On an unrelated note, I once helped a company that had records, computers, and other equipment seized in a raid by law enforcement. The company was never actually charged with anything. A few years later, after the statute of limitations on any potential charge had run, they asked for the return of everything that had been taken. They were told to pound sand, which led to ugly (and expensive) proceedings.
This was in the US, but I would have no confidence that everything will be promptly returned.
It is descriptive, but it may have acquired secondary meaning. All it takes to do so is prolonged use, even if no one is aware of that use.
Unfortunately, there is no empirical standard for the acquisition of secondary meaning. I'll bet if you went to 10 reading teachers and said, "I'd like to sell you a 100 Books Challenge," none of them would say "Oh, you're from American Reading?" So, as a matter of empirical fact, the mark has not acquired any secondary meaning. Nonetheless, if it has been in use for 5 years it will be treated as if the entire world relates the mark to its source or origin.
Trademark is broken, but so much less broken than patent and particularly copyright law that it seems acceptable.
This is more than a little exaggerated. Such a requirement is a bad idea, and would interefere with the market, but it would not require "the entire market structure" to be "torn out and regenerated".
The trouble is that not all high-frequency trading is bad, so it shouldn't all be prevented. One of the values of connected markets is that they allow traders to arbitrage across geography. HFT allows traders to arbitrage across time as well - so if an investor identifies a short-lived price movement, they can exploit that to their benefit. That in itself is not a bad thing - it just spreads the risk. The trouble is in volume, which can actually affect price and create the arbitrage.
I do not watch TV, but will buy one now that I know there is a parody of Avatar called "Dances With Smurfs". I am a 2-time Avatard, and as technically brilliant as the SFX are, the script is mos def "Dances With Smurfs".
I wonder what Matt & Trey would do with copyright, if they thought to lampoon it?
Goverment should have a shop right to it. If we are going to have an enforceable patent system, the employee should retain the right to exclude others from using his invention. Of course, that is a patent issue, not a copyright issue - patents are different (not least because there is no "work for hire" doctrine in patent law). And unless a lawyer directed the teachers to write the lesson plans, there is no issue of work product here.
So say, instead, the DOT employee whose job is to monitor the stoplights on the subway comes up with a crappy screenplay about an ex-con who decides to carjack a subway train. Should the government get the rights to the movie? Say instead that it is a list of daily duties: "Turn on coffee pot, eat donut, get coffee, smoke break, turn on computer, get coffee, ..." Uncle Sam need that one? Any reason the worker shouldn't retain the rights to it? He wasn't directed to make the list, and it is not in his job description to do so. It is not a work made for hire.
'Course, in my view neither the teacher nor the district should get the rights. But under the ill-advised law as it unfortunately stands, it seems to me that the question of which one _does_ get rights is much closer than it might appear.
These are called "desk regulations" - where the bureaucrat enforcing the policy just makes up their own regulations that only apply if your case is on their desk. It happens all the time in almost every government agency, despite the fact that the Administrative Procedures Act clearly makes it illegal. Go figure.
As you noted when it was proposed, this new policy is dumb because it's dumb, not because it is and will be improperly enforced.
"If PKD and his estate ... were as greedy as say George Lucas and wanted to commodify her father's work with trademarks, ..."
But he and they weren't. They made a choice to avoid seeking trademark protection of words like "Nexus-6" and "Android". They almost certainly would have been unsuccessful if they made the other choice, but in any event they were better people than that and deliberately chose not to invoke the power of government to protect the assumed association between certain words and PKD's work. Good choice.
Now Isolde is telling Google that it does not have the right to use product name because of the assumed association between certain words and PKD's work, and that she intends to invoke the power of government to protect them. Retroactively. This is a fabulously bad choice on so very many levels. First, as you correctly note, this eviscerates the good decisions of her father. Second, even if PKD _should_ have sought protection many years ago, his decision not to has led the marketplace to believe that these words were available. To come back now, after the fact, and claim the trademark protection that was never properly obtained is not "principled," it is sick. Was PKD really so duplicitous in life? I did not know the man, but it does not appear to be an honor of his memory or writing for his Estate to act this way after he has passed.
Words exist. They are part of language, and should be available for everyone to use to create and innovate. It is the natural evolution of language for each author's contribution to create associations between words and concepts - it is how language becomes rich. That is the real measure of an artist's contribution to language. Without the artiface of copyright and trademark, PKD would still have made the contribution he made and it does not (and should not) matter if anyone ever recognizes it.
Both of your statements are just wrong, and your insulting tone is stupid.
It is _not_ "stealing if you didn't come up with it." Look it up. "Stealing" is "the act of a person who steals." To "steal" is "to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force." There is no theft if no one owns it, because it is not "the property of another or others".
I agree that "shear stupidity" is the reason for the "ownership structure we are stuck in now". In particular, idiots who can't see past their own nose have permitted evil or just self-serving jackasses to hijack human knowledge and creation in service of their own desire to make a buck. Gross.
You are also wrong that "if google did C&D, there would be no case against them and no claim for money which by the way is actually the way almost all C&D cases resolve." Every part of this is false. If Google immediately ceased, their conduct prior to cessation would be just as actionable as if they did not. More than one company has faced a lawsuit for conduct even after that conduct ceased, in some cases long after. I agree that there would be no case against Google, but that would also be true if they did not cease: there is no case against Google now. To the degree there _is_ a case, Google's late-coming conduct can only stop the damages, not erase the damages already incurred. That would take a money payment.
The most important and egregious factual mistake is your completely uninformed assertion that cessation of activity "is actually the way almost all C&D cases resolve." Codswallop. In most cases, the person who receives the C&D responds in some way. In many cases, that is with a strongly-worded letter by their lawyer. In many cases, the C&D-sender slinks off into the mud from which they came and sobs rather than incur the expense of litigation.
The reasons for this are complex, but in short: lawyers may be willing to send the first C&D for a small payment, even though they will not take the case on a contingency fee (because the case is meritless). Plaintiffs are willing to pay for the C&D, because who knows what it will shake loose, but cannot or will not pay for their "principled" but meritless case. Thus, there was never any chance of the case being brought - the C&D was an empty and hollow threat.
Of the cases that do not end this way, a substantial number end with a money payment from the party receiving the C&D to the person who sent it. Some of these are settlement payments - the recipient party determines that they actually owe money to the sending party, so they pay it to settle the matter up. Most of them are "nuisance" payments - the recipient party pays a small amount because it is cheaper and less distracting than litigating, even though they believe they could or would win the litigation.
Daughter of Dick may be hoping for a nuisance payment, but I doubt it. I vote that it is not a money grab - Google will likely respond with a very strongly-worded letter, and rip her apart. She will not win money.
I think the C&D is probably to publicize the wrong she feels has been done. She recognizes that she will never win a cent, but she is willing to pay some money to publicly harass Google and gain some public sympathy. If the publicity also helped to sell a few of her dad's books, that probably wouldn't be a bad thing either. In other words, this smells like the last, desperate move of a small, lonely little person.
Say I could understand and support someone suing because a billboard appeared in a movie. Why her?! She sold her the use of her likeness on the billboard to the advertiser. That means she doesn't have it anymore! It is gone. That's what "sold" means.
My guess - defendants call an all-out blitz motion to dismiss instead of answer. A huge, ominous, carefully argued, 50-page monster motion to dismiss, with 378 cites and an average of 2 footnotes to a page. They attach stills from the movie showing the (incidental, partially obscured) usage, and the argument that the Court is allowed to take judicial notice of the images alone occupies 7 additional pages.
Simultaneous with that filing, they send a discovery hold letter to the model, her agency, her manager, her clients, and anyone else associated with her demanding that they preserve and collect any and all information, including any and every email they have sent in the last 10 years about the model, referencing her name, voice, or likeness, or with a photo attached or comments about a photo.
In short, they make it clear that fighting this fight is going to be expensive and painful for all involved, not just the defendants. Responding to that motion is going to be costly for the plaintiff (or her contingency fee lawyers). Bigger deal - it may be successful, at least in part, and limit the available recovery to a negligible amount. While the motion practice is pending, they make a "nuisance value" offer of compromise - say $5k, set to expire the day after the opposition to the motion is due.
Again, every industry fights to increase market share at the cost of its competitors. If they stopped doing that, the shareholders wouldn't want to invest. And if the shareholders don't invest, the terrorists win.
The problem is not that the content industry keeps pushing for harder, better, faster, stronger monopolies. The content industry _should_ be pushing the envelope. The problem is that Congress has caved in and granted expansion (largely because there was never anyone of apparent significance opposed to it). Blame the stupid, ill-informed and short-sighted governments.
Wait... no, that is not how sales contract formation works. Courts have universally held that the seller's advertisement is _not_ an offer - that's why Dell didn't have to honor the price in commonwealth countries. It is merely a solicitation, or an indication of availability.
The _buyer_ makes the offer to buy, by plunking down money. The seller accepts or not. Here, the seller wisely declined the impossible offer, which was obviously premised on a mistake about the price. The mistake was probably mutual, meaning there was never an agreement on price. AT common law, this would mean that there was no contract at all (here, common law would not apply). If it were unilateral - only the buyer was wrong - the contract could be reformed to correct the mistake.
Incidentally, this sale was probably governed by the UCC. Had Amazon gone forward with the transaction without agreement on price, the contract would have been enforced at a "reasonable" price, which may have been deemed to be the price of the same product FOB the buyer's town. In other words, Amazon may have had to eat shipping.
As to whether seller's should be held to low advertised prices... the standard should be (and is) that seller's are required to make truthful claims in their advertising, and are required to exercise reasonable care and diligence in finding facts and declaring them. They ought not make deliberate mistatements, particularly for the purpose of attracting sales that they otherwise would have lost to a competitor. Holding seller's to stupid low prices solves the wrong problem by paying the wrong people the wrong amount. Buyers are hardly ever harmed by a typo, but competitors can be eviscerated by it. They are the ones to be made whole, not consumers.
Totally agree with the premise. Small nit: fierce price competition is not the norm in the US. If it were, gas stations across the street from one another would change their price more than once a day. Lazy price competition is the norm, because it is good enough and can sometimes lead to favorable arbitrage.
But the premise is dead on. Price fixing indicates a different valuation of innovation. That in itself is not bad - not everyone regards the next big idea as being an unalloyed good, especially since it may be highly disruptive. In the US, we have made similar choices in a number of places: railroads and highways, farms, and utilities (particularly electricity generation and transmission) all come to mind.
While I know you are a troll, I am compelled to respond. To be sure, if Amazon were dumping you might have a point. In order to show dumping, you have to show selling below _the seller's_ cost, not below _any seller's_ cost. Amazon has remarkably low overhead. Books have very high markup. Amazon can cut into that markup without much affecting its profit, because its costs are very, very low. There is no evidence of dumping, here.
As for bad faith competition, not only is there no evidence of it, the evidence is overwhelming that it is not present. Amazon offers free shipping almost everywhere it is permitted to, even where it is already the largest online retailer. No bad faith there.
You may have meant unfair competition, also prohibited. If so, it generally requires false or deceptive conduct, including trademark infringement. No sign of that.
The reason dumping is bad is because the prices eventually go up. The big ugly comes in, sells below (its) cost, and bleeds everyone else out. Then it finds or creates massive barriers to entry. Then it jacks its prices up to collect monopoly rents. If any step is blocked, BigCo loses. There are good reasons to feel that the right time to block BigCo isn't after it has given consumers the benefit of low prices, but instead when it starts to jack its prices. Blocking BigCo prior to that stage does not protect consumers, but incumbent businesses. And that answers Mike's question: some European countries have crazy price-fixing laws because they want to protect their incumbent, "old world" enterprise for cultural (not economic) reasons. They are simply (and consciously) valuing tradition over innovation. This is the same spirit that causes Boston to keep some streets quaint and narrow, the way they looked when horses and carriages roamed them, even if cobble makes no sense under tires.
But all 230 says is that you are not the speaker or publisher of content. It does _not_ say that you cannot be held liable for that content on any theory.
Here, the theory is that the affiliates placed these ads as Amazon's agents. That may be a factually unsupported theory, but it isn't a stupid one. And there most certainly is a Lanham Act claim for false advertising if Amazon (directly or through an agent,) caused an ad to be published that said that a competitor was a scam artist (if the competitor was not, in fact, a scam artist).
Re: Re: It is absurd to say that Microsoft did anything wrong
The law is (unfortunately) what it is. Agreed that if you break it, no matter how stupid it is, then you have broken the law. MS should have to pay actual damages.
Disagree that there would be no innovation without legalized monopolies. Aside from being wrong, that is stupid. It assumes that the only reason people innovate is to obtain a monopoly. To be sure, if the only reason people innovated was to obtain a monopoly, then no one would innovate unless they were rewarded with a monopoly. But the underlying premise is absurd. People innovate because they think _innovation itself_ (not the monopoly on innovation) can help them in the marketplace, or else because of some itch unrelated to commerce.
IP is a tax, and like all taxes it is inefficient and works to discourage what it taxes. It is a tax on improving existing inventions, because in order to improve them you have to find a workaround. It is a tax on future artistic endeavors, because in order to create you have to find a way to avoid your influences. And it is a tax on society because we have to cede huge chunks of mindspace and public domain back to private actors without receiving any benefit for doing so. When regimes do this with public and private land, they are called totalitarian. When they do it with ideas, they are called Eastern District of Texas.
B/c the Eastern District of Texas is notorious for finding in favor of patent trolls on summary judgment, and for giving unforgiveably painful damage awards. And the entire jury venire in East Texas is lobotomized as a matter of course before voir dire.
The real question is, what countries participate in copyright treaties in which the Vatican also participates? Even if stifling, a national proclamation of copyright policy may well be the law of that land, and through treaty obligations the law of its partners.
In the US, treaties are not self-executing. So this probably has little effect for "infringements" in this country. But other countries work differently - it is conceivable to me that the Republic of Gorgonzola (or whatever cheesy hypothetical nation you come up with) may have self-executing treaty obligations. In which case, the new law of Vatican City is now the law of Gorgonzola.
(Speaking of moral law - "blue laws" have a totally different meaning in a nation called Gorgonzola.)
Say it makes fun of the games... then they own the rights and can refuse to let anyone hear it. Win.
Say it rocks... then they own the rights and can use it widely to promote the games, sell CDs, or whatever. They can give it to Apolo Ono to sing while wearing glitter and fangs, and earn back the interest of tweenage girls everywhere. Epic win.
Say it is of limited interest, and neither sucks nor rocks... then they own the rights and can play it or not as fits their marketing plan. Win.
In other words, they don't care if its chicken-noodle soup in the can. They don't even need to test whether it is chicken noodle soup until after they get the rights.
On the post: OiNK Admin: Not Guilty
Re: Re:
This was in the US, but I would have no confidence that everything will be promptly returned.
On the post: Be Careful Challenging Others To Read 100 Books, As You Might Infringe On Someone's Trademark
Re:
Unfortunately, there is no empirical standard for the acquisition of secondary meaning. I'll bet if you went to 10 reading teachers and said, "I'd like to sell you a 100 Books Challenge," none of them would say "Oh, you're from American Reading?" So, as a matter of empirical fact, the mark has not acquired any secondary meaning. Nonetheless, if it has been in use for 5 years it will be treated as if the entire world relates the mark to its source or origin.
Trademark is broken, but so much less broken than patent and particularly copyright law that it seems acceptable.
On the post: OiNK Admin Explains Why He Thought The System Was Legal
Re:
On the post: SEC Concerned About High Frequency Trading
Re: Re: Re: Re: Minimum hold time?
The trouble is that not all high-frequency trading is bad, so it shouldn't all be prevented. One of the values of connected markets is that they allow traders to arbitrage across geography. HFT allows traders to arbitrage across time as well - so if an investor identifies a short-lived price movement, they can exploit that to their benefit. That in itself is not a bad thing - it just spreads the risk. The trouble is in volume, which can actually affect price and create the arbitrage.
On the post: Peter Jackson Freaks Out About BitTorrent Leak Of The Lovely Bones
Re:
I wonder what Matt & Trey would do with copyright, if they thought to lampoon it?
On the post: School Wants To Claim Copyright Over Any Lesson Plans Created By Teachers
Re:
So say, instead, the DOT employee whose job is to monitor the stoplights on the subway comes up with a crappy screenplay about an ex-con who decides to carjack a subway train. Should the government get the rights to the movie? Say instead that it is a list of daily duties: "Turn on coffee pot, eat donut, get coffee, smoke break, turn on computer, get coffee, ..." Uncle Sam need that one? Any reason the worker shouldn't retain the rights to it? He wasn't directed to make the list, and it is not in his job description to do so. It is not a work made for hire.
'Course, in my view neither the teacher nor the district should get the rights. But under the ill-advised law as it unfortunately stands, it seems to me that the question of which one _does_ get rights is much closer than it might appear.
On the post: FTC's Disclosure Rules Apply To Bloggers... But Not Celebrities?
Desk regulations
As you noted when it was proposed, this new policy is dumb because it's dumb, not because it is and will be improperly enforced.
On the post: Philip K. Dick Estate Sends Google Cease And Desist Over Nexus One Name
Re:
But he and they weren't. They made a choice to avoid seeking trademark protection of words like "Nexus-6" and "Android". They almost certainly would have been unsuccessful if they made the other choice, but in any event they were better people than that and deliberately chose not to invoke the power of government to protect the assumed association between certain words and PKD's work. Good choice.
Now Isolde is telling Google that it does not have the right to use product name because of the assumed association between certain words and PKD's work, and that she intends to invoke the power of government to protect them. Retroactively. This is a fabulously bad choice on so very many levels. First, as you correctly note, this eviscerates the good decisions of her father. Second, even if PKD _should_ have sought protection many years ago, his decision not to has led the marketplace to believe that these words were available. To come back now, after the fact, and claim the trademark protection that was never properly obtained is not "principled," it is sick. Was PKD really so duplicitous in life? I did not know the man, but it does not appear to be an honor of his memory or writing for his Estate to act this way after he has passed.
Words exist. They are part of language, and should be available for everyone to use to create and innovate. It is the natural evolution of language for each author's contribution to create associations between words and concepts - it is how language becomes rich. That is the real measure of an artist's contribution to language. Without the artiface of copyright and trademark, PKD would still have made the contribution he made and it does not (and should not) matter if anyone ever recognizes it.
On the post: Philip K. Dick Estate Sends Google Cease And Desist Over Nexus One Name
Re: RE
It is _not_ "stealing if you didn't come up with it." Look it up. "Stealing" is "the act of a person who steals." To "steal" is "to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force." There is no theft if no one owns it, because it is not "the property of another or others".
I agree that "shear stupidity" is the reason for the "ownership structure we are stuck in now". In particular, idiots who can't see past their own nose have permitted evil or just self-serving jackasses to hijack human knowledge and creation in service of their own desire to make a buck. Gross.
You are also wrong that "if google did C&D, there would be no case against them and no claim for money which by the way is actually the way almost all C&D cases resolve." Every part of this is false. If Google immediately ceased, their conduct prior to cessation would be just as actionable as if they did not. More than one company has faced a lawsuit for conduct even after that conduct ceased, in some cases long after. I agree that there would be no case against Google, but that would also be true if they did not cease: there is no case against Google now. To the degree there _is_ a case, Google's late-coming conduct can only stop the damages, not erase the damages already incurred. That would take a money payment.
The most important and egregious factual mistake is your completely uninformed assertion that cessation of activity "is actually the way almost all C&D cases resolve." Codswallop. In most cases, the person who receives the C&D responds in some way. In many cases, that is with a strongly-worded letter by their lawyer. In many cases, the C&D-sender slinks off into the mud from which they came and sobs rather than incur the expense of litigation.
The reasons for this are complex, but in short: lawyers may be willing to send the first C&D for a small payment, even though they will not take the case on a contingency fee (because the case is meritless). Plaintiffs are willing to pay for the C&D, because who knows what it will shake loose, but cannot or will not pay for their "principled" but meritless case. Thus, there was never any chance of the case being brought - the C&D was an empty and hollow threat.
Of the cases that do not end this way, a substantial number end with a money payment from the party receiving the C&D to the person who sent it. Some of these are settlement payments - the recipient party determines that they actually owe money to the sending party, so they pay it to settle the matter up. Most of them are "nuisance" payments - the recipient party pays a small amount because it is cheaper and less distracting than litigating, even though they believe they could or would win the litigation.
Daughter of Dick may be hoping for a nuisance payment, but I doubt it. I vote that it is not a money grab - Google will likely respond with a very strongly-worded letter, and rip her apart. She will not win money.
I think the C&D is probably to publicize the wrong she feels has been done. She recognizes that she will never win a cent, but she is willing to pay some money to publicly harass Google and gain some public sympathy. If the publicity also helped to sell a few of her dad's books, that probably wouldn't be a bad thing either. In other words, this smells like the last, desperate move of a small, lonely little person.
On the post: Billboard Model Sues Filmmakers, Because Her Billboard Appears For 12 Seconds In The Movie
Eh? Who is she to complain?
My guess - defendants call an all-out blitz motion to dismiss instead of answer. A huge, ominous, carefully argued, 50-page monster motion to dismiss, with 378 cites and an average of 2 footnotes to a page. They attach stills from the movie showing the (incidental, partially obscured) usage, and the argument that the Court is allowed to take judicial notice of the images alone occupies 7 additional pages.
Simultaneous with that filing, they send a discovery hold letter to the model, her agency, her manager, her clients, and anyone else associated with her demanding that they preserve and collect any and all information, including any and every email they have sent in the last 10 years about the model, referencing her name, voice, or likeness, or with a photo attached or comments about a photo.
In short, they make it clear that fighting this fight is going to be expensive and painful for all involved, not just the defendants. Responding to that motion is going to be costly for the plaintiff (or her contingency fee lawyers). Bigger deal - it may be successful, at least in part, and limit the available recovery to a negligible amount. While the motion practice is pending, they make a "nuisance value" offer of compromise - say $5k, set to expire the day after the opposition to the motion is due.
On the post: UFC Plans To Sue Individuals, Despite The Cost Being More Than Any 'Loss'
Re:
The problem is not that the content industry keeps pushing for harder, better, faster, stronger monopolies. The content industry _should_ be pushing the envelope. The problem is that Congress has caved in and granted expansion (largely because there was never anyone of apparent significance opposed to it). Blame the stupid, ill-informed and short-sighted governments.
On the post: Guy Buys $3 Billion CD-ROM
Re:
The _buyer_ makes the offer to buy, by plunking down money. The seller accepts or not. Here, the seller wisely declined the impossible offer, which was obviously premised on a mistake about the price. The mistake was probably mutual, meaning there was never an agreement on price. AT common law, this would mean that there was no contract at all (here, common law would not apply). If it were unilateral - only the buyer was wrong - the contract could be reformed to correct the mistake.
Incidentally, this sale was probably governed by the UCC. Had Amazon gone forward with the transaction without agreement on price, the contract would have been enforced at a "reasonable" price, which may have been deemed to be the price of the same product FOB the buyer's town. In other words, Amazon may have had to eat shipping.
As to whether seller's should be held to low advertised prices... the standard should be (and is) that seller's are required to make truthful claims in their advertising, and are required to exercise reasonable care and diligence in finding facts and declaring them. They ought not make deliberate mistatements, particularly for the purpose of attracting sales that they otherwise would have lost to a competitor. Holding seller's to stupid low prices solves the wrong problem by paying the wrong people the wrong amount. Buyers are hardly ever harmed by a typo, but competitors can be eviscerated by it. They are the ones to be made whole, not consumers.
On the post: Amazon Sued In Germany For Offering Good Prices On Books
Re:
But the premise is dead on. Price fixing indicates a different valuation of innovation. That in itself is not bad - not everyone regards the next big idea as being an unalloyed good, especially since it may be highly disruptive. In the US, we have made similar choices in a number of places: railroads and highways, farms, and utilities (particularly electricity generation and transmission) all come to mind.
On the post: Amazon Sued In Germany For Offering Good Prices On Books
Re: Mike misses it again
As for bad faith competition, not only is there no evidence of it, the evidence is overwhelming that it is not present. Amazon offers free shipping almost everywhere it is permitted to, even where it is already the largest online retailer. No bad faith there.
You may have meant unfair competition, also prohibited. If so, it generally requires false or deceptive conduct, including trademark infringement. No sign of that.
The reason dumping is bad is because the prices eventually go up. The big ugly comes in, sells below (its) cost, and bleeds everyone else out. Then it finds or creates massive barriers to entry. Then it jacks its prices up to collect monopoly rents. If any step is blocked, BigCo loses. There are good reasons to feel that the right time to block BigCo isn't after it has given consumers the benefit of low prices, but instead when it starts to jack its prices. Blocking BigCo prior to that stage does not protect consumers, but incumbent businesses. And that answers Mike's question: some European countries have crazy price-fixing laws because they want to protect their incumbent, "old world" enterprise for cultural (not economic) reasons. They are simply (and consciously) valuing tradition over innovation. This is the same spirit that causes Boston to keep some streets quaint and narrow, the way they looked when horses and carriages roamed them, even if cobble makes no sense under tires.
On the post: Amazon Sued Over Google Ads Bought By Affiliates
Re: Re:
Here, the theory is that the affiliates placed these ads as Amazon's agents. That may be a factually unsupported theory, but it isn't a stupid one. And there most certainly is a Lanham Act claim for false advertising if Amazon (directly or through an agent,) caused an ad to be published that said that a competitor was a scam artist (if the competitor was not, in fact, a scam artist).
On the post: Canadian Law Professors Insist Banning The Sale Of Word Is Good For Society & Innovation
Re: Re: It is absurd to say that Microsoft did anything wrong
Disagree that there would be no innovation without legalized monopolies. Aside from being wrong, that is stupid. It assumes that the only reason people innovate is to obtain a monopoly. To be sure, if the only reason people innovated was to obtain a monopoly, then no one would innovate unless they were rewarded with a monopoly. But the underlying premise is absurd. People innovate because they think _innovation itself_ (not the monopoly on innovation) can help them in the marketplace, or else because of some itch unrelated to commerce.
IP is a tax, and like all taxes it is inefficient and works to discourage what it taxes. It is a tax on improving existing inventions, because in order to improve them you have to find a workaround. It is a tax on future artistic endeavors, because in order to create you have to find a way to avoid your influences. And it is a tax on society because we have to cede huge chunks of mindspace and public domain back to private actors without receiving any benefit for doing so. When regimes do this with public and private land, they are called totalitarian. When they do it with ideas, they are called Eastern District of Texas.
On the post: CAFC Upholds Huge Fine; Injunction Against Selling Microsoft Word
Re: why texas "of course"?
On the post: Point Out A Potential Photoshopping Of A Demi Moore Picture, And She Has Her Lawyers Send Out The Nastygrams
Really? I mean... REALLY?
That Demi Moore would get tussled over this is laughable. That we would care is embarrassing.
On the post: Vatican Creates Special 'Copyright' On All Things Pope-Related?
Copyright treaties?
In the US, treaties are not self-executing. So this probably has little effect for "infringements" in this country. But other countries work differently - it is conceivable to me that the Republic of Gorgonzola (or whatever cheesy hypothetical nation you come up with) may have self-executing treaty obligations. In which case, the new law of Vatican City is now the law of Gorgonzola.
(Speaking of moral law - "blue laws" have a totally different meaning in a nation called Gorgonzola.)
On the post: Vancouver Olympics Demands All Copyrights And Royalties From Musician Just To Hear Her Song
Re:
Say it makes fun of the games... then they own the rights and can refuse to let anyone hear it. Win.
Say it rocks... then they own the rights and can use it widely to promote the games, sell CDs, or whatever. They can give it to Apolo Ono to sing while wearing glitter and fangs, and earn back the interest of tweenage girls everywhere. Epic win.
Say it is of limited interest, and neither sucks nor rocks... then they own the rights and can play it or not as fits their marketing plan. Win.
In other words, they don't care if its chicken-noodle soup in the can. They don't even need to test whether it is chicken noodle soup until after they get the rights.
Next >>