Do note that those are all specific and well defined instances, not generic.
Every trademark is a specific and well defined instance of a particular means of source identification (name, logo, color, sound, trade dress, etc.) coming to be associated, via actual, continuous use in commerce, with the goods or services of the mark holder. None of them are generic, because then they couldn't be trademarks.
Also, the "CHOOSE YOUR OWN ADVENTURE" word mark is limited to it being written in uppercase in a certain typeset
This is false. The above referenced mark has mark drawing code 1 for "typed drawing", which is an archaic (pre-2004) but legally identical form of standard character mark. Standard character marks are often displayed by the USPTO in all caps, but "the owner of the mark is not limited to any particular depiction of the mark", including case, font style, size, color, graphical adornments, etc.
Look, it sounds like you're not big on Chooseco's arguments, and I'm not either. But it does neither you nor anyone else any good to spout demonstrably untrue stuff.
If state-owned companies are a thing of threats...
Bob Readerman of the New York Times raves: "James Patterson's A Thing of Threats is a riveting delve into the seedy underworld of state-owned companies. My buttcheeks literally did not unclench once as this gripping thriller wove its way through not one, not two, but—spoilers!—a whole thing of threats!! 5/5 - instant best seller and surprisingly effective glute workout."
The content of, and presentation style, reminded me more of an ad than some news article.
Yeah, and a pretty tone-deaf one at that. Guess what, Aegon Retirement Readiness Survey 2018? Not all of us have a barcalounger made from the dragonfire-melted swords of a thousand vanquished enemies to retire to, you insensitive clods!
That person should tell him that Comcast wants this, Comcast owns NBC, NBC is part of the evil mainstream media, the evil mainstream media writes fake news about him because they are communist satanist Soros-loving anthem-kneelers, so keeping net neutrality is a big "fuck you" to China, Satan, and George Soros, while being a big thumbs up to the flag. Done!
Get me 20 minutes and we can also tackle global warming by telling him the hotter weather will reduce his crowd sizes.
Kim and his advisers came to the conclusion that Trump and his advisers were looking for an occasion for a limited war - some bombing campaign - somewhere in the world. Ideally, the campaign would take place before the mid term elections. The US military was tasked to look into either bombing some nuclear facilities in NK or bombing some nuclear facilities in Iran. Kim and his advisers came to this conclusion and quickly contacted SK to prevent this from happening, because they know very well that the NK could not possibly defend their territory at all and judge that Trump is crazy enough to not care about possible consequences for South Korea.
Every indication has been that, while outwardly belligerent and inwardly ruthless, the Kim regime is eminently logical with regard to its own survival and self-interest.
The scenario you dreamed up is beyond absurd, and relies on a deeply flawed understanding of Kim as some sort of delusional paranoiac. Kim isn't Brando with a death cult holed up in the jungle. He knows that scenario wasn't going to happen, just as every other sane person on the planet knows it wasn't going to happen.
It would be hard for me to think less of Trump than I already do, and there's still nothing you could say to convince me that he'd start WWIII and get a couple hundred thousand (or more) South Koreans killed by launching some meaningless sortie to get a midterm election boost.
There's the people who think it's Trump's genius double secret negotiating prowess. There's the people who think Trump (and maybe moreso his people) royally fucked up an historic opportunity.
Am I the only one who has been convinced the whole time there's nothing to fuck up in the first place? There has never been a reason for them to denuclearize under terms we'd accept. We barely did anything to cause this massive shift in Kim's stance—it was inexplicable. This has all the hallmarks of a feint.
Most likely Kim was taking advantage of the test site already being fubar, extending (of his own accord) an olive branch he knew he'd later rescind because it's propaganda gold. "Hey, we really, sincerely tried! It was those asshole Americans!" He still has all the nuke he needs for decades' worth of leverage, without building or testing a single additional one.
^^ First thought. They make them sound like floating treasure chests. At least *try* to play it off in the press brief.
"Yup $100K: They cost $80K in labor to build, carry $10K in sensors, and deploy with $10K worth of sharks with laserbeams and that audio weapon that makes you shit yourself. Foff, pirates."
Troll checklist:
1) Strident
2) Inflammatory
3) Illogical non sequitur
4) Anon
5) First post
Confirmed troll. If I had to wager, I'd put money on alt-right false flagger rather than Russian, but anymore that could be the same thing...
"Mr. Zuckerberg, can you explain this picture of yourself, with a USB cable connecting your right temple to a laptop and your eyes glowing green, while Vladimir Putin stands behind you high fiving a Russian data scientist?"
Now now. I'm sure we can have a discussion without stooping to insults. For example, I'd wager you have the intellectual capacity to understand what a strawman is, even though right now you clearly don't.
"All aboard the armchair astrophysics train! Next stop, Electric Universe! Red Line right to Not Even Wrong, making stops at Time Cube, Flat Earth, Luminiferous Aether, and Turtles-All-the-Way-Down Town."
The Copyright Act actually permits this as long as they use the stolen credentials to buy exactly one license seat for the flight sim and then set the user's home page to this video.
The chart shows that they did the right thing in the 1930s. Did not matter how deep the depression got, they always balanced the books. Worked real good.
Then that evil Rosevelt ran up a huge deficit just because there was a war on. Crippled the country. The depression was over, no more dirt cheap labor.
Moving on, we see the deficit from Obama during the Global Financial Crisis. Weak. He should have been tough like Hover in the depression. When the economy shrinks you tighten your belt. Stands to reason. Then we could have had another result like the 1930s.
Reaganomics, on the other hand, is clear and purposeful. Cut taxes, increase military spending so you can create a crisis and then cut those socialist services that rot the morality of the working man.
The Constitution also outlaws slavery and indentured servitude. Which happens to be my view of taking of money from someone and giving it to another, under threat of force.
The state constitution of Utah outlaws polygamy, and polygamy happens to be my view of going on a pub crawl. Burglary is illegal, and burglary happens to be my view of long division. Hey words are awesome when they can mean whatever I want them to!
It gets worse. Your tying race to poverty reveals that you have racist beliefs.
No, but saying that implies that you either (a) don't understand Correlation != Causation, or (b) are willing to forget that you know (a) for long enough to make a fallacious racism claim.
It is sometimes the case that a dollar spent helping foster an economic class that can purchase your products (while at the same time generating positive PR) is better spent than keeping it in your pocket (or investing it). Not always, but sometimes. The same is true about advertising, lobbying, customer support, and any other cost center—a dollar spent on something that is not directly profitable may nonetheless indirectly generate >$1.00 in gains or prevented losses.
One of many scenarios in which paying higher wages could be more profitable is if your market depends on having a critical mass of consumers of threshold economic means. Suppose you've determined that below critical mass you can't sustain distribution and sales. It might then make sense to add a pool of your own "overcompensated" workers to an existing subcritical population of consumers in order to push that population into the sustainable range. That specific example sounds somewhat contrived nowadays, but is easier to imagine in Ford's era.
Slashdot Mirror
Do note that those are all specific and well defined instances, not generic.
Every trademark is a specific and well defined instance of a particular means of source identification (name, logo, color, sound, trade dress, etc.) coming to be associated, via actual, continuous use in commerce, with the goods or services of the mark holder. None of them are generic, because then they couldn't be trademarks.
Also, the "CHOOSE YOUR OWN ADVENTURE" word mark is limited to it being written in uppercase in a certain typeset
This is false. The above referenced mark has mark drawing code 1 for "typed drawing", which is an archaic (pre-2004) but legally identical form of standard character mark. Standard character marks are often displayed by the USPTO in all caps, but "the owner of the mark is not limited to any particular depiction of the mark", including case, font style, size, color, graphical adornments, etc.
Look, it sounds like you're not big on Chooseco's arguments, and I'm not either. But it does neither you nor anyone else any good to spout demonstrably untrue stuff.
Isn't there such a thing as fair use.
No, not for trademarks. You are thinking of copyright, which has nothing to do with this dispute.
This is false. Descriptive and nominative fair use are well-established defenses to trademark infringement. A defendant may also assert parody and other 1st Amendment-based defenses. See, for example, Mattel's failed suit against the band who sang "Barbie Girl".
Trademarks are for branding in written content, not spoken.
This is false. A trademark can be anything that is source-identifying for goods or services. It can be a color (see "UPS brown"), a scent (see the "flowery musk scent" of Verizon stores (ew)), or, yes, a sound (see the "Intel inside" chimes). Here's a whole page the USPTO dedicated to sound marks.
The phrase, "choose your own adventure" is not trademarked because that is impossible.
This is also false. It's not just possible to trademark phrases, Chooseco has held a registered US trademark for the CHOOSE YOUR OWN ADVENTURE word mark in books since 2004.
Tweens and headcases.
Humans have been rehashing the same stories for 4,000 years and you suckers still eat it up.
FTFY
If state-owned companies are a thing of threats...
Bob Readerman of the New York Times raves: "James Patterson's A Thing of Threats is a riveting delve into the seedy underworld of state-owned companies. My buttcheeks literally did not unclench once as this gripping thriller wove its way through not one, not two, but—spoilers!—a whole thing of threats!! 5/5 - instant best seller and surprisingly effective glute workout."
The content of, and presentation style, reminded me more of an ad than some news article.
Yeah, and a pretty tone-deaf one at that. Guess what, Aegon Retirement Readiness Survey 2018? Not all of us have a barcalounger made from the dragonfire-melted swords of a thousand vanquished enemies to retire to, you insensitive clods!
This is perhaps the most insightful comment ever posted on Slashdot.
That person should tell him that Comcast wants this, Comcast owns NBC, NBC is part of the evil mainstream media, the evil mainstream media writes fake news about him because they are communist satanist Soros-loving anthem-kneelers, so keeping net neutrality is a big "fuck you" to China, Satan, and George Soros, while being a big thumbs up to the flag. Done!
Get me 20 minutes and we can also tackle global warming by telling him the hotter weather will reduce his crowd sizes.
That's not what's going on.
Kim and his advisers came to the conclusion that Trump and his advisers were looking for an occasion for a limited war - some bombing campaign - somewhere in the world. Ideally, the campaign would take place before the mid term elections. The US military was tasked to look into either bombing some nuclear facilities in NK or bombing some nuclear facilities in Iran. Kim and his advisers came to this conclusion and quickly contacted SK to prevent this from happening, because they know very well that the NK could not possibly defend their territory at all and judge that Trump is crazy enough to not care about possible consequences for South Korea.
Every indication has been that, while outwardly belligerent and inwardly ruthless, the Kim regime is eminently logical with regard to its own survival and self-interest. The scenario you dreamed up is beyond absurd, and relies on a deeply flawed understanding of Kim as some sort of delusional paranoiac. Kim isn't Brando with a death cult holed up in the jungle. He knows that scenario wasn't going to happen, just as every other sane person on the planet knows it wasn't going to happen.
It would be hard for me to think less of Trump than I already do, and there's still nothing you could say to convince me that he'd start WWIII and get a couple hundred thousand (or more) South Koreans killed by launching some meaningless sortie to get a midterm election boost.
There's the people who think it's Trump's genius double secret negotiating prowess. There's the people who think Trump (and maybe moreso his people) royally fucked up an historic opportunity.
Am I the only one who has been convinced the whole time there's nothing to fuck up in the first place? There has never been a reason for them to denuclearize under terms we'd accept. We barely did anything to cause this massive shift in Kim's stance—it was inexplicable. This has all the hallmarks of a feint.
Most likely Kim was taking advantage of the test site already being fubar, extending (of his own accord) an olive branch he knew he'd later rescind because it's propaganda gold. "Hey, we really, sincerely tried! It was those asshole Americans!" He still has all the nuke he needs for decades' worth of leverage, without building or testing a single additional one.
No credit but no blame, Donnie.
^^Is the correct answer, but the lawyers will never it stand.
Source: Am a lawyer.
^^ First thought. They make them sound like floating treasure chests. At least *try* to play it off in the press brief.
"Yup $100K: They cost $80K in labor to build, carry $10K in sensors, and deploy with $10K worth of sharks with laserbeams and that audio weapon that makes you shit yourself. Foff, pirates."
Global gig speed internet is all well and good, but no self-respecting yak herder is going to accept sky high ping times.
Troll checklist:
1) Strident
2) Inflammatory
3) Illogical non sequitur
4) Anon
5) First post
Confirmed troll. If I had to wager, I'd put money on alt-right false flagger rather than Russian, but anymore that could be the same thing...
"Mr. Zuckerberg, can you explain this picture of yourself, with a USB cable connecting your right temple to a laptop and your eyes glowing green, while Vladimir Putin stands behind you high fiving a Russian data scientist?"
"That doesn't look like anything to me."
I guess if you really want to use a cloud service such as google drive, you'll want to use an app that encrypts and changes to numeric filenames.
I can see the headlines now: "Tech Site Solves Dirty Download Dillemma, Advises Pornographers to Zip It Up"
Now now. I'm sure we can have a discussion without stooping to insults. For example, I'd wager you have the intellectual capacity to understand what a strawman is, even though right now you clearly don't.
"All aboard the armchair astrophysics train! Next stop, Electric Universe! Red Line right to Not Even Wrong, making stops at Time Cube, Flat Earth, Luminiferous Aether, and Turtles-All-the-Way-Down Town."
From all outward appearances they are pretty much exactly the same as any of their competitors.
Most of their competitors in the desktop and laptop computing market are not running a POSIX-compliant operating system.
The Copyright Act actually permits this as long as they use the stolen credentials to buy exactly one license seat for the flight sim and then set the user's home page to this video.
Mod this up +5 +65 +life of the author
The chart shows that they did the right thing in the 1930s. Did not matter how deep the depression got, they always balanced the books. Worked real good.
Then that evil Rosevelt ran up a huge deficit just because there was a war on. Crippled the country. The depression was over, no more dirt cheap labor.
Moving on, we see the deficit from Obama during the Global Financial Crisis. Weak. He should have been tough like Hover in the depression. When the economy shrinks you tighten your belt. Stands to reason. Then we could have had another result like the 1930s.
Reaganomics, on the other hand, is clear and purposeful. Cut taxes, increase military spending so you can create a crisis and then cut those socialist services that rot the morality of the working man.
</sarcasm>
The Constitution also outlaws slavery and indentured servitude. Which happens to be my view of taking of money from someone and giving it to another, under threat of force.
The state constitution of Utah outlaws polygamy, and polygamy happens to be my view of going on a pub crawl. Burglary is illegal, and burglary happens to be my view of long division. Hey words are awesome when they can mean whatever I want them to!
It gets worse. Your tying race to poverty reveals that you have racist beliefs.
No, but saying that implies that you either (a) don't understand Correlation != Causation, or (b) are willing to forget that you know (a) for long enough to make a fallacious racism claim.
It is sometimes the case that a dollar spent helping foster an economic class that can purchase your products (while at the same time generating positive PR) is better spent than keeping it in your pocket (or investing it). Not always, but sometimes. The same is true about advertising, lobbying, customer support, and any other cost center—a dollar spent on something that is not directly profitable may nonetheless indirectly generate >$1.00 in gains or prevented losses.
One of many scenarios in which paying higher wages could be more profitable is if your market depends on having a critical mass of consumers of threshold economic means. Suppose you've determined that below critical mass you can't sustain distribution and sales. It might then make sense to add a pool of your own "overcompensated" workers to an existing subcritical population of consumers in order to push that population into the sustainable range. That specific example sounds somewhat contrived nowadays, but is easier to imagine in Ford's era.