You have failed to show that political activity is not considered a service.
Actually, I said that politics is not commerce.
Nader case: "Even assuming the Nader Ad caused greater contributions to be made to his political campaign, this would not be enough to deem Ralph Nader's Ad 'commercial.' If so, then presumably, as suggested by defendants, all political campaign speech would also be 'commercial speech' since all political candidates collect contributions. Ralph Nader's Political Ad attempts to communicate that other presidential candidates can be bought, but that the 'truth,' represented by himself, cannot. The Nader Ad is a strong political message which expresses his personal opinion on presidential campaigning. The legislative history of the Lanham Act clearly indicates that Congress did not intend for the Act to chill political speech. In speaking about the amendments to Section 43(a) that expanded what was actionable as deceptive advertisements, one of the new law's sponsors, United States Representative Robert Kastenmeier, pointed out that political advertising and promotion are not meant to be covered by the term "commercial."
Kastenmeier statement:
[The statute] uses the word "commercial" to describe advertising or promotion for business purposes, whether conducted by for-profit or non-profit organizations or individuals. Political advertising and promotion is political speech, and therefore not encompassed by the term "commercial." This is true whether what is being promoted is an individual candidacy for public office, or a particular political issue or point of view...
134 Cong. Rec. H. 1297 (daily ed. April 13, 1989)
Your request for a showing has been granted. I look forward to your reply.
In Googe's case the defendant is using the mark in connection with the defendant's service. This service is Googe's political activity. You have failed to show that political activity is not considered a service.
Radiance's use is protected under the first ammendment. Googe's is not. Clear and simple.
1. It's spelled "amendment." Once is a typo. Twice is an error that requires correction. 2. Radiance's use is protected under the first amendment, why? Radiance's use is not in connection with Radiance's service, why? Googe's political speech is not protected under the first amendment why? Disconnected tautologies do not constitute arguments. 3. MasterCard Int'l Inc. v. Nader 2000 Primary Comm., Inc., Case No. 00-cv-06068, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3644, 2004 WL 434404 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 8, 2004). Political activity is not a service, and is not use of a mark in connection with a service in commerce.
Googe's use is outside the scope of the act and has no realistic likelihood of confusion. It is clear and simple, just not in the manner that you believe.
MasterCard Int'l Inc. v. Nader 2000 Primary Comm., Inc., Case No. 00-cv-06068, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3644, 2004 WL 434404 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 8, 2004)
In August 2000, MasterCard became aware that Ralph Nader and his presidential committee were broadcasting an allegedly similar advertisement on television that promoted the presidential candidacy of Ralph Nader in the 2000 presidential election. That political ad included a sequential display of a series of items showing the price of each ("grilled tenderloin for fund-raiser; $ 1,000 a plate;" "campaign ads filled with half-truths: $ 10 million; [*3] " "promises to special interest groups: over $ 100 billion"). The advertisement ends with a phrase identifying a priceless intangible that cannot be purchased ("finding out the truth: priceless. There are some things that money can't buy"). The resulting ad (the "Nader ad") was shown on television during a two week period from August 6-17, during the 2000 presidential campaign, and also appeared on the defendants' web site throughout that campaign.
* * *
In the present case, as previously discussed, defendants' use of plaintiff's marks in the Nader Ad is political, not commercial, in nature. The Ad was not being used in connection with the sale or promotion of a product or service, nor in the conduct of business, trade or commerce.
It is not a service, and even if you consider political activity a service a campaign poster or advertisement is not a use in commerce.
The Nader case also usefully shows how difficult it would be to demonstrate a likelihood of confusion between the respective uses of Googe and Google.
To find Lanham Act violations under these facts risks a different form of infringement -- that of Radiance's expressive right to comment on social issues under the First Amendment. Courts have taken care to avoid Lanham Act interpretations that gratuitously court grave constitutional concerns, and we shall do so here. We hold that Radiance is not liable for trademark infringement or dilution of defendant's marks by tarnishment. We vacate the injunction against Radiance entered by the district court and remand with instructions that defendant's counterclaims likewise be dismissed.
The danger of allowing the "in connection with" element to suck in speech on political and social issues through some strained or tangential association with a commercial or transactional activity should thus be evident. Courts have uniformly understood that imposing liability under the Lanham Act for such speech is rife with the First Amendment problems.
Policy stances are neither goods nor services, though the means of conveying them may be.
Radiance's use of the marks was undeniably to criticize the NAACP's perceived position on abortion, thus falling squarely within the statute's explicit exclusions. See 15 U.S.C. Â 1125(c)(3).
That case agrees with my analysis, not yours.
I'm not going to waste my time analyzing a 4th circuit district court case that is still in progress and is in severe trouble in view of the intervening Radiance decision by the 4th circuit appellate court.
It may have a potential to hurt Google's brand. That's enough for Google to win a lawsuit. They can afford really good lawyers. Trademark infringement cases have been won on shakier grounds.
That's not nearly enough for Google to win a lawsuit. Just because your brand is hurt -- for example, by every news agency in the world reporting that you've cheated on emissions tests -- does not mean that you can sue for trademark infringement.
To infringe a trademark, the accused infringer must be using the trademark in commerce:
15 U.S.C. 1125 (a)(1) Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact... shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she is or is likely to be damaged by such act. * * * (c)(1) Subject to the principles of equity, the owner of a famous mark that is distinctive, inherently or through acquired distinctiveness, shall be entitled to an injunction against another person who, at any time after the ownerâ(TM)s mark has become famous, commences use of a mark or trade name in commerce that is likely to cause dilution by blurring or dilution by tarnishment of the famous mark, regardless of the presence or absence of actual or likely confusion, of competition, or of actual economic injury.
News reporting is commerce, but is usually exempt from the potential infringement issue due to the first amendment and the concept of nominative fair use. To report upon businesses and products, you pretty much have to use trademarks to efficiently refer to them.
All snark aside, politics is not commerce. I don't see any indication from any of the summary's links that she's even selling items like hats, T-shirts, buttons, and other items. Which leaves you with a nebulous theory of "trademark dilution." But if you look even further down in the dilution subsection there's an exception for "Any noncommercial use of a mark." Which reemphasizes the fact that you can only control commercial uses of a trademark.
Thus, no. Google would be fools to take this to court, and really good lawyers would advise them that it is a really bad idea. Someone may get the bright idea to send a nasty letter, but Sue Googe would be an even bigger fool to pay attention to it. A lawsuit would provide the sort of publicity and news exposure that money cannot buy, and what exactly can Google claim for monetary damages? Come November, the campaign is over and any lawsuit would be dropped for being more trouble than it was worth.
He already blew by the fact that Dan Sinclair was not the head of the "Lee County, Florida Elections Office run by Sharon Harrington, the Lee County Supervisor of Elections."
We're not making sense. We're demagoguing our preferred narrative, facts be damned.
He was "hacking" it on a video demonstrating it directly to THE ELECTIONS SUPERVISOR, who agree he should not have been arrested.
No, he was not. A candidate for elections supervisor for a county is not the active elections supervisor for the county.
Levin told the elections office what he did under the auspices of helping its cybersecurity and explained how he hacked into the databases in a YouTube video also featuring Dan Sinclair, who is one of the candidates running for the supervisor position against incumbent Supervisor of Elections Sharon Harrington.
Even if Dan Sinclair held that position, the county supervisor of election has no authority to consent to hacking of state, not county, elections systems.
The Florida Department of Law Enforcement accused the 31-year-old Estero man of hacking into the state elections website Jan. 4 and Jan. 31. He hacked into the Lee County elections website Dec. 19.
You also missed this gem, presumably from Dan Sinclair himself:
The arrest report was clear that Sinclair did not ask Levin to hack into the sites, but that Levin called him to tell him what he had done afterward.
About this only part that you got right is that one unelected person thinks that Levin should not have been arrested.
It's probably somewhat correct. It's probably also somewhat incorrect. It differs from my personal experience.
Well, I'll certainly trust an anecdote of 1 versus this:
"Methods. We drew a sample of individuals aged 20 years and older from the United Kingdom's Clinical Practice Research Datalink from 2004 to 2014. We analyzed data for 76,704 obese men and 99,791 obese women. We excluded participants who received bariatric surgery. We estimated the probability of attaining normal weight or 5% reduction in body weight."
It cites self-help books, not scientific studies.
You didn't even read the article, did you? Nevermind the fact that the summary's first link is to the scientific study in question.
These types of articles seem to consistently confuse hunger and appetite with eating. Hunger isn't eating. Appetite isn't eating. Only actual eating is eating. A hungry person can procrastinate eating a long time, especially if he or she doesn't keep anything ready to eat in the house. It doesn't even take much "will power". Just don't buy snacks (or cereal, or anything else that's edible without preparation) when you shop.
The first link is a scientific study that looks at long term weight trends after an initial weight loss. Not "hunger" or "appetite." Food consumption over as much as 10 year is "actual eating." It doesn't even take much "will power" to locate the study and read it, versus cherry-picking a mass media commentary that itself cites seven studies and a metaanalysis.
Apply a version of your own philosophy. It doesn't even take much "will power." Just don't spew an "opinion" without reading each of the hyperlinked articles to check that little things like "it cites self-help books, not scientific studies" are not so egregiously incorrect that you appear to be a complete moron.
Driving is a funny example. It's precisely the reason we have seatbelt laws.
Well, unless you can point to a law requiring so much as a fine for feedling yourself poop, you've pretty much demonstrated why the legal conversation concerning this event should be over.
You don't have it quite right. They are indeed complaining that the customer has to use non-free software, under the FSF's peculiar definition of non-free. The problem is, the FSF can't even be bothered to follow their own philosophy. Read the linked post by his holiness for how, as usual, distributing code as free-to-use is simply not good enough. Then focus on this final gem:
In the mean time, there's one case where it is acceptable to run a nonfree JavaScript program: to send a complaint to the website operators saying they should free or remove the JavaScript code in the site. Please don't hesitate to enable JavaScript temporarily to do that -- but remember to disable it again afterwards.
From TFA:
Unfortunately, once again, the Copyright Office requires the use of proprietary JavaScript in order to submit the comment and they are only accepting comments online unless a person lacks computer or Internet access. However, we mailed a copy via the post and we are posting it publicly in the hopes that they will read it and understand that their infrastructure is so broken that we cannot even tell them that it is broken. At this time, we have received no response from the Copyright Office, and once again our comment has not been published.
So it's acceptable, but by God they're not going to do it, and it's the Copyright Office's fault that it won't bend over to accommodate the FSF's narcissistic choice.
Better tell that to Steam. They've sold me a couple dozen games while not accepting my Discover card, and their client software even stores the rejected card information for subsequent purchases despite their refusal to to accept it.
I think of people who choose to work for evil corps as traitors (google is a shining example; google steals your info and no one knows where, exactly, it ends up).
You can't betray a cause that you never chose to join in the first place. Traitor is not a synonym for "people who never pretended to care about my principles."
I could see myself having to take just ANYTHING to keep income flowing.
Yeah... you have no business throwing stones.
I dispise, deeply, those who had a choice and still chose to work for the bad guys.
Well there's an inconsequential thought to start my day.
I understand what you're saying but the problem is back one step - which is that any effort to tip the scale in favor of a vocal minority - no matter how benign - is an in democratic (small c) distortion of how the voting should be.
Of course! The solution is to prevent distortions by suppressing small minorities that get out their vote! Not to prevent distortions by getting a so-called silent majority to get out their own vote.
You're calling for governance by statistical polling. Valid concept, but let's not pretend that it's democratic. People who can't even be arsed enough to affirmativelty cast a vote have opted out of participation. The fact that you can extract an opinion -- concerning anything from anyone -- does not mean that that person has been excluded from a democratic decision.
How does Amazon dictate the prices at suppliers can sell again, or function as the sole potential purchaser? Or do you just not know what the term monosony means?
"And indeed the early reports of a dent in the front of the plane were not confirmed - there was no actual damage to the plane and there's indeed some speculation that it may have even been a plastic bag or something.
"I've not actually landed a 747 at Heathrow but I've landed the simulator and the pilot has a lot of other things to concentrate on so we're not quite sure what they saw so I think we should maybe not overreact too much."
People far more qualified than I have reported their firsthand knowledge (but not certainty) concerning a fact.
But I am awesome. I played with a simulator once, and it was hard. Therefore it must be hard for less awesome people even if they fly actual aircraft routinely for a career.
Other people who have absolutely no firsthand knowledge have speculated that it was a plastic bag. I'm totally onboard with that.
Even though 169.254.x.x is not supposed to be directly routable to the internet, it appears that it can be routed anywhere within a domain of internet-valid IPs, which could make it vulnerable to an unintended routing configuration error....
If I wished to "guarantee" there would not be a way to hack a direct connection from the internet to a machine in a private network, I would be using RFC1918 defined IPs, not link-local addresses.
Link local addresses cannot be routed. RFC6890 specifically states this. If you're willing to assume equipment that violates this, then there's no reason to assume that a private network address will be treated any differently.
Your zeal to be correct ignores the original problem -- RFC1918 defined IPs are forwardable. Consumer equipment already, by default, assignes a private network IP and forwards the traffic to the global network. That is what the original poster specifically did not want to have happen. The original poster does not care whether there is a "direct" or forwaded connection -- he or she wants no connection whatsoever.
Link local addresses are a specialized type of private network address space. In contrast to ranges specifically called out for private networks, the addresses are both non-global and non-fowardable. You are not supposed to manually configure an interface with a link local address because that configuration may not respect certain rules regarding duplicate detection and automatic configuration, but if you want to guarantee that the traffic will not be forwarded it's a hacky way to do it.
A non-hacky way to do it would be MAC address filtering, but a lot of consumer routers only permit you to whitelist MAC addresses, which is a royal pain in the ass. I suppose that you could also assign the device a reserved, private network IP through DHCP and then specify a static route to nowhere or a firewall rule. That presumes that you have equipment which allows you to do that.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless they move for fees.
Really, you're not helping people when you're so consistently wrong.
But you do have a right under the antitrust laws to prevent a company from unreasonably tying the sale of one product or service to another.
We already voted for that right. Starting way back in 1890.
Actually, I said that politics is not commerce.
Nader case:
"Even assuming the Nader Ad caused greater contributions to be made to his political campaign, this would not be enough to deem Ralph Nader's Ad 'commercial.' If so, then presumably, as suggested by defendants, all political campaign speech would also be 'commercial speech' since all political candidates collect contributions. Ralph Nader's Political Ad attempts to communicate that other presidential candidates can be bought, but that the 'truth,' represented by himself, cannot. The Nader Ad is a strong political message which expresses his personal opinion on presidential campaigning. The legislative history of the Lanham Act clearly indicates that Congress did not intend for the Act to chill political speech. In speaking about the amendments to Section 43(a) that expanded what was actionable as deceptive advertisements, one of the new law's sponsors, United States Representative Robert Kastenmeier, pointed out that political advertising and promotion are not meant to be covered by the term "commercial."
Kastenmeier statement:
134 Cong. Rec. H. 1297 (daily ed. April 13, 1989)
Your request for a showing has been granted. I look forward to your reply.
1. It's spelled "amendment." Once is a typo. Twice is an error that requires correction.
2. Radiance's use is protected under the first amendment, why? Radiance's use is not in connection with Radiance's service, why? Googe's political speech is not protected under the first amendment why? Disconnected tautologies do not constitute arguments.
3. MasterCard Int'l Inc. v. Nader 2000 Primary Comm., Inc., Case No. 00-cv-06068, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3644, 2004 WL 434404 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 8, 2004). Political activity is not a service, and is not use of a mark in connection with a service in commerce.
Googe's use is outside the scope of the act and has no realistic likelihood of confusion. It is clear and simple, just not in the manner that you believe.
MasterCard Int'l Inc. v. Nader 2000 Primary Comm., Inc., Case No. 00-cv-06068, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3644, 2004 WL 434404 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 8, 2004)
It is not a service, and even if you consider political activity a service a campaign poster or advertisement is not a use in commerce.
The Nader case also usefully shows how difficult it would be to demonstrate a likelihood of confusion between the respective uses of Googe and Google.
So, again, a suit would be a really bad idea.
Not true. Look at Radiance Foundation v. NAACP and Hershey v Hershey. Political activity is a service.
Ok. Let's look at Radiance:
That case agrees with my analysis, not yours.
I'm not going to waste my time analyzing a 4th circuit district court case that is still in progress and is in severe trouble in view of the intervening Radiance decision by the 4th circuit appellate court.
Care to try again?
That's not nearly enough for Google to win a lawsuit. Just because your brand is hurt -- for example, by every news agency in the world reporting that you've cheated on emissions tests -- does not mean that you can sue for trademark infringement.
To infringe a trademark, the accused infringer must be using the trademark in commerce:
News reporting is commerce, but is usually exempt from the potential infringement issue due to the first amendment and the concept of nominative fair use. To report upon businesses and products, you pretty much have to use trademarks to efficiently refer to them.
All snark aside, politics is not commerce. I don't see any indication from any of the summary's links that she's even selling items like hats, T-shirts, buttons, and other items. Which leaves you with a nebulous theory of "trademark dilution." But if you look even further down in the dilution subsection there's an exception for "Any noncommercial use of a mark." Which reemphasizes the fact that you can only control commercial uses of a trademark.
Thus, no. Google would be fools to take this to court, and really good lawyers would advise them that it is a really bad idea. Someone may get the bright idea to send a nasty letter, but Sue Googe would be an even bigger fool to pay attention to it. A lawsuit would provide the sort of publicity and news exposure that money cannot buy, and what exactly can Google claim for monetary damages? Come November, the campaign is over and any lawsuit would be dropped for being more trouble than it was worth.
He already blew by the fact that Dan Sinclair was not the head of the "Lee County, Florida Elections Office run by Sharon Harrington, the Lee County Supervisor of Elections."
We're not making sense. We're demagoguing our preferred narrative, facts be damned.
It helps to read the related inteviews linked in the summary instead of simply the lede.
Get a grip.
No, he was not. A candidate for elections supervisor for a county is not the active elections supervisor for the county.
Even if Dan Sinclair held that position, the county supervisor of election has no authority to consent to hacking of state, not county, elections systems.
You also missed this gem, presumably from Dan Sinclair himself:
About this only part that you got right is that one unelected person thinks that Levin should not have been arrested.
For one OEM installations are still being sold. Retail license sales are not their only sales.
Well, I'll certainly trust an anecdote of 1 versus this:
"Methods. We drew a sample of individuals aged 20 years and older from the United Kingdom's Clinical Practice Research Datalink from 2004 to 2014. We analyzed data for 76,704 obese men and 99,791 obese women. We excluded participants who received bariatric surgery. We estimated the probability of attaining normal weight or 5% reduction in body weight."
You didn't even read the article, did you? Nevermind the fact that the summary's first link is to the scientific study in question.
The first link is a scientific study that looks at long term weight trends after an initial weight loss. Not "hunger" or "appetite." Food consumption over as much as 10 year is "actual eating." It doesn't even take much "will power" to locate the study and read it, versus cherry-picking a mass media commentary that itself cites seven studies and a metaanalysis.
Apply a version of your own philosophy. It doesn't even take much "will power." Just don't spew an "opinion" without reading each of the hyperlinked articles to check that little things like "it cites self-help books, not scientific studies" are not so egregiously incorrect that you appear to be a complete moron.
Well, unless you can point to a law requiring so much as a fine for feedling yourself poop, you've pretty much demonstrated why the legal conversation concerning this event should be over.
From TFA:
So it's acceptable, but by God they're not going to do it, and it's the Copyright Office's fault that it won't bend over to accommodate the FSF's narcissistic choice.
Whoops. Eponymous, but not contemporary. Founded by Frank Seiberling.
Goodyear. First vulcanized tire. Founded by the inventor of vulcanization.
*mic drop*
He's not the paid troll for all the above. I'm the paid troll for all of the above. And I'm also watching your every move through my binoculars.
If they're not nutritionists conducting peer-reviewed research, you're a fool to listen to people in either group.
Better tell that to Steam. They've sold me a couple dozen games while not accepting my Discover card, and their client software even stores the rejected card information for subsequent purchases despite their refusal to to accept it.
Man, the 194000 people who accessed this support page will be pissed.
You can't betray a cause that you never chose to join in the first place. Traitor is not a synonym for "people who never pretended to care about my principles."
Yeah... you have no business throwing stones.
Well there's an inconsequential thought to start my day.
Of course! The solution is to prevent distortions by suppressing small minorities that get out their vote! Not to prevent distortions by getting a so-called silent majority to get out their own vote.
You're calling for governance by statistical polling. Valid concept, but let's not pretend that it's democratic. People who can't even be arsed enough to affirmativelty cast a vote have opted out of participation. The fact that you can extract an opinion -- concerning anything from anyone -- does not mean that that person has been excluded from a democratic decision.
How does Amazon dictate the prices at suppliers can sell again, or function as the sole potential purchaser? Or do you just not know what the term monosony means?
Also, massive losses are incompatible with a substantial 5 year net income.
You're wrong on both counts.
People far more qualified than I have reported their firsthand knowledge (but not certainty) concerning a fact.
But I am awesome. I played with a simulator once, and it was hard. Therefore it must be hard for less awesome people even if they fly actual aircraft routinely for a career.
Other people who have absolutely no firsthand knowledge have speculated that it was a plastic bag. I'm totally onboard with that.
Look over there, a squirrel!
Link local addresses cannot be routed. RFC6890 specifically states this. If you're willing to assume equipment that violates this, then there's no reason to assume that a private network address will be treated any differently.
Your zeal to be correct ignores the original problem -- RFC1918 defined IPs are forwardable. Consumer equipment already, by default, assignes a private network IP and forwards the traffic to the global network. That is what the original poster specifically did not want to have happen. The original poster does not care whether there is a "direct" or forwaded connection -- he or she wants no connection whatsoever.
Your solution is simply not a solution.
Again, what are you talking about?
Link local addresses are a specialized type of private network address space. In contrast to ranges specifically called out for private networks, the addresses are both non-global and non-fowardable. You are not supposed to manually configure an interface with a link local address because that configuration may not respect certain rules regarding duplicate detection and automatic configuration, but if you want to guarantee that the traffic will not be forwarded it's a hacky way to do it.
A non-hacky way to do it would be MAC address filtering, but a lot of consumer routers only permit you to whitelist MAC addresses, which is a royal pain in the ass. I suppose that you could also assign the device a reserved, private network IP through DHCP and then specify a static route to nowhere or a firewall rule. That presumes that you have equipment which allows you to do that.