The government IS indeed there to protect citizens preemptively BEFORE something bad happens to them.
This is why you have an army, everstanding, to meet any foreign attacks, to intervene before the attack occurs and reaches your mainland.
This is where child abuse, protection laws and so on are put forth, in order to prevent abuse before it happens.
Same goes with network neutrality.
Handing over free speech to a few corporations so that they might be able to curb it once it does not fit their needs, is not something to be risked, and it is defnitely not something that you can "later fix".
Its similar to saying "lets allow passing of laws that allow the president to assume dictatorial powers. If something bad happens, we can fix it later".
Unfortunately, at the least, this "confusingly similar" comparison has no definitive meaning, and can and does fluctuate with time and place.
Even if that wasnt so, in any case the concept that you might be sued for saying something with an everyday word that is being used in a context that is 'confusingly similar' to a brand name, would prove that it can be detrimental to concept of SPEECH, let alone freedom of speech.
This argument was put exactly the same way against my view before. I will reply by quoting my own reply then :
Au contraire,
1) Believing that a generic word cannot be used as a trademark;
Just because some law has been passed by any assembly does not mean that the law is just and sound. Just like the net neutrality in u.s. - they who pay, make the law.
Using of generic words as a trademark monopolizes the use of that word in benefit of the tm. holding company. You can not use it without permission from them without breaking the current i.p. laws. Read below.
2) Assuming that a trademark "stops" use of the mark in conversation; and
Actually it does. However no corporation is seeking any damages against you or any other ordinary people who uses those GENERIC words that have been taken under monopoly, because you do not generate any damages in their eyes. If, you, or some number of people would seem to be doing so, they would. And they do, just like what apple is doing now.
3) For not understanding anything about law, yet commenting on it.
As per the above points, it is clear that you are the one who do not have understanding of the law Apparently, you think that any concept being approved by an particular assembly should be right - which is absolute fallacy. Would it be right and constitutional if current u.s. congress and senate had passed laws that reinstates aristocracy in u.s., and declares congressmen, senators and their close circles counts, dukes earls accordingly, and conferred kingship to w.bush ?
It would be unconstutitional right ?
Lets have a look at the case at hand - a generic word, is now OWNED by some company. In its current situation, theres NOTHING barring that company seeking damages from you if you used the word 'pod' in conversation anywhere, lest they think they might have some interest in going for trashing you.
Is it constutitional ? NO ! why ?
Because almost 30% of the words you NEED to use in your daily speech, are owned by innumerable corporations and trading entities. This is a situation that gives the option to BAR the INSTRUMENT OF SPEECH, WORDS, let alone freedom of speech - they are just not doing it.
--
And the lawsuits has to be class action lawsuits. So that nobody should be able to try to patent a PUBLIC, EVERYDAY word and get away unscathed even they are unsuccessful.
Nay, actually, it did not. The first programme we watched was the wedding of prince charles and diana, live. I am still able to watch it with the same quality.
Second is definitely wrong too, as i have one of the latest 22"ers in the next room.
Third, is definitely true. Albeit, it is not acceptable, it is a view that is just normal and comparable to any other crt i have around, and i see in stores today.
This company is SO full of crap, SO full of shit that, EVERYTHING can be expected from them.
Just look at the way the morons treat their own customers in areas of consumer electronics, mmo games (star wars galaxies), music cds (unbelievable rootkit issue).
I NEVER buy anything sony. not even if it is the last brand on earth.
And the screen have not detoriated neither in image quality, luminance, color clarity and strength, in contrast or anything.
Its crt tube has not been replaced never since 1980, and it has NEVER seen any repair or needed any.
It has been in CONSTANT use for the time duration at hand, on average 4-6 hours a day.
Still no sign of weakness or anything. Its a phillips. was made in europe.
Considering that, and considering also i still have a crt monitor i bought with my 486-dx33 back in 1993, and considering it still works despite being not precise in display, i can say that it would be utter stupid to immediately jump on to the train of new plasma or lcd technology.
Id wait for the standard to settle, and only then jump in.
Why is apple going for producers who create goods that have 'pod' in their name and which are TOTALLY UNRELATED to music ? How come they are able to do that if the current trademark law does not allow this ?
Huh ? You have said that despite p&g produces a detergent called 'tide', i could produce and sell a water brand called 'tide'.
Apple is GOING for products that even DO NOT have their particular product's full name in them. !!!
It seems that you are yourself a fool, as you are not able to comprehend the situation and its relations, and put forward an example that disproves yourself.
Yea. i told you before about this, when the recent british 'terror thwart' story was posted in slasdot. i told you that it smelled fishy. i told you it was government's job. you told i was being conspirative. you modded my post down. now everyday someone coming out and expressing disbelief about the 'terror thwart'. each day smell is worse. see ? what now huh ?
1) Believing that a generic word cannot be used as a trademark;
Just because some law has been passed by any assembly does not mean that the law is just and sound. Just like the net neutrality in u.s. - they who pay, make the law.
Using of generic words as a trademark monopolizes the use of that word in benefit of the tm. holding company. You can not use it without permission from them without breaking the current i.p. laws. Read below.
2) Assuming that a trademark "stops" use of the mark in conversation; and
Actually it does. However no corporation is seeking any damages against you or any other ordinary people who uses those GENERIC words that have been taken under monopoly, because you do not generate any damages in their eyes. If, you, or some number of people would seem to be doing so, they would. And they do, just like what apple is doing now.
3) For not understanding anything about law, yet commenting on it.
As per the above points, it is clear that you are the one who do not have understanding of the law Apparently, you think that any concept being approved by an particular assembly should be right - which is absolute fallacy. Would it be right and constitutional if current u.s. congress and senate had passed laws that reinstates aristocracy in u.s., and declares congressmen, senators and their close circles counts, dukes earls accordingly, and conferred kingship to w.bush ?
It would be unconstutitional right ?
Lets have a look at the case at hand - a generic word, is now OWNED by some company. In its current situation, theres NOTHING barring that company seeking damages from you if you used the word 'pod' in conversation anywhere, lest they think they might have some interest in going for trashing you.
Is it constutitional ? NO ! why ?
Because almost 30% of the words you NEED to use in your daily speech, are owned by innumerable corporations and trading entities. This is a situation that gives the option to BAR the INSTRUMENT OF SPEECH, WORDS, let alone freedom of speech - they are just not doing it.
Also note that, i have called these people 'morons'. This is a seperate matter for any lawsuit, and also im willing to prove in any court of law that such actions qualify in the realm of morondom, and if they do NOT qualify as such, it is worse - it is ABUSE FOR PROFIT.
Is it only me, or these days companies are hiring MORONS as lawyers ?
I, personally, am going to use the word 'pod', whenever, wherever i want.
I openly challenge the morons posing as 'lawyers' in apple, to SUE me.
In turn, i will be filing a phletora of suits concerning ABUSE OF LAW by these morons, in various applicable local courts and international courts, with sizeable requests of moral damages.
Already incurred debts, and existing assets, yes, you can inherit, or refuse.
But, a LAWSUIT that is in progress is not an item that is bound by laws governing inheritance. ONLY if its incurred penalties - if the case is closed and any monetary punishment has been given - can be applied to inheritor.
In each of extraordinarily greedy, negativistic and bullying peoples' and organisations' timelines, there comes a point that the greed blurs the vision and judgment, and they commit inexplicaply stupid and pointless stuff, because of power nausea, if they had found that their deeds were going unchallenged. Apparently riaa has reached such a point.
Dishonest NYT - The NYT publishes a news story that backhandedly casts the Bush Administration in a bad light.
You have made it sound SO that i am compelled even to believe bush. adm. is honest.
It was not a problem when that 'honest' bush adm was undercutting your country's first amendment while claiming to be doing otherwise, undercutting your social security while transferring cash into their supporter corporation cronies and countless more...
So is nyt dishonest, in that they have published an article that IMPLYINGLY condemns bush adm ?
At least THEY DO NOT LIE AND SEND YOUR PEOPLE TO DIE OFF IN FOREIGN HELLS FOR THE PROFIT OF SOME OIL BOSSES.
Slashdot Mirror
The government IS indeed there to protect citizens preemptively BEFORE something bad happens to them.
This is why you have an army, everstanding, to meet any foreign attacks, to intervene before the attack occurs and reaches your mainland.
This is where child abuse, protection laws and so on are put forth, in order to prevent abuse before it happens.
Same goes with network neutrality.
Handing over free speech to a few corporations so that they might be able to curb it once it does not fit their needs, is not something to be risked, and it is defnitely not something that you can "later fix".
Its similar to saying "lets allow passing of laws that allow the president to assume dictatorial powers. If something bad happens, we can fix it later".
my pardon, but this is absolute bullshit.
Unfortunately, at the least, this "confusingly similar" comparison has no definitive meaning, and can and does fluctuate with time and place.
Even if that wasnt so, in any case the concept that you might be sued for saying something with an everyday word that is being used in a context that is 'confusingly similar' to a brand name, would prove that it can be detrimental to concept of SPEECH, let alone freedom of speech.
So ? How come apple is able to go after other products, for just containing the term 'pod' ?
This argument was put exactly the same way against my view before. I will reply by quoting my own reply then :
Au contraire, 1) Believing that a generic word cannot be used as a trademark; Just because some law has been passed by any assembly does not mean that the law is just and sound. Just like the net neutrality in u.s. - they who pay, make the law. Using of generic words as a trademark monopolizes the use of that word in benefit of the tm. holding company. You can not use it without permission from them without breaking the current i.p. laws. Read below. 2) Assuming that a trademark "stops" use of the mark in conversation; and Actually it does. However no corporation is seeking any damages against you or any other ordinary people who uses those GENERIC words that have been taken under monopoly, because you do not generate any damages in their eyes. If, you, or some number of people would seem to be doing so, they would. And they do, just like what apple is doing now. 3) For not understanding anything about law, yet commenting on it. As per the above points, it is clear that you are the one who do not have understanding of the law Apparently, you think that any concept being approved by an particular assembly should be right - which is absolute fallacy. Would it be right and constitutional if current u.s. congress and senate had passed laws that reinstates aristocracy in u.s., and declares congressmen, senators and their close circles counts, dukes earls accordingly, and conferred kingship to w.bush ? It would be unconstutitional right ? Lets have a look at the case at hand - a generic word, is now OWNED by some company. In its current situation, theres NOTHING barring that company seeking damages from you if you used the word 'pod' in conversation anywhere, lest they think they might have some interest in going for trashing you. Is it constutitional ? NO ! why ? Because almost 30% of the words you NEED to use in your daily speech, are owned by innumerable corporations and trading entities. This is a situation that gives the option to BAR the INSTRUMENT OF SPEECH, WORDS, let alone freedom of speech - they are just not doing it. --
And the lawsuits has to be class action lawsuits. So that nobody should be able to try to patent a PUBLIC, EVERYDAY word and get away unscathed even they are unsuccessful.
And now the router is gonna do it for us ?
Whats next ? Filesharing service directly from your isp ?
Share ahoy !
Nay, actually, it did not. The first programme we watched was the wedding of prince charles and diana, live. I am still able to watch it with the same quality.
How ? i dont know.
1st is definitely wrong,
Second is definitely wrong too, as i have one of the latest 22"ers in the next room.
Third, is definitely true. Albeit, it is not acceptable, it is a view that is just normal and comparable to any other crt i have around, and i see in stores today.
Dinasours have became extinct throught the same mechanism - they werent able to adjust to changing environment.
...
Just like those bands and whoever sides with them
It seems possible.
This company is SO full of crap, SO full of shit that, EVERYTHING can be expected from them.
Just look at the way the morons treat their own customers in areas of consumer electronics, mmo games (star wars galaxies), music cds (unbelievable rootkit issue).
I NEVER buy anything sony. not even if it is the last brand on earth.
And the screen have not detoriated neither in image quality, luminance, color clarity and strength, in contrast or anything.
Its crt tube has not been replaced never since 1980, and it has NEVER seen any repair or needed any.
It has been in CONSTANT use for the time duration at hand, on average 4-6 hours a day.
Still no sign of weakness or anything. Its a phillips. was made in europe.
Considering that, and considering also i still have a crt monitor i bought with my 486-dx33 back in 1993, and considering it still works despite being not precise in display, i can say that it would be utter stupid to immediately jump on to the train of new plasma or lcd technology.
Id wait for the standard to settle, and only then jump in.
definitely a valid point this is, i ask that all voters read.
HOW can you be free, if you are not allowed to be free in your OWN country, shackled by your own government ?
When there was freedom of speech, privacy, liberty in U.S. ?
Well thats a relief.
So ?
Why is apple going for producers who create goods that have 'pod' in their name and which are TOTALLY UNRELATED to music ? How come they are able to do that if the current trademark law does not allow this ?
Huh ? You have said that despite p&g produces a detergent called 'tide', i could produce and sell a water brand called 'tide'.
Apple is GOING for products that even DO NOT have their particular product's full name in them. !!!
It seems that you are yourself a fool, as you are not able to comprehend the situation and its relations, and put forward an example that disproves yourself.
Yea. i told you before about this, when the recent british 'terror thwart' story was posted in slasdot. i told you that it smelled fishy. i told you it was government's job. you told i was being conspirative. you modded my post down. now everyday someone coming out and expressing disbelief about the 'terror thwart'. each day smell is worse. see ? what now huh ?
huh ? ha ? see ? seeeeeee ?
*czzzrt czzt*
If god wanted us to control the spin of electrons, he would put handles on them !!!!
Au contraire,
1) Believing that a generic word cannot be used as a trademark;
Just because some law has been passed by any assembly does not mean that the law is just and sound. Just like the net neutrality in u.s. - they who pay, make the law.
Using of generic words as a trademark monopolizes the use of that word in benefit of the tm. holding company. You can not use it without permission from them without breaking the current i.p. laws. Read below.
2) Assuming that a trademark "stops" use of the mark in conversation; and
Actually it does. However no corporation is seeking any damages against you or any other ordinary people who uses those GENERIC words that have been taken under monopoly, because you do not generate any damages in their eyes. If, you, or some number of people would seem to be doing so, they would. And they do, just like what apple is doing now.
3) For not understanding anything about law, yet commenting on it.
As per the above points, it is clear that you are the one who do not have understanding of the law Apparently, you think that any concept being approved by an particular assembly should be right - which is absolute fallacy. Would it be right and constitutional if current u.s. congress and senate had passed laws that reinstates aristocracy in u.s., and declares congressmen, senators and their close circles counts, dukes earls accordingly, and conferred kingship to w.bush ?
It would be unconstutitional right ?
Lets have a look at the case at hand - a generic word, is now OWNED by some company. In its current situation, theres NOTHING barring that company seeking damages from you if you used the word 'pod' in conversation anywhere, lest they think they might have some interest in going for trashing you.
Is it constutitional ? NO ! why ?
Because almost 30% of the words you NEED to use in your daily speech, are owned by innumerable corporations and trading entities. This is a situation that gives the option to BAR the INSTRUMENT OF SPEECH, WORDS, let alone freedom of speech - they are just not doing it.
Also note that, i have called these people 'morons'. This is a seperate matter for any lawsuit, and also im willing to prove in any court of law that such actions qualify in the realm of morondom, and if they do NOT qualify as such, it is worse - it is ABUSE FOR PROFIT.
Like 'love'.
Is it only me, or these days companies are hiring MORONS as lawyers ?
I, personally, am going to use the word 'pod', whenever, wherever i want.
I openly challenge the morons posing as 'lawyers' in apple, to SUE me.
In turn, i will be filing a phletora of suits concerning ABUSE OF LAW by these morons, in various applicable local courts and international courts, with sizeable requests of moral damages.
Mod it insightful indeed.
Yes, but this is the next stage in Riaa moves. not now.
yea. and as a direct corollary of this, they are dying too.
?
You can NOT inherit a case.
Already incurred debts, and existing assets, yes, you can inherit, or refuse.
But, a LAWSUIT that is in progress is not an item that is bound by laws governing inheritance. ONLY if its incurred penalties - if the case is closed and any monetary punishment has been given - can be applied to inheritor.
In each of extraordinarily greedy, negativistic and bullying peoples' and organisations' timelines, there comes a point that the greed blurs the vision and judgment, and they commit inexplicaply stupid and pointless stuff, because of power nausea, if they had found that their deeds were going unchallenged. Apparently riaa has reached such a point.
Dishonest NYT - The NYT publishes a news story that backhandedly casts the Bush Administration in a bad light.
...
You have made it sound SO that i am compelled even to believe bush. adm. is honest.
It was not a problem when that 'honest' bush adm was undercutting your country's first amendment while claiming to be doing otherwise, undercutting your social security while transferring cash into their supporter corporation cronies and countless more
So is nyt dishonest, in that they have published an article that IMPLYINGLY condemns bush adm ?
At least THEY DO NOT LIE AND SEND YOUR PEOPLE TO DIE OFF IN FOREIGN HELLS FOR THE PROFIT OF SOME OIL BOSSES.