No I'm whining that the merits of the case were obvious with only one party showed up to court. The winning party didn't say anything yet had to take a day off work for these proceedings.
Automatically awarding a case to the only party that shows up doesn't make sense in a frivolous lawsuit. The clerk at the filing desk could have told the guy that he wouldn't win.
How about not abolishing completely? Many Civil Complaints are completely frivolous (at least where I live). Heck our neighbour sued us because we refused to pay for half of a fence. He filed the wrong paperwork, built the wrong fence, and for the wrong reasons. We didn't even say anything in court. We just turned up and won. The judge too one look at a picture of the fence and decided we shouldn't have to pay for the neighbours desire to build a huge mansion in an otherwise very ordinary street.
Funny part is we offered him 1/5th of the cost as settlement beforehand (which was the half the cost of putting in the same chicken wire fence we had), and he left with nothing. Yet if we hadn't shown up he would likely have won.
So you won on the merits of the case, and you're whining???
App is, however, an abbreviation of a generic word, and an abbreviation that was in use long before the App Store existed. Likewise, a store called "PC Store" can't be trademarked because even though PC isn't a word either, it's still an abbreviation of a common term.
Even the article points out:
Jobs repeatedly made reference to "app stores" that existed outside of Apple's iTunes App Store.
"So there will be at least four app stores on Android, which customers must search among to find the app they want and developers will need to work with to distribute their apps and get paid. This is going to be a mess for both users and developers. Contrast this with Apple’s integrated App Store, which offers users the easiest-to-use largest app store in the world, preloaded on every iPhone."
Even though Android's app store was called Android Market, and is currently called Google Play, the term is so generic that even Steve Jobs couldn't stop himself from referring to them as an app store.
So what? Doesn't NECCESSARILY mean it's not Trade-Markable. There is actually considerable dissension amongst the various Federal Circuits on this VERY subject. I posted a link to a really nice study on this elsewhere in these comments. Check it out. I think this may be headed to SCOTUS.
Your name exposes a certain bias, that when weighted with your comments lends doubt to your objectivity, which i expressed quite eloquently above. It is ironic that you accuse me of ad-hominem attack with an ad-hominem.
Sent from my mac mini
I freely admit to bias; but facts is facts. If you can refute my facts, then by all means do so. But otherwise, your ad Hominem attack actually makes you, not me, appear to hold the weaker position, and would be losing this debate.
Also, the basic premise of your comment, above, is fatally flawed, to wit: I did not attack you directly; hence, by definition, not an "ad Hominem" (which my Latin-language-taught brain cells translate to "to (about) the person"); rather, I attacked an oblique Class (Idiots). Then I stated that these hypothetical "Idiots" would use ad Hominem attacks in the absence of compelling facts and argument.
It seems that it is you with the "Transference" problem....And, apparently, an utter lack of cogent facts and argument as well.
Otherwise, why wouldn't you just "show me" how wrong I was? I'll wait...
yeah, "macs4all" is a totally unbiased user.
I notice that a lot of your listed items are things that have already been released. I don't see how that refutes a claim that they have nothing in the works.
Oooo, another ad Hominem attack. Way to start a compelling argument...
I guess you didn't notice that I was replying to the GGP's claim that Apple "for the PAST YEAR...", nor did you notice my (obviously true) statement that typically NO ONE outside of Apple and others under NDA knows what they "...have in the works."
And I should be able to trademark the term "Clothing Store" for my store that sells clothing.
App is a reasonable abbreviation for application, a standard product name. An "App store" sells apps.
And who knows what they "have in the works"; because Apple doesn't announce anything until it is a "done deal".
You have a more liberal definition of "done deal" than the rest of the world, methinks. One word: maps. Unless in that case you think a done deal is "sub-part mapping software circa 2001"
No, it is you that seems to have an alternate definition for "done deal" than the rest of us. Everyone else who read my comments knew that what I meant was "Ready to be REVEALED". It does not confer a warranty of merchantability nor fitness of purpose. Learn English next time.
However, Apple did have an "App Store" (by that name) before anyone else.
No, not even close. The domain theappstore.com was registered by an Australian company fully a year before Apple's App Store opened, and it's safe to say that at least a couple of companies had used the term prior to that. The iOS App Store resonated with consumers because it provided additional functionality for a really popular piece of hardware, not because the name was somehow special.
I personally believe that the phrase "App Store" should have been Trade Mark-able
Even if you were correct about Apple being the first user of the mark, it should not have been possible to trademark it. The words "App Store" are descriptive. It would be like trademarking the word "Book Store" because you were the first store that sold only books. A store that sells apps is an app store. Period.
If you allow a trademark to exist on what is basically the only term (other than the longer-form synonym, "application store") that adequately describes a whole category of stores, you would effectively be preventing other stores that sell apps (on any platform) from existing usefully, because no one would be able to describe them without violating that trademark.
A Domain Name is not a Trademark. That's a straw man.
The PHRASE "App Store" SHOULD be Trade-Mark-able; partially because "App" is NOT a WORD. This in no way impedes trade (at least no more than any trademark does); because calling another venture an "Application Store" IS Generic; but "App Store" is not. If you can show me a Corporate Entity (or in fact ANY business) with the SPECIFIC Name "App Store" in existence before Apple's, then I'm listening. Otherwise, STFU.
I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not but from the tone of your other posts in this tread I'm thinking you're not. Apple attempted to rewrite computer history with this lawsuit and they were correctly dismissed. They should be hit with frivolous lawsuit fees.
What Computer History would that be? Point out another venture called an "App Store" (specifically) before Apple.
Apple has some good products but you have gone much too far drinking the coolade. Apple did nothing to contribute to the invention those displays they simply bought the highest res LCD panels and added them to their systems.
The "fusion" drives are standard hybrid drives that use flash as the cache for the spinning media. Support is not baked into OS X and everything they described in the link you listed are functions provided by the drive firmware. The fact that they make it seem like OS X is doing anything for this at all is just laughable since I could throw the drive into a windows 2000 system and still have everything in that paragraph still apply.
I guess they finally realized their earbuds were terrible but the replacement doesn't look like it would be anywhere near as good as my Sennheiser ear canal set.
No, they caused those displays to be created. They went to their "glass" Vendor with a design, and had that Vendor (Samsung, I think) FABRICATE their Design. They don't fabricate their ARM-based "A"-Series SoC chips, either; but they most assuredly designed them.
As for the Fusion drives, are you actually postulating that the DRIVE ITSELF is moving file around? If so, then why did Phil Schiller say that it was OS X that was watching the user habits, and doing the moving? I'm pretty sure he said exactly that. And in fact, as this Ars article shows, this is a form of "auto-tiering", which is a technique employed in large data storage arrays. Read, THEN Post. What you are mistaking this for is simple caching. This is more, and DOES involve the cooperation of at least a part of the OS.
As for the "EarPod" Earbuds, this was actually something like the THIRD re-design. Are they Audiophile material? Hardly; but they are significantly better, especially in the bass region; and I submit they are now at least on-par with any other, and significantly better than, the other "freebie" earbuds included with similar devices from other manufacturers. By the way, Apple is under no allusions as to the quality if their earbuds; otherwise, why would they offer several other Third-Party earbuds and headphones in their stores?
Just simply adopting the loser pays all costs scenario the rest of the world uses would do just fine too.
Also abolishing summary judgements for no shows would be a start too. Just because someone doesn't show up doesn't mean automatically that the opposing argument isn't complete bullshit.
You mean "Default Judgments". And those are fairly easy to have "set aside" if you can show you didn't receive actual (as opposed to "Constructive") Notice. Also, if the "Notice" was by "Publication", Courts will almost always give you a "do-over" if you then later "show up".
However, if you do away with Default Judgments, no one would even bother to Answer a Civil Complaint against them. Why should they?
Unfortunately, this system still doesn't even slightly touch upon the 'big' problem with the legal system... whoever has the most money wins.
So therefore, if you're some random schlub against a company, you're not only absolutely guaranteed to lose, but you have to pay for all of the legal costs of a dozen high-priced lawyers.
Honestly, if I found myself in that situation, even if I was absolutely 100% correct, I still wouldn't show up in court, just to have my life trashed for several months before becoming poor and having 98% of my wages garnished for the rest of my natural life. I'd send a letter to the courts, preferably showing up several days before I'm due to show up, explaining exactly the above, and then just live on the run from the law. Given the choice between running from the law and the absolute certainty that my life is ruined immediatly if I show up, I'll go with the one where I might actually get a bit more time before my life is ruined.
Exactly. So-called "Loser Pays" (known in legal circles as "The Englsh Rule"), as distinguished from "Pay Your Own Costs" (a/k/a "The American Rule"), pretty much has all the disadvantages of the American Rule, with the added "benefit" (that is, to the well-heeled litigant) that if they simply wear down the less well-endowed party, they not only win a Judgment, but also AUTOMATICALLY win their costs.
At least with the American Rule, the litigant who is "worn down" by the other side can simply call it quits, and not be DOUBLY "punished" for simply trying.
Before everybody gets their panties in a bunch, it is VERY important to keep in mind that there are always exceptions made for litigants who file COMPLETELY frivolous litigation. In those cases, judges can (and do) charge the costs to the frivolous litigant, and can even impose Sanctions on the Party (and/or their counsel), as well. But always remember: Just because a lawsuit is basically "hopeless", doesn't mean it is frivolous and vexatious litigation.
It's already started, for the past year they've done nothing but ride the high of their earlier success. Resorting to this kind of tactics instead of better marketing and improving relationships with other companies, tells us one more thing. They have nothing in the works.
New version of iOS (6), with over 200 New Features (and, yes, unfortuately, Apple Maps...). Unlike Android, iOS 6 is immediately available for several generations of devices, all the way back to iPhone 3GS, and the iPad 2.
And I'm sure I'm forgetting some stuff...
And who knows what they "have in the works"; because Apple doesn't announce anything until it is a "done deal".
C is for consumers that support this behaviour. Anyone with an apple device is complicit in these actions. Apple is at the apogee of their corporate life and they are using the legal system to stay there as long as possible because they are no longer capable of innovation
Wait. I thought that the/, meme was that Apple never innovated anything.
So which is it? They used to innovate, or they never innovated? Can't be both.
Why are there no severe consequences for bringing these kinds of ridiculous lawsuits? Shouldn't Amazon at least get all their legal fees paid?
IF it were actually Frivolous, that might be possible.
However, Apple did have an "App Store" (by that name) before anyone else. The name was "catchy" enough to resonate with Consumers. IANAL, and I haven't read the decision, but I personally believe that the phrase "App Store" should have been Trade Mark-able, as it was not being used by anyone before Apple.
If this lawsuit does establish a new intellectual property right, Warner could be in big trouble.
The 1966 Batmobile is a modified Lincoln Futura concept car from 1955. As this is a brand new type of property right, it's unlikely that George Barris who bought the concept car and modified it to make the Batmobile ever bought the 'sculpture' rights to it, so the rights would revert to the 'sculptor' of the original car, the Ford Motor Company. If they win, Warner could not stop clones, as Ford would be the rights holder, not Warner... and Ford would be able to bill Warner for the use of their 'sculpture' in all the toys, films, TV shows that have used it over the years.
What's strange is that Barris retained ownership of the Batmobile, and leased it to Warner Brothers.
So either what I read was incorrect, or Barris sold the car to Warner or DC at some point; or the Plaintiff has no Standing to sue whatsoever (assuming the replica doesn't have a Batman logo on it. I would argue even calling it a "Batmobile" (which is probably Barris' term) wouldn't be enough to confer standing to sue).
Toyota accelerator fiasco? Was that not found to be oldsters who can't tell brake from gas?
Bring back 3 pedals, that would sort this out.
Not after Steve Wozniak demonstrated a repeatable sequence of control "gestures" involving, IIRC, the Cruise Control that would always cause it to happen...
As an aside, there is a guy who parks in front of my apartment building who drives a VW Thing. One of the more ugly vehicles of course, but definitely distinctive.
It is simply a WWII Nazi Military Jeep. Not really changed at all.
Slashdot Mirror
No I'm whining that the merits of the case were obvious with only one party showed up to court. The winning party didn't say anything yet had to take a day off work for these proceedings.
Automatically awarding a case to the only party that shows up doesn't make sense in a frivolous lawsuit. The clerk at the filing desk could have told the guy that he wouldn't win.
Likely not. They cannot "dispense legal advice".
He meant to say "Apple corporate sphincter is utterly filthy".
I only had to change one word...
How about not abolishing completely? Many Civil Complaints are completely frivolous (at least where I live). Heck our neighbour sued us because we refused to pay for half of a fence. He filed the wrong paperwork, built the wrong fence, and for the wrong reasons. We didn't even say anything in court. We just turned up and won. The judge too one look at a picture of the fence and decided we shouldn't have to pay for the neighbours desire to build a huge mansion in an otherwise very ordinary street.
Funny part is we offered him 1/5th of the cost as settlement beforehand (which was the half the cost of putting in the same chicken wire fence we had), and he left with nothing. Yet if we hadn't shown up he would likely have won.
So you won on the merits of the case, and you're whining???
App is, however, an abbreviation of a generic word, and an abbreviation that was in use long before the App Store existed. Likewise, a store called "PC Store" can't be trademarked because even though PC isn't a word either, it's still an abbreviation of a common term.
Even the article points out:
Jobs repeatedly made reference to "app stores" that existed outside of Apple's iTunes App Store.
"So there will be at least four app stores on Android, which customers must search among to find the app they want and developers will need to work with to distribute their apps and get paid. This is going to be a mess for both users and developers. Contrast this with Apple’s integrated App Store, which offers users the easiest-to-use largest app store in the world, preloaded on every iPhone."
Even though Android's app store was called Android Market, and is currently called Google Play, the term is so generic that even Steve Jobs couldn't stop himself from referring to them as an app store.
So what? Doesn't NECCESSARILY mean it's not Trade-Markable. There is actually considerable dissension amongst the various Federal Circuits on this VERY subject. I posted a link to a really nice study on this elsewhere in these comments. Check it out. I think this may be headed to SCOTUS.
Your name exposes a certain bias, that when weighted with your comments lends doubt to your objectivity, which i expressed quite eloquently above. It is ironic that you accuse me of ad-hominem attack with an ad-hominem. Sent from my mac mini
I freely admit to bias; but facts is facts. If you can refute my facts, then by all means do so. But otherwise, your ad Hominem attack actually makes you, not me, appear to hold the weaker position, and would be losing this debate.
...And, apparently, an utter lack of cogent facts and argument as well.
Also, the basic premise of your comment, above, is fatally flawed, to wit: I did not attack you directly; hence, by definition, not an "ad Hominem" (which my Latin-language-taught brain cells translate to "to (about) the person"); rather, I attacked an oblique Class (Idiots). Then I stated that these hypothetical "Idiots" would use ad Hominem attacks in the absence of compelling facts and argument.
It seems that it is you with the "Transference" problem.
Otherwise, why wouldn't you just "show me" how wrong I was? I'll wait...
yeah, "macs4all" is a totally unbiased user. I notice that a lot of your listed items are things that have already been released. I don't see how that refutes a claim that they have nothing in the works.
Oooo, another ad Hominem attack. Way to start a compelling argument...
I guess you didn't notice that I was replying to the GGP's claim that Apple "for the PAST YEAR...", nor did you notice my (obviously true) statement that typically NO ONE outside of Apple and others under NDA knows what they "...have in the works."
Fucking children. Learn to read...
And I should be able to trademark the term "Clothing Store" for my store that sells clothing. App is a reasonable abbreviation for application, a standard product name. An "App store" sells apps.
Not so fast there, buddy!
Apparently, the Federal Circuits are DEEPLY divided on this particular subject.
I smell a SCOTUS case coming in 3... 2... 1..
So which is it? They used to innovate, or they never innovated? Can't be both.
Did he say it was both?
Why yes, yes he did.
You'll pardon me as I use your name to discount your entire post.
Many idiots do. It's called an ad Hominem attack, and is the last refuge of the debater with no true points to argue.
Don't mean to respond to my own post; but necessary for clarification.
I realized after I clicked Submit that Done Deal actually denotes something that is considered "already decided", or "unavoidable".
And who knows what they "have in the works"; because Apple doesn't announce anything until it is a "done deal".
You have a more liberal definition of "done deal" than the rest of the world, methinks. One word: maps. Unless in that case you think a done deal is "sub-part mapping software circa 2001"
No, it is you that seems to have an alternate definition for "done deal" than the rest of us. Everyone else who read my comments knew that what I meant was "Ready to be REVEALED". It does not confer a warranty of merchantability nor fitness of purpose. Learn English next time.
Cool, I wander who holds the trademarks on Grocery Store, Clothing Store, and Shoe Store. Oh wait, nobody cause that is ridiculous.
If the "word" "App" was in fact a word, you might have a point. But it isn't, so you don't.
No, not even close. The domain theappstore.com was registered by an Australian company fully a year before Apple's App Store opened, and it's safe to say that at least a couple of companies had used the term prior to that. The iOS App Store resonated with consumers because it provided additional functionality for a really popular piece of hardware, not because the name was somehow special.
Even if you were correct about Apple being the first user of the mark, it should not have been possible to trademark it. The words "App Store" are descriptive. It would be like trademarking the word "Book Store" because you were the first store that sold only books. A store that sells apps is an app store. Period.
If you allow a trademark to exist on what is basically the only term (other than the longer-form synonym, "application store") that adequately describes a whole category of stores, you would effectively be preventing other stores that sell apps (on any platform) from existing usefully, because no one would be able to describe them without violating that trademark.
A Domain Name is not a Trademark. That's a straw man.
The PHRASE "App Store" SHOULD be Trade-Mark-able; partially because "App" is NOT a WORD. This in no way impedes trade (at least no more than any trademark does); because calling another venture an "Application Store" IS Generic; but "App Store" is not. If you can show me a Corporate Entity (or in fact ANY business) with the SPECIFIC Name "App Store" in existence before Apple's, then I'm listening. Otherwise, STFU.
http://www.michaelrobertson.com/archive.php?minute_id=340
I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not but from the tone of your other posts in this tread I'm thinking you're not. Apple attempted to rewrite computer history with this lawsuit and they were correctly dismissed. They should be hit with frivolous lawsuit fees.
What Computer History would that be? Point out another venture called an "App Store" (specifically) before Apple.
Apple has some good products but you have gone much too far drinking the coolade.
There is nothing worse than being the kid whose Mom couldn't afford real Kool-Aid.
But better than the Mom who gave their kids Strawberry Flavor-Aid...
What? Too soon?
Apple has some good products but you have gone much too far drinking the coolade. Apple did nothing to contribute to the invention those displays they simply bought the highest res LCD panels and added them to their systems.
The "fusion" drives are standard hybrid drives that use flash as the cache for the spinning media. Support is not baked into OS X and everything they described in the link you listed are functions provided by the drive firmware. The fact that they make it seem like OS X is doing anything for this at all is just laughable since I could throw the drive into a windows 2000 system and still have everything in that paragraph still apply.
I guess they finally realized their earbuds were terrible but the replacement doesn't look like it would be anywhere near as good as my Sennheiser ear canal set.
No, they caused those displays to be created. They went to their "glass" Vendor with a design, and had that Vendor (Samsung, I think) FABRICATE their Design. They don't fabricate their ARM-based "A"-Series SoC chips, either; but they most assuredly designed them.
As for the Fusion drives, are you actually postulating that the DRIVE ITSELF is moving file around? If so, then why did Phil Schiller say that it was OS X that was watching the user habits, and doing the moving? I'm pretty sure he said exactly that. And in fact, as this Ars article shows, this is a form of "auto-tiering", which is a technique employed in large data storage arrays. Read, THEN Post. What you are mistaking this for is simple caching. This is more, and DOES involve the cooperation of at least a part of the OS.
As for the "EarPod" Earbuds, this was actually something like the THIRD re-design. Are they Audiophile material? Hardly; but they are significantly better, especially in the bass region; and I submit they are now at least on-par with any other, and significantly better than, the other "freebie" earbuds included with similar devices from other manufacturers. By the way, Apple is under no allusions as to the quality if their earbuds; otherwise, why would they offer several other Third-Party earbuds and headphones in their stores?
He meant to say "Apple is the antithesis of utter corporate filth".
FTFY.
Just simply adopting the loser pays all costs scenario the rest of the world uses would do just fine too.
Also abolishing summary judgements for no shows would be a start too. Just because someone doesn't show up doesn't mean automatically that the opposing argument isn't complete bullshit.
You mean "Default Judgments". And those are fairly easy to have "set aside" if you can show you didn't receive actual (as opposed to "Constructive") Notice. Also, if the "Notice" was by "Publication", Courts will almost always give you a "do-over" if you then later "show up".
However, if you do away with Default Judgments, no one would even bother to Answer a Civil Complaint against them. Why should they?
Unfortunately, this system still doesn't even slightly touch upon the 'big' problem with the legal system... whoever has the most money wins.
So therefore, if you're some random schlub against a company, you're not only absolutely guaranteed to lose, but you have to pay for all of the legal costs of a dozen high-priced lawyers.
Honestly, if I found myself in that situation, even if I was absolutely 100% correct, I still wouldn't show up in court, just to have my life trashed for several months before becoming poor and having 98% of my wages garnished for the rest of my natural life. I'd send a letter to the courts, preferably showing up several days before I'm due to show up, explaining exactly the above, and then just live on the run from the law. Given the choice between running from the law and the absolute certainty that my life is ruined immediatly if I show up, I'll go with the one where I might actually get a bit more time before my life is ruined.
Exactly. So-called "Loser Pays" (known in legal circles as "The Englsh Rule"), as distinguished from "Pay Your Own Costs" (a/k/a "The American Rule"), pretty much has all the disadvantages of the American Rule, with the added "benefit" (that is, to the well-heeled litigant) that if they simply wear down the less well-endowed party, they not only win a Judgment, but also AUTOMATICALLY win their costs.
At least with the American Rule, the litigant who is "worn down" by the other side can simply call it quits, and not be DOUBLY "punished" for simply trying.
Before everybody gets their panties in a bunch, it is VERY important to keep in mind that there are always exceptions made for litigants who file COMPLETELY frivolous litigation. In those cases, judges can (and do) charge the costs to the frivolous litigant, and can even impose Sanctions on the Party (and/or their counsel), as well. But always remember: Just because a lawsuit is basically "hopeless", doesn't mean it is frivolous and vexatious litigation.
It's already started, for the past year they've done nothing but ride the high of their earlier success. Resorting to this kind of tactics instead of better marketing and improving relationships with other companies, tells us one more thing. They have nothing in the works.
No. Nothing at all...
Just:
New Desktops and Laptops with the highest-resolution displays on the planet.
New "Fusion" hybrid SSD/Spinning-Platter Drives for these new computers, with innovative support baked into OS X. TWO new generations of 10" iPad.
iPad mini.
iPhone 5.
New iPod Touch
Completely New iPod Nano
Entirely new (and innovative) position-agnostic connector system for all their mobile devices. along with several adapters for VGA output, etc.
New, improved Earbuds.
New version of OS X (Mountain Lion), with over 200 New Features.
New version of iOS (6), with over 200 New Features (and, yes, unfortuately, Apple Maps...). Unlike Android, iOS 6 is immediately available for several generations of devices, all the way back to iPhone 3GS, and the iPad 2.
And I'm sure I'm forgetting some stuff...
And who knows what they "have in the works"; because Apple doesn't announce anything until it is a "done deal".
C is for consumers that support this behaviour. Anyone with an apple device is complicit in these actions. Apple is at the apogee of their corporate life and they are using the legal system to stay there as long as possible because they are no longer capable of innovation
Wait. I thought that the /, meme was that Apple never innovated anything.
So which is it? They used to innovate, or they never innovated? Can't be both.
Idiots.
Why are there no severe consequences for bringing these kinds of ridiculous lawsuits? Shouldn't Amazon at least get all their legal fees paid?
IF it were actually Frivolous, that might be possible.
However, Apple did have an "App Store" (by that name) before anyone else. The name was "catchy" enough to resonate with Consumers. IANAL, and I haven't read the decision, but I personally believe that the phrase "App Store" should have been Trade Mark-able, as it was not being used by anyone before Apple.
If this lawsuit does establish a new intellectual property right, Warner could be in big trouble.
The 1966 Batmobile is a modified Lincoln Futura concept car from 1955. As this is a brand new type of property right, it's unlikely that George Barris who bought the concept car and modified it to make the Batmobile ever bought the 'sculpture' rights to it, so the rights would revert to the 'sculptor' of the original car, the Ford Motor Company. If they win, Warner could not stop clones, as Ford would be the rights holder, not Warner... and Ford would be able to bill Warner for the use of their 'sculpture' in all the toys, films, TV shows that have used it over the years.
What's strange is that Barris retained ownership of the Batmobile, and leased it to Warner Brothers.
So either what I read was incorrect, or Barris sold the car to Warner or DC at some point; or the Plaintiff has no Standing to sue whatsoever (assuming the replica doesn't have a Batman logo on it. I would argue even calling it a "Batmobile" (which is probably Barris' term) wouldn't be enough to confer standing to sue).
Toyota accelerator fiasco? Was that not found to be oldsters who can't tell brake from gas?
Bring back 3 pedals, that would sort this out.
Not after Steve Wozniak demonstrated a repeatable sequence of control "gestures" involving, IIRC, the Cruise Control that would always cause it to happen...
I'll just wipe up this coffee now :P
As an aside, there is a guy who parks in front of my apartment building who drives a VW Thing. One of the more ugly vehicles of course, but definitely distinctive.
It is simply a WWII Nazi Military Jeep. Not really changed at all.
Now, does this count as a "Godwin" post?