I remember debating between a single core 33mhz Powerbook 190 or a single core 33mhz Powerbook 190cs when I went to college and then realized I was too poor for either.
amending my above post, i see that the noncompete was for one year. This might be unreasonable, and a judge could be asked to bring this time period down to 3-6 months...
Non-compete provisions are basically an outgrowth of trade secret law, the least developed of what could be considered the four areas of IP (Patent, Trademark, Copyright, and Trade Secrets). Companies wishing to protect their trade secrets when employees defect would obviously want them to sign non-competes.
A judge would essentially be asked to balance the economic interests of the company with the economic interests of the employee, with an eye on preventing the erosion of existing trade secret protection. The noncompete must be reasonable, and in this case it doesn't seem clear how long the noncompete was for or how narrowly worded the noncompete was (whether it was confined to specific search technologies or search in general).
With regard to governing law, most likely it will be found to fall under Washington law, since undoubtedly the governing law provision of the contract would have specified Washington State.
But I think my point is that when the peripheral might look TOO much like the original product and cause confusion over who actually produced the COMPUTER then the legal heads might have to get involved...
Your point is well taken though - perhaps Apple really does love to create markets for add-ons. But there are some accessories I've seen that Steve Jobs must cringe at.... (The wood block iPod dock (er, stand?) comes to mind)
As a law student, I see this in terms of how Apple's legal dept. might view this new "accessory" as infringing on their trademark in the Mac mini.
Apple might have a case that the MiniMate infringes on the trademark it has established with the Mac mini on the grounds that it has copied its trade dress.
Looking at the front of the machine, there are no markings on the Mac mini to let you know that it is an Apple product, whereas Micronet is emblazoned on the front of its MiniMate. If the Mac Mini is covered on top by the MiniMate or the pair are stacked in a rack/cabinet/cubbyhole, one might think that both boxes are made by Micronet, effectively causing a likelihood of confusion "or to deceive as to the...origin...of the goods." (this last language is taken straight out of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act.)
I know most/.'ers won't have this problem of confusion but I believe that the standard is according to some "reasonable person of the community" standard, and whether they would be confused by the trade dress...
I think Apple went after a Chinese (or Taiwanese?) company a few years ago for its bondi blue iMac lookalike....but they seem to have a more favorable view of add-ons like this one that resemble the original product without performing the same functions (the huge iPod accessory market is further proof of their leniency to accessories that piggy-back off their designs without directly competing with them).
I agree with you completely, but the items for sale weren't just what you might find now (i.e. coins and stamps). The French penal code prohibits the wearing or display of uniforms, insignia, etc. for organizations/groups that have been convicted of crimes against humanity.
What was happening was that Yahoo was becoming a haven for Neo-Nazis trying to find uniforms, flags, etc. for their rallies.
In America the First Amendment is extremely broad in scope and even protects hate speech (as long as it doesn't incite immediate violence).
European societies are different however. They have not found it difficult to justify restrictions such as this in the name of suppressing Neo-Nazi groups. (and by the way America now has more Neo-Nazis than any other country).
But I agree with you about the coins, somehow they seem different. I would still be very wary of who i'm buying the item from - even these items feel (to me) eternally marked/cursed by the deep evil of Nazism.
Actually this is a great stab in the dark, but I believe the claim is against Google.com, and if so there are new developments that suggest that Google.com (U.S.) is not immune from the French courts, since the courts, in figuring out jurisdiction issues on the internet, are moving toward an "effects" based standard and increasing "democratization" of the internet as one Professor of law (see below) suggests.
Some might remember the Yahoo/Nazi paraphernalia case of a few years ago. Before that action was brought against Yahoo.com in France, their French subsidiary (Yahoo.fr) had removed all Nazi items from their auction site. The subsequent case (in which the American Yahoo's auction site was exhibiting nazi paraphernalia, a violation of French penal law) dealt primarily with jurisdiction. Yahoo.com continued to sell the items despite the French order (nice to know they had no qualms profiting off these items). The company went to the District Court in California to basically attempt to invalidate the French order and argue that there was no jurisdiction, and the court granted summary judgment for Yahoo.
The Court of Appeals recently reversed this decision, however, in November 2004. For those interested, this recent decision is here, and Professor Joel Reidenberg at Fordham Law School (he's up there with Lessig in Cyberlaw issues) has written extensively on the case and its effect on jurisdiction over internet activities in two articles (here and here).
the big deal with Pages are the excellent templates. I've been using them at school and people are pretty impressed.
I also like how compatible it is with other word processors/document types...
Slashdot Mirror
I remember debating between a single core 33mhz Powerbook 190 or a single core 33mhz Powerbook 190cs when I went to college and then realized I was too poor for either.
You're more right than you know.
Check out the two people in this picture, looks like they're searching in vain for the next release of Windows:
http://www.microsoft.com/
amending my above post, i see that the noncompete was for one year. This might be unreasonable, and a judge could be asked to bring this time period down to 3-6 months...
A judge would essentially be asked to balance the economic interests of the company with the economic interests of the employee, with an eye on preventing the erosion of existing trade secret protection. The noncompete must be reasonable, and in this case it doesn't seem clear how long the noncompete was for or how narrowly worded the noncompete was (whether it was confined to specific search technologies or search in general).
With regard to governing law, most likely it will be found to fall under Washington law, since undoubtedly the governing law provision of the contract would have specified Washington State.
how many laws would I break by downloading and installing it? (laws affecting Australia that is...)
1138.
-George Lucas's Lawyer.
Recommended Hardware Configurations for H.264 High Definition (HD) Playback
To play high definition video, a large amount of data must be processed by your computer. A powerful system will deliver the best playback experience.
For 1280x720 (720p) video at 24-30 frames per second:
* 1.8 GHz PowerMac G5 or faster Macintosh computer
* At least 256 MB of RAM
* 64 MB or greater video card
For 1920x1080 (1080p) video at 24-30 frames per second:
* Dual 2.0 GHz PowerMac G5 or faster Macintosh computer
* At least 512 MB of RAM
* 128 MB or greater video card
LOL! Are you talking about this? That is pretty funny - looks like something out of wood shop.
actually I was thinking of another wood iPod dock, but it now seems to be eluding google.
Check these out, they're probably the worst...
But I think my point is that when the peripheral might look TOO much like the original product and cause confusion over who actually produced the COMPUTER then the legal heads might have to get involved...
Your point is well taken though - perhaps Apple really does love to create markets for add-ons. But there are some accessories I've seen that Steve Jobs must cringe at.... (The wood block iPod dock (er, stand?) comes to mind)
Apple might have a case that the MiniMate infringes on the trademark it has established with the Mac mini on the grounds that it has copied its trade dress.
Looking at the front of the machine, there are no markings on the Mac mini to let you know that it is an Apple product, whereas Micronet is emblazoned on the front of its MiniMate. If the Mac Mini is covered on top by the MiniMate or the pair are stacked in a rack/cabinet/cubbyhole, one might think that both boxes are made by Micronet, effectively causing a likelihood of confusion "or to deceive as to the...origin...of the goods." (this last language is taken straight out of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act.)
I know most /.'ers won't have this problem of confusion but I believe that the standard is according to some "reasonable person of the community" standard, and whether they would be confused by the trade dress...
I think Apple went after a Chinese (or Taiwanese?) company a few years ago for its bondi blue iMac lookalike....but they seem to have a more favorable view of add-ons like this one that resemble the original product without performing the same functions (the huge iPod accessory market is further proof of their leniency to accessories that piggy-back off their designs without directly competing with them).
I agree with you completely, but the items for sale weren't just what you might find now (i.e. coins and stamps). The French penal code prohibits the wearing or display of uniforms, insignia, etc. for organizations/groups that have been convicted of crimes against humanity.
What was happening was that Yahoo was becoming a haven for Neo-Nazis trying to find uniforms, flags, etc. for their rallies.
In America the First Amendment is extremely broad in scope and even protects hate speech (as long as it doesn't incite immediate violence).
European societies are different however. They have not found it difficult to justify restrictions such as this in the name of suppressing Neo-Nazi groups. (and by the way America now has more Neo-Nazis than any other country).
But I agree with you about the coins, somehow they seem different. I would still be very wary of who i'm buying the item from - even these items feel (to me) eternally marked/cursed by the deep evil of Nazism.
-e.
Some might remember the Yahoo/Nazi paraphernalia case of a few years ago. Before that action was brought against Yahoo.com in France, their French subsidiary (Yahoo.fr) had removed all Nazi items from their auction site. The subsequent case (in which the American Yahoo's auction site was exhibiting nazi paraphernalia, a violation of French penal law) dealt primarily with jurisdiction. Yahoo.com continued to sell the items despite the French order (nice to know they had no qualms profiting off these items). The company went to the District Court in California to basically attempt to invalidate the French order and argue that there was no jurisdiction, and the court granted summary judgment for Yahoo.
The Court of Appeals recently reversed this decision, however, in November 2004. For those interested, this recent decision is here, and Professor Joel Reidenberg at Fordham Law School (he's up there with Lessig in Cyberlaw issues) has written extensively on the case and its effect on jurisdiction over internet activities in two articles (here and here).
the big deal with Pages are the excellent templates. I've been using them at school and people are pretty impressed. I also like how compatible it is with other word processors/document types...