Just to be clear, you do understand that the whole point of trademarks is to avoid brand confusion, right? As a consumer, you'd like to know the difference between an Acer laptop and an Aoer laptop.
No, they didn't claim the word thanks, they claimed a loyalty reward program called "Thank you". If you're mad about this then you've been mad at Google over their trademark of "Android" for a long time now.
You do know that Citi's "Thank you" service is over five years old, right? You can actually pay for goods through Amazon with your reward points. AT&T knew about this trademark.
Citigroup are suing AT&T for marketing a rewards program based on the word "Thanks" because they have a registered trademark for a rewards program using "Thankyou" marks. This has nothing today with anyone 'saying thanks'.
No story here. Go about your business.
This is not off-topic. This is exactly what the article says! Here's a quote from the article:
Despite actual knowledge of Citigroupâ(TM)s substantial use of and exclusive rights in the THANKYOU Marks, Citigroupâ(TM)s use of the marks in connection with AT&T co-branded credit cards, and Citigroupâ(TM)s concerns regarding AT&Tâ(TM)s proposed trademarks, AT&T launched a customer loyalty program under the trademarks âoethanksâ and âoeAT&T thanksâ on or about June 2, 2016.
That's a pretty important detail to leave out of the summary! Somebody please fix the parent's moderation.
Citigroup's "Thank you" is a loyalty rewards service. AT&T's "Thank you" is also a loyalty rewards service. It'd be like Wendy's offering a Super Size menu. The article even says as much but since the dipshit that wrote it went off on a knee-jerk reaction you've been mislead to believe that it's about usage of the simple phrase.
This is not the site to go to if you want informed news on patents, trademarks, or copyrights. Hell, half the commenters on this site think Apple owns anything with a rounded corner.
The typical advertising deal is a store knows how much money it's making. The store purchases ads then measures how much sales go up. If they don't go up, they stop giving the advertising service more money.
These are all sources of information, rather than manufacturers.
Could you please explain the distinction in this context? As long as you're understanding that the information is being categorized by Netflix, Youtube, etc, then we're close enough to being on the same page that your argument doesn't really act as a rebuttal.
There is no "nuance".
Well, no, you're just not seeing it. I'm not really seeing where the break in our communication is.
I'm still waiting to hear an argument for "net neutrality", that would can not also be used to argue against special traffic lanes for city buses and cars with E-ZPass.
You keep repeating this meaningless "manufacturer" thing â" there is no "manufacturer" of Internet packets.
Netflix, Hulu, Youtube, Vimeo, iTunes, Amazon, etc.
In case of roads, NY city's prioritizing of city buses is a perfectly apt analogy.
As I said, it is close, but it fails to pick up the very nuance that brought this legislation up in the first place.
But it is an example of how companies are forced â" by the regulations â" to compete for favors of government and judges, rather than those of customers.
It is in the customers' best interests to have competition in the space.
The government, that maintains the roads, gives priority to the buses, which it also runs, how is that?
A little closer but still not the same. If the gov't gave priority in such a way that only one manufacturer could build those buses your metaphor would be in better shape.
The problem with Internet Service Provision is lack of competition.
I agree, specifically with this statement. I feel like this whole system would at least have the protection of "fear of losing customers" to keep everybody honest.
Adding more and more regulation only helps the incumbents ward off would-be challengers.
I don't think your example supports your point. In fact I think it does the opposite.
Net-neutrality supporters argue against discrimination based on packet-contents and origination, not the network gear, that generated them.
You're not quite getting the picture I intended to paint, here. I should have put a little more detail in.
Most of these broadband ISPs have their own services, TV being the big one, that they want to prioritize over the competition like Hulu or Netflix. Net Neutrality is not about QoS, it's about preventing the barrier-to-entry from being artificially risen. To correct your metaphor you'd need to distinguish the vehicles on the road by brand, not by their capabilities.
Eh, fine, whatever. I didn't read the summary very deeply because I thought this was in response to Amazon's blocking of AppleTV sales. They don't want to sell the AppleTV until it can play Amazon Prime video and they don't want to pay the thirty percent. I thought maybe they had finally gotten through.
There are two applications that I would pay a subscription for. They are very expensive (think several thousand dollars), very complex, and they are key ingredients to how I make a living. When this software is updated, there's a strong potential for my productivity to increase and should I master those new features I could get end up getting a pay raise.
So there are two reasons I would consider (emphasize the word 'consider') a subscription model for these apps. First is that I would like that company to be financially successful so they will continue to do significant upgrades. It is my hope that should they want me to retain a subscription they'd hear my voice more distinctly rather than hoping I'll purchase an upgrade. (I may be in fantasy-land, here.) Second is that upfront cost is HUGE. My company pays that cost for me to use the software at work. But should I wish to freelance I would need the software at home, and that is a LARGE investment. In many cases that is doable (in fact I've done exactly that), but I could not have done this before I became a professional with spending power. If I could have rented the software for say 3 months without having to lay out thousands of dollars I could then learn-by-using from home and my myself employable.
So why aren't I renting right now? Well in one case the 'rental' period is a year. Expensive and it falls under "what's the point?" In the other case I've already purchased the software and the upgrade isn't worthwhile yet. They really need to think in terms of 'month-to-month' and I doubt they will.
Also I need to make sure I'm using the same software version that my potential clients use. If they haven't moved to that model, I will not either. Although in one case I could see my clients forcing me into this model whether I like it or not.
I'm rambling a little too much here so I'll wrap it up. Even though I'm semi-positive towards software rentals, I need to emphasize that I'm talking about software that earns me money. I would not go this route with a games like GTA. I don't need ticks collecting on my monthly budget.
Slashdot Mirror
Just to be clear, you do understand that the whole point of trademarks is to avoid brand confusion, right? As a consumer, you'd like to know the difference between an Acer laptop and an Aoer laptop.
No, they didn't claim the word thanks, they claimed a loyalty reward program called "Thank you". If you're mad about this then you've been mad at Google over their trademark of "Android" for a long time now.
You do know that Citi's "Thank you" service is over five years old, right? You can actually pay for goods through Amazon with your reward points. AT&T knew about this trademark.
Citigroup are suing AT&T for marketing a rewards program based on the word "Thanks" because they have a registered trademark for a rewards program using "Thankyou" marks. This has nothing today with anyone 'saying thanks'.
No story here. Go about your business.
This is not off-topic. This is exactly what the article says! Here's a quote from the article:
Despite actual knowledge of Citigroupâ(TM)s substantial use of and exclusive rights in the THANKYOU Marks, Citigroupâ(TM)s use of the marks in connection with AT&T co-branded credit cards, and Citigroupâ(TM)s concerns regarding AT&Tâ(TM)s proposed trademarks, AT&T launched a customer loyalty program under the trademarks âoethanksâ and âoeAT&T thanksâ on or about June 2, 2016.
That's a pretty important detail to leave out of the summary! Somebody please fix the parent's moderation.
Citigroup's "Thank you" is a loyalty rewards service. AT&T's "Thank you" is also a loyalty rewards service. It'd be like Wendy's offering a Super Size menu. The article even says as much but since the dipshit that wrote it went off on a knee-jerk reaction you've been mislead to believe that it's about usage of the simple phrase.
This is not the site to go to if you want informed news on patents, trademarks, or copyrights. Hell, half the commenters on this site think Apple owns anything with a rounded corner.
You do realize that the reason a bunch of those are sequels is because people paid for them, right?
There is no ocean, only drops of water.
The typical advertising deal is a store knows how much money it's making. The store purchases ads then measures how much sales go up. If they don't go up, they stop giving the advertising service more money.
I tried building a sensor that detects gravity but in all my bench-tests it just kept pointing at your mom.
These are all sources of information, rather than manufacturers.
Could you please explain the distinction in this context? As long as you're understanding that the information is being categorized by Netflix, Youtube, etc, then we're close enough to being on the same page that your argument doesn't really act as a rebuttal.
There is no "nuance".
Well, no, you're just not seeing it. I'm not really seeing where the break in our communication is.
I'm still waiting to hear an argument for "net neutrality", that would can not also be used to argue against special traffic lanes for city buses and cars with E-ZPass.
E-Z Pass does not distinguish by manufacturer.
You keep repeating this meaningless "manufacturer" thing â" there is no "manufacturer" of Internet packets.
Netflix, Hulu, Youtube, Vimeo, iTunes, Amazon, etc.
In case of roads, NY city's prioritizing of city buses is a perfectly apt analogy.
As I said, it is close, but it fails to pick up the very nuance that brought this legislation up in the first place.
But it is an example of how companies are forced â" by the regulations â" to compete for favors of government and judges, rather than those of customers.
It is in the customers' best interests to have competition in the space.
The government, that maintains the roads, gives priority to the buses, which it also runs, how is that?
A little closer but still not the same. If the gov't gave priority in such a way that only one manufacturer could build those buses your metaphor would be in better shape.
The problem with Internet Service Provision is lack of competition.
I agree, specifically with this statement. I feel like this whole system would at least have the protection of "fear of losing customers" to keep everybody honest.
Adding more and more regulation only helps the incumbents ward off would-be challengers.
I don't think your example supports your point. In fact I think it does the opposite.
Net-neutrality supporters argue against discrimination based on packet-contents and origination, not the network gear, that generated them.
You're not quite getting the picture I intended to paint, here. I should have put a little more detail in.
Most of these broadband ISPs have their own services, TV being the big one, that they want to prioritize over the competition like Hulu or Netflix. Net Neutrality is not about QoS, it's about preventing the barrier-to-entry from being artificially risen. To correct your metaphor you'd need to distinguish the vehicles on the road by brand, not by their capabilities.
"Only vehicles built by Ford can drive in this neighborhood."
What outlet of the media are you watching where you feel it sounds like the shooting is justified?
Only if they sell a lot of them.
Is this about branding or about separating Apple Power from Apple Corp so they don't get overloaded with frivolous lawsuits baited by deep pockets?
You'll find that it's better! Down where it's wetter!! Un... um... erm...
... and then sells all your data to the highest bidder.
Why does Android get away with this?
There goes Android copying Apple again.
Hmm you might want to try a metaphor the readership here can relate to.
23 minutes of flight time can get you to many more places than 23 minutes of drive time in San Fransisco, New York City, and Los Angeles.
... because it's a smartphone?
Are you sure you're on the right site?
Eh, fine, whatever. I didn't read the summary very deeply because I thought this was in response to Amazon's blocking of AppleTV sales. They don't want to sell the AppleTV until it can play Amazon Prime video and they don't want to pay the thirty percent. I thought maybe they had finally gotten through.
Oh well.
There are two applications that I would pay a subscription for. They are very expensive (think several thousand dollars), very complex, and they are key ingredients to how I make a living. When this software is updated, there's a strong potential for my productivity to increase and should I master those new features I could get end up getting a pay raise.
So there are two reasons I would consider (emphasize the word 'consider') a subscription model for these apps. First is that I would like that company to be financially successful so they will continue to do significant upgrades. It is my hope that should they want me to retain a subscription they'd hear my voice more distinctly rather than hoping I'll purchase an upgrade. (I may be in fantasy-land, here.) Second is that upfront cost is HUGE. My company pays that cost for me to use the software at work. But should I wish to freelance I would need the software at home, and that is a LARGE investment. In many cases that is doable (in fact I've done exactly that), but I could not have done this before I became a professional with spending power. If I could have rented the software for say 3 months without having to lay out thousands of dollars I could then learn-by-using from home and my myself employable.
So why aren't I renting right now? Well in one case the 'rental' period is a year. Expensive and it falls under "what's the point?" In the other case I've already purchased the software and the upgrade isn't worthwhile yet. They really need to think in terms of 'month-to-month' and I doubt they will.
Also I need to make sure I'm using the same software version that my potential clients use. If they haven't moved to that model, I will not either. Although in one case I could see my clients forcing me into this model whether I like it or not.
I'm rambling a little too much here so I'll wrap it up. Even though I'm semi-positive towards software rentals, I need to emphasize that I'm talking about software that earns me money. I would not go this route with a games like GTA. I don't need ticks collecting on my monthly budget.