nell just as NC-17 is to movies.
However, my original point was that none of this should be surprising. Since the release of the game, and throughout the GTA line, there have been advocates for it being banned from sale, blamed for unrelated acts, and basically anything else you can think of to try to get this "out of the hands of children". Without going into the argument of legislation vs. parenting (I'm pro parenting, for the record), I'm just trying to say that this latest round is *not* surprising.
You have a work that is disliked by a certain vocal group of people. Something brings that work into the limelight again. You've failed before at stopping the dissemination of this work. You use the new publicity about this work to renew your fight against it. Am I talking about GTA or Michelangelo's David? The biggest difference between the two is that David has a more compelling argument as to it's legitimatacy as art.
Anyway... just wait a bit and GTA:SA will be back to an M rating and on more store shelves. They'll just actually remove the mini-game content instead of trying to disable it. A promise to the ESRB that it's totally gone, and that's that. Maybe there'll be an exchange program for people who want the M rated game, just send in your old copy.
I mean, the people who hated this game from before it was released were the same ones who made a stink of it this time. It was just a new angle to come at it. The realists say that the game was already rated M, which should've been good enough. The extremists think it should pulled from all shelves, AO isn't good enough.
I'm just waiting for the lawsuits. I'm sure that some offended conservative group is trying to find distress Moms who's little babies downloaded the patch to modify the game and were sullied. Poor little Johnny.
You have it backwards. It's awesome to be that company. They just have to get enough money together to sustain a lawsuit that Windows Vista is hurting their trademark - I noticed they're displaying the Registered symbol, I assume it's not a sham - and sue. Then Microsoft will eventually settle and pay them to change their names. For actual case-law, see MS vs. Lindows.
When the power went out in the northeast of the US a year or two ago, VoIP was toast. And that's exactly the sort of time you don't want your phone going down.
Sure, but Verizon Wireless was still going strong. I happen to have been there for that, although I had power after a half hour (party at my place!) and Vonage was back to working. I didn't care, I only used Vonage that night to order Chinese for my guests.
Aside from that, you do realize that the landline companies aren't allowed to completely cut off your service, right? They have to allow the line to access 911 services. So, even if you get VOIP you can still have that corded phone plugged into the land line incase of an emergency. You could also just use a cell phone, as they have similar reliability and the chances that both services would be out is pretty slim. If they are, skip Walgreens and call 911 from the payphone outside.
Hello, boys and girls. This is your old pal, Stinky Wizzleteats..
A better reference:
Stimpy's Invention
Stimpy invents lots of silly things and has Ren try them out. Ren is not happy with these inventions, so Stimpy makes a "Happy Helmet" to make sure Ren is never unhappy again. The result is even more psychotic than "Space Madness." Includes the now-famous "Happy Happy Joy Joy" song.
He, and the entire article, was talking about removing state government's ability to enact laws to strengthen the list. He was not talking about getting rid of the DNC list.
He is wrong, though. I live in NJ and when the list took effect my telemarketer calls dropped to 0 for several months. Before that we had to put call-blocking on our line for incoming calls without caller ID, due to computer dialers calling 10 times a day. Now I get a call every now and then, but it's from my credit card company trying to get me to sign up for another card. I say "no thanks" and I don't get a call for another month or two. I know people in several other states who rely on the federal laws to protect them, they still get plenty of telemarketer calls, if not as many as before the DNC list. Telling them not to call back still doesn't work. Computer dialers are still annoying, especially when they tell you to hold or hang up on you.
It's not Eye Candy, the first product I saw that did the curling effect was Kai's Power Tools 1.0. Good thing someone actually found a use for it all these years later.
How about ideas which make tabbed browsing look like a nice little invention, and patent those. It will make the browser much more valuable without hurting standards? It is not greed, it is just equalling the playing field.
Thing is, why would you do that when the majority of FireFox supporters are anti-patent? Playing the same game, even if it's "equalling the playing field", sends a message that you're no better than they are. The whole message is supposed to be that it's a better browser, built on better standards, and better morals.
Another thing to keep in mind is that IE7 is not the only FireFox competitor to use tabbed browsing, or other FireFox features. Opera has used tabbed browsing longer than Mozilla, as I recall. You also have Konquerer and it's Safari cousin. Why make it difficult for them to use the concept that you'd patent?
Besides, why keep Microsoft from using the community's ideas when every one they use is a validation of how advanced the community's product is comparibly. Microsoft is a big and slow moving entity, if the mozilla.org dev's keep making the browser better then Microsoft has little chance of actually catching up. Competition is good for everyone.
The good news I saw today (previous/. post) is that somebody made an extension which works well in firefox, but not good in IE. More of that is needed to fight on equal terms.
Bah. That's against the entire philosophy behind Mozilla. The point is to be standards compliant so that people don't have to choose any one browser over the others, except on the merits of the actual browser. The point is to not play Microsoft's game. We don't need others to use FireFox, even if we want them to. We just need to have a strong enough presence that companies - who employ developers that shun standards in favor of making things work in IE - to change their ways to maximize their userbase.
Remember that greed ruins utopia. If we start introducing the same sort of things that make us hate IE into Mozilla then how are we better?
So you can tell this is a lone coder who has never heard of accessibility for disabled people using websites. In the UK there is a new Disability Discrimination Act, and I guess the US probably has something similar.
The ADA is what we have. I'm not sure if it's ever been used to force a website to be accessible, though.
What I would like to see is an html/xml markup that can be put into your source code, and which is part of the html standard.
Agreed.
I was really hoping that this would be a story on a script that interacted with a FireFox plugin so you could make a link that would open multiple tabs. Basically, if it were adopted as part of the HTML spec then developers could put it into their code and have the browser handle the secondary HREFs however they choose. Then the primary HREF would using syntax that is still able to be parsed by older browsers.
The only thing that worries me about such an implementation is the ability to abuse it. If done wrong it could be used to ruin a browsing experience just as badly, or maybe worse, as unchecked pop-ups.
What prevents OEMS from installing Firefox much like Sony and others did with NS? Granted MS would love to charge those companies more, but wouldn't those companies save in support costs?
The thought of getting on MS's bad side?
The idea of all the support calls the first time users try to go to a website that relies on ActiveX? (there's a couple of ActiveX controls that aren't spyware)
Maybe the thought of lost revenue when users don't have to have their computer serviced due to spyware related issues?
Of course, the other thing is that they won't be deleting the messages. I don't know how this was construed as deleting. From the CNET article
Sometime around November, Hotmail and MSN will flag as potential spam those messages that do not have the tag to verify the sender, Craig Spiezle, a director in the technology care and safety group at the software maker said Wednesday
Reading the rest of it, I just don't see where the deleting comes in. Even if they put it with the bulk mail it's still there for an extended period of time. The worst thing that could happen is people have a few things marked as spam and let them sit around in there to be deleted. They can leave Hotmail and go to Yahoo.
The information included in the takedown notice is the same as would be needed for a court order, so if they could get a routine court order with the information, why clog the courts with these?
So.. you really think that letters like this would convince a judge to allow a site to be taken down?
Then again, you're probably right. Instead of clogging the courts with that website operators that receive baseless DMCA takedown notices should clog the courts with civil suits for any and all damages incurred by the site being taken down. At the very least that should make the DMCA senders actually think before sending out notices instead of running random searches and sending them at even a sign of a hit.
Well, the only thing I have against that part is that the copyright holder has the right to take down your website without first proving that the infringing material exists on it. The ISP gets a letter from a lawyer and is thus forced to comply or they increase their chances of being held liable. I really don't like that this can be done without first obtaining a court order. This is basically adverse to the concept of innocent until proven guilty. It snubs its nose at due process.
Aside from the above, you're absolutely right. It's one of the brighter points of a pretty crumby piece of legislation. That's mainly because it allows for the user to demand reinstatement. Of course, in the real world that tends to be more difficult to convince an ISP to do than one might think, but that's an unintended consequence that I can't really blame on the DMCA.
On the other hand, that this part is even in the DMCA goes to helping the court find non-complying ISPs liable. Before the DMCA there would be a discussion in the courts as to whether the ISP is liable. Now it's pretty cut and dry, if the ISP doesn't honor the takedown notice and there is a legitimate claim then the ISP is liable. They're liable just for honoring their agreement to provide a service to their client, not because of some wanton disregard for copyright or some huge benefit from the infringement. I'm not sure this is a real improvement from the old system, but that's an opinion that can be easily countered by pointing out the advantages of the it - like curtailing valid infringements quickly and saving the trial from having to decide on ISP liability. Personally, I don't see either side of the argument having a clear advantage.
To answer your question: I think that there wouldn't be a huge difference in damages if a court order were required for the takedown to be valid. That's the biggest problem with this system and it could be easily rectified.
Car navigation systems are "small" in order to not completely take over the entire dash and leave room for other shit. Why would a car's navigation screen need to be smaller, making it more difficult to navigate with, while increasing distraction?
I didn't read where it said that the panels would be smaller. However, I can see it being benefitial to some extent in car nav. It could display secondary information to the passenger while the driver sees more important info, like where to turn. Perhaps the same technology that blocks light from one side could also be applied to help stop glare from making the screen unreadible, instead of just recessing it into the dash where it's a bit harder to see.
Maybe it could be used to keep my mother-in-law from watching my speedometer like a hawk.
Wow. That article has nothing to do with introduction. This is such a fun/. posting! Redundant wording about a multi-display technology linked to an article about cross-licensing. Pardon me while my head explodes.
Let's not forget Mosaic, upon which Netscape was built.
As was IE. The humor of it is that, as I recall, most of the programmers responsible for Mosaic were the ones to originally create Netscape. So, if IE was started by building off of Mosaic's roots then those programmers helped Microsoft destroy Netscape.
Then there was Mosaic 2.0, which was just a little less horrible than IE 2.0.. but that's another story.
Now in the US, the DMCA would have let the ISP off the hook scott free. Yay for safe harbors!
Only if the ISP took down the site as of the first notice sent by the RIAA. Their safe harbors are only available if they play by the industries rules. The industry would probably offer such an agreement with ISPs even if it wasn't in the law. They don't want to hurt business unless they think those businesses are encouraging the "piracy". They're more interested in getting individuals to make examples of, like the college students that did little more than make search engines that didn't specifically exclude music files. This guy was an example to the rest of us that if we link to sites committing infringement the industry can and will find a legal loophole to get at us.
If I had the time I could probably prove that broadband connections increased in number, prices fell, newer technologies connected more people, etc...
You'd probably have an easier time attributing this to the flat-fee services where you download unlimited songs with limited playback (streaming and whatnot). That makes this number inflated due to downloading the same songs much like the lofty number of FireFox downloads is in part due to updates being included in the count.
But it becomes exponentially more difficult when you're trying to force the change based on some rushed and unrealistic time-frame. It's possible, but is it feasible right now? If we rush to usability to meet some expectation of instant gratitude will we do it right?
Mom and Pop can wait until things are done right. Sometimes that takes time. In this case, it also takes more vendor support, hardware and software, and that will come by a continued effort to do things right instead of active attempts to convert Windows users.
Slashdot Mirror
So, you're saying that you don'e think that Vista Windows' trademark, in the context of that simplistic explaination above, is infringed upon by Microsoft's Window Vista? Vista Windows, Windows Vista... It's true that you can trademark the same or similar names when used in different contexts, but you've infringed if you've introduced confusion about the other trademark's name.
The only reason I mentioned Lindows, as the case is obviously quite different, is that its outcome is similar to the one I predicted for this, should it come to be. An infringement suit is filed, Microsoft's case appears weak and they may lose a trademark, Microsoft settles of unknown (but sure to be large) sum of money, other company changes name as part of settlement.
Did you read the rest of the paragraph before taking that out of context, or did you just knee jerk when you saw the word conservative?
The big deal about the AO rating is that those morality police people have won to the extent that they've made the game much more difficult to obtain... for anyone. Most stores don't carry AO titles, which is part of the reason why all the previous ones have been complete flops. The rating is avoided, as it's a death nell just as NC-17 is to movies.
However, my original point was that none of this should be surprising. Since the release of the game, and throughout the GTA line, there have been advocates for it being banned from sale, blamed for unrelated acts, and basically anything else you can think of to try to get this "out of the hands of children". Without going into the argument of legislation vs. parenting (I'm pro parenting, for the record), I'm just trying to say that this latest round is *not* surprising.
You have a work that is disliked by a certain vocal group of people. Something brings that work into the limelight again. You've failed before at stopping the dissemination of this work. You use the new publicity about this work to renew your fight against it. Am I talking about GTA or Michelangelo's David? The biggest difference between the two is that David has a more compelling argument as to it's legitimatacy as art.
Anyway... just wait a bit and GTA:SA will be back to an M rating and on more store shelves. They'll just actually remove the mini-game content instead of trying to disable it. A promise to the ESRB that it's totally gone, and that's that. Maybe there'll be an exchange program for people who want the M rated game, just send in your old copy.
I've always wanted to do a polygonal woman, they're just hard to find outside of gaming.
I'm just waiting for the lawsuits. I'm sure that some offended conservative group is trying to find distress Moms who's little babies downloaded the patch to modify the game and were sullied. Poor little Johnny.
You have it backwards. It's awesome to be that company. They just have to get enough money together to sustain a lawsuit that Windows Vista is hurting their trademark - I noticed they're displaying the Registered symbol, I assume it's not a sham - and sue. Then Microsoft will eventually settle and pay them to change their names. For actual case-law, see MS vs. Lindows.
Sure, but Verizon Wireless was still going strong. I happen to have been there for that, although I had power after a half hour (party at my place!) and Vonage was back to working. I didn't care, I only used Vonage that night to order Chinese for my guests.
Aside from that, you do realize that the landline companies aren't allowed to completely cut off your service, right? They have to allow the line to access 911 services. So, even if you get VOIP you can still have that corded phone plugged into the land line incase of an emergency. You could also just use a cell phone, as they have similar reliability and the chances that both services would be out is pretty slim. If they are, skip Walgreens and call 911 from the payphone outside.
A better reference:
He is wrong, though. I live in NJ and when the list took effect my telemarketer calls dropped to 0 for several months. Before that we had to put call-blocking on our line for incoming calls without caller ID, due to computer dialers calling 10 times a day. Now I get a call every now and then, but it's from my credit card company trying to get me to sign up for another card. I say "no thanks" and I don't get a call for another month or two. I know people in several other states who rely on the federal laws to protect them, they still get plenty of telemarketer calls, if not as many as before the DNC list. Telling them not to call back still doesn't work. Computer dialers are still annoying, especially when they tell you to hold or hang up on you.
It's not Eye Candy, the first product I saw that did the curling effect was Kai's Power Tools 1.0. Good thing someone actually found a use for it all these years later.
Thing is, why would you do that when the majority of FireFox supporters are anti-patent? Playing the same game, even if it's "equalling the playing field", sends a message that you're no better than they are. The whole message is supposed to be that it's a better browser, built on better standards, and better morals.
Another thing to keep in mind is that IE7 is not the only FireFox competitor to use tabbed browsing, or other FireFox features. Opera has used tabbed browsing longer than Mozilla, as I recall. You also have Konquerer and it's Safari cousin. Why make it difficult for them to use the concept that you'd patent?
Besides, why keep Microsoft from using the community's ideas when every one they use is a validation of how advanced the community's product is comparibly. Microsoft is a big and slow moving entity, if the mozilla.org dev's keep making the browser better then Microsoft has little chance of actually catching up. Competition is good for everyone.
Bah. That's against the entire philosophy behind Mozilla. The point is to be standards compliant so that people don't have to choose any one browser over the others, except on the merits of the actual browser. The point is to not play Microsoft's game. We don't need others to use FireFox, even if we want them to. We just need to have a strong enough presence that companies - who employ developers that shun standards in favor of making things work in IE - to change their ways to maximize their userbase.
Remember that greed ruins utopia. If we start introducing the same sort of things that make us hate IE into Mozilla then how are we better?
The ADA is what we have. I'm not sure if it's ever been used to force a website to be accessible, though.
Agreed.
I was really hoping that this would be a story on a script that interacted with a FireFox plugin so you could make a link that would open multiple tabs. Basically, if it were adopted as part of the HTML spec then developers could put it into their code and have the browser handle the secondary HREFs however they choose. Then the primary HREF would using syntax that is still able to be parsed by older browsers.
The only thing that worries me about such an implementation is the ability to abuse it. If done wrong it could be used to ruin a browsing experience just as badly, or maybe worse, as unchecked pop-ups.
The thought of getting on MS's bad side?
The idea of all the support calls the first time users try to go to a website that relies on ActiveX? (there's a couple of ActiveX controls that aren't spyware)
Maybe the thought of lost revenue when users don't have to have their computer serviced due to spyware related issues?
Reading the rest of it, I just don't see where the deleting comes in. Even if they put it with the bulk mail it's still there for an extended period of time. The worst thing that could happen is people have a few things marked as spam and let them sit around in there to be deleted. They can leave Hotmail and go to Yahoo.
So.. you really think that letters like this would convince a judge to allow a site to be taken down?
Then again, you're probably right. Instead of clogging the courts with that website operators that receive baseless DMCA takedown notices should clog the courts with civil suits for any and all damages incurred by the site being taken down. At the very least that should make the DMCA senders actually think before sending out notices instead of running random searches and sending them at even a sign of a hit.
Aside from the above, you're absolutely right. It's one of the brighter points of a pretty crumby piece of legislation. That's mainly because it allows for the user to demand reinstatement. Of course, in the real world that tends to be more difficult to convince an ISP to do than one might think, but that's an unintended consequence that I can't really blame on the DMCA.
On the other hand, that this part is even in the DMCA goes to helping the court find non-complying ISPs liable. Before the DMCA there would be a discussion in the courts as to whether the ISP is liable. Now it's pretty cut and dry, if the ISP doesn't honor the takedown notice and there is a legitimate claim then the ISP is liable. They're liable just for honoring their agreement to provide a service to their client, not because of some wanton disregard for copyright or some huge benefit from the infringement. I'm not sure this is a real improvement from the old system, but that's an opinion that can be easily countered by pointing out the advantages of the it - like curtailing valid infringements quickly and saving the trial from having to decide on ISP liability. Personally, I don't see either side of the argument having a clear advantage.
To answer your question: I think that there wouldn't be a huge difference in damages if a court order were required for the takedown to be valid. That's the biggest problem with this system and it could be easily rectified.
I didn't read where it said that the panels would be smaller. However, I can see it being benefitial to some extent in car nav. It could display secondary information to the passenger while the driver sees more important info, like where to turn. Perhaps the same technology that blocks light from one side could also be applied to help stop glare from making the screen unreadible, instead of just recessing it into the dash where it's a bit harder to see.
Maybe it could be used to keep my mother-in-law from watching my speedometer like a hawk.
Wow. That article has nothing to do with introduction. This is such a fun /. posting! Redundant wording about a multi-display technology linked to an article about cross-licensing. Pardon me while my head explodes.
The only thing missing is a dupe!
I'm just posting to say that I'll soon be posting about this article
As was IE. The humor of it is that, as I recall, most of the programmers responsible for Mosaic were the ones to originally create Netscape. So, if IE was started by building off of Mosaic's roots then those programmers helped Microsoft destroy Netscape.
Then there was Mosaic 2.0, which was just a little less horrible than IE 2.0.. but that's another story.
Only if the ISP took down the site as of the first notice sent by the RIAA. Their safe harbors are only available if they play by the industries rules. The industry would probably offer such an agreement with ISPs even if it wasn't in the law. They don't want to hurt business unless they think those businesses are encouraging the "piracy". They're more interested in getting individuals to make examples of, like the college students that did little more than make search engines that didn't specifically exclude music files. This guy was an example to the rest of us that if we link to sites committing infringement the industry can and will find a legal loophole to get at us.
You'd probably have an easier time attributing this to the flat-fee services where you download unlimited songs with limited playback (streaming and whatnot). That makes this number inflated due to downloading the same songs much like the lofty number of FireFox downloads is in part due to updates being included in the count.
Mom and Pop can wait until things are done right. Sometimes that takes time. In this case, it also takes more vendor support, hardware and software, and that will come by a continued effort to do things right instead of active attempts to convert Windows users.