Agreed, but this is a case of exactly what you're tired of.
Everyone in this society knows there are lots of people who find any reference to sex offensive. Mr. "Making my Family" Owens surely knew lots of prudes would be upset, and was forcing that upset on "everyone else".
It doesn't bother me a bit (I find it worth a chuckle).
And I support the case, because the 1st Amendment needs to be defended in the grey areas if it's to be strong in the areas we care about.
But this is a grey area, and Mr. Owens is not a nice person.
Just eliminate ACs - if you want to comment, create an account and log in.
People can still comment "anonymously" by commenting under a different account than their usual one. (Don't prevent people from having multiple accounts.)
Then set a threshold: If > (say) 30% of your comments get flagged, your account is automatically banned for 30 days.
Trolls could still create new accounts to get back in, but the extra effort will be a big discouragement.
Re: Re: Re: The only other options are to submit or to take up arms.
Uber has elevated civil disobedience to a business model.
With some discomfort, I have to say I admire them for it.
I'm generally a fan of the rule of law - if the law sucks it should be changed, not violated.
But sometimes the only practical way to get it changed is civil disobedience. Esp. so with victimless "crimes".
If Uber hadn't played games like this, they'd never have gotten the volume, revenue, and number of (voting) customers needed to get the law changed, disrupting the taxi cartels.
Lots of other more law-abiding types have tried to break into the market for decades, and got stomped every time. Uber has found a model that works - blatant, open violation of the law, working in favor of customers. And finding sneaky ways to avoid punishment long enough to reap credit for it.
This can only work when it's the law that's criminal, not the violators. But maybe we need more of this.
Most of the reasons the US has lousy broadband (and in many places no Internet at all - not even 3G) are to be found in state legislatures.
This isn't new - all the focus on the FCC and net neutrality has distracted a lot of people from this fact for a long time.
Maybe a silver lining in Ajit Pai's chairmanship of the FCC is that the focus will return to the states, which is where the real problem was in the first place.
Thank you for a very informative answer. I learned a lot from it, and will make somewhat less misinformed comments on the subject in the future.
I didn't realize that this was still in the pretrial stage where the truth of the allegations are not yet in play. (Shows I didn't do my homework; I hope that's forgivable in a blog comment.)
Perhaps I'm biased from my own brush with the court system*, but despite my very recent schooling, my impression remains that in "slam-dunk" cases courts make an effort to return a just verdict.
That is, the necessity of a vigorous defense is proportional to the weakness of one's case.
Each party to any lawsuit will naturally take different viewpoints re how strong each side's case is, but cases are nonetheless objectively weak or strong.
It shouldn't - and I still think doesn't - take much to defend against a weak case.
Such as Ayyadurai v. Floor64, Inc. et al.
---- * I pled nolo contendere pro se, which I think granted the judge both latitude and an obligation to look after the hapless pro se defendant.
Mike, I'm sorry to hear this has been so distracting to you and the other TD staffers.
I wonder if you're handling it right.
I know it's easy to be cool and relaxed when it's not my own business and investment at stake, but I think it's a mistake, on multiple levels, to respond with lots of time, attention, and legal expense.
The point is that Ayyadurai has no case. He clearly didn't invent email; that's trivial to prove in court. He's clearly attacking you solely for pointing out that the emperor is naked.
There are other legal arguments, but given these facts I think they're irrelevant.
I hear lots of TD commenters claiming that people have no choice but to fold in the face of baseless legal intimidation, because of the cost of defense.
By making a huge deal out of this, raising lots of money (I bought 2 shirts and a mug), and admitting to your own distraction, you are reinforcing that meme.
Which I think is plain wrong. Our court system isn't that bad. It does care for simple justice and the plain letter of the law.
Instead of responding with all-hands-on-deck, red alert, and a 30 page filing, how about having your lawyer spend 4 hours drafting a 2 page reply:
Ayyadurai didn't invent email. See these references.
This is a baseless attack meant to silence his critics
We want legal fees and damages for this baseless case
Then shut up. Let the courts do their work.
Even if you lose (unlikely), you can always appeal.
Gifts are not allowed, owning property (even IP), is
If the trademark is a gift of the Chinese government, then he can't accept it.
If the trademark is his (intellectual) property by right under Chinese law (in this case because he was first-to-file), then it's allowed.
Which of the two cases apply may be difficult to say, which is one of the (many) reasons why Presidents have mostly divested themselves of personal business while in office.
Given Mr. Trump's very personal feelings about his business (after all, most of it seems to involve pasting giant letters T R U M P on every possible surface), this was always going to be a problem. But we knew that going in.
Vito, we have to start somewhere. If your attitude is "nobody follows the rules" then rules don't matter and we have chaos where the strong crush the weak.
This is a good start - reasonable rules. They should be praised and encouraged.
Now they have to be enforced. That's the next step.
Thank you, Wendy, for once again showing that civil discourse is possible between people of differing viewpoints.
Actually I agree with everything you say here - Mike's post is entirely reasonable, and what is going on with the USPTO (and many other things) is indeed worrying.
My original comment was directed at the AC who snarked that the answer is "Guess the highest bidder hasn't stepped forth yet." (Certainly not at Mike, for whom I have great respect.)
My position is pretty clear from my other comments in this thread. I'm no fan or supporter of Mr. Trump.
It pains me greatly to find myself in the position of defending him against unreasonable accusations. There are plenty of reasonable accusations to attack him with - not least his positions on IP law, civil forfeiture, trade, immigration, civil rights, and authoritarianism in general.
Allowing our "collective heads to explode" is not a strategy. And we need strategy.
Actually, Roger, my "civil war" comment was in reply to the AC who enjoys watching "leftist heads exploding" (that post is now flagged, rightly so).
So if I was accusing anybody of trying to start a civil war, I was accusing Trump's defenders.
Please read the thread with a bit more care before making accusations.
Of course, it takes two to tango, so in that sense my comment does apply to both sides.
And, yes, I've got other things going on in my life beside politics and don't watch every news video. I spend way too much time posting here as it is.
Just in this thread you've talked about my "head exploding", accused me of demanding "unspoiled unconditional love for Trump", of equating "criticizing Trump with trying to start a civil war", and of spouting "imbecilic Trump wingnuttery".
Yet, also in this thread, I made clear I oppose Trump, oppose civil forfeiture, and fear "discrediting all opposition to Trump".
Elsewhere on TD (and you and I have both been here for a while) I've said I oppose Trump on immigration, trade, IP policy, and more, and that I prefered Hillary Clinton (who I despise) to Trump.
And I haven't called you any names, or insulted you.
So it seems to me that it's you who are demanding unspoiled unconditional hate for Trump, and smearing and insulting those who take an even slightly less extreme position. [See, I do know how to use markdown.]
We are all going to have to live together in this country under President Trump (ugh; pains me to say that title) for the next four, and maybe eight, years. Half the electorate voted for him (not including me).
If everyone who expresses anything other than unspoiled unconditional hate for the POTUS is an "imbecilic wingnut" then so are fully half of your fellow citizens.
I think it would be better for all of us if passions cooled a bit and we stopped calling each other names. Your opponents may indeed be wrong, but that does not make them monsters.
With that, I'll move on to other threads and topics. Have a good day, Roger.
On the post: Driver Sues State After Receiving Ticket For 'Obscene' Stick Figure Vehicle Decal
Re: Re: Nail on the head.
Everyone in this society knows there are lots of people who find any reference to sex offensive. Mr. "Making my Family" Owens surely knew lots of prudes would be upset, and was forcing that upset on "everyone else".
It doesn't bother me a bit (I find it worth a chuckle).
And I support the case, because the 1st Amendment needs to be defended in the grey areas if it's to be strong in the areas we care about.
But this is a grey area, and Mr. Owens is not a nice person.
On the post: How To Improve Online Comments: Test Whether People Have Read The Article Before Allowing Them To Respond
Simple partial solution - eliminate ACs
Just eliminate ACs - if you want to comment, create an account and log in.
People can still comment "anonymously" by commenting under a different account than their usual one. (Don't prevent people from having multiple accounts.)
Then set a threshold: If > (say) 30% of your comments get flagged, your account is automatically banned for 30 days.
Trolls could still create new accounts to get back in, but the extra effort will be a big discouragement.
On the post: State Dept. Memo To End Leaks Promptly Leaks To The Media
Re: Re: Re: Re: well-meaning but ineffective
"The crime rate is up 50%". From when? Where? Measured how?
On the post: Here's A Tip: If You're Desiging Special Apps To Hide From Regulators, You're Going To Get In Trouble
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The only other options are to submit or to take up arms.
Opinions, of course, will differ.
On the post: Prenda's John Steele Pleads Guilty, Admits To Basically Everything
Re: Re: Tears for the loss of a national icon
Care to explain - because I've been wondering - how you invented email in 1978, when I was using email at MIT in 1977?
And I didn't invent it. It was there for a number of years before me.
I remember bang paths. Do you?
On the post: Here's A Tip: If You're Desiging Special Apps To Hide From Regulators, You're Going To Get In Trouble
Re: Re: Re: The only other options are to submit or to take up arms.
Uber has elevated civil disobedience to a business model.
With some discomfort, I have to say I admire them for it.
I'm generally a fan of the rule of law - if the law sucks it should be changed, not violated.
But sometimes the only practical way to get it changed is civil disobedience. Esp. so with victimless "crimes".
If Uber hadn't played games like this, they'd never have gotten the volume, revenue, and number of (voting) customers needed to get the law changed, disrupting the taxi cartels.
Lots of other more law-abiding types have tried to break into the market for decades, and got stomped every time. Uber has found a model that works - blatant, open violation of the law, working in favor of customers. And finding sneaky ways to avoid punishment long enough to reap credit for it.
This can only work when it's the law that's criminal, not the violators. But maybe we need more of this.
On the post: State Dept. Memo To End Leaks Promptly Leaks To The Media
Re: well-meaning but ineffective
"Our" side is stupid-but-good, "their" side is smart-but-evil.
Regardless of which side you're on.
On the post: Missouri The Latest State To Let Telecom Monopolies Write Awful, Protectionist State Law
States are the battleground
This isn't new - all the focus on the FCC and net neutrality has distracted a lot of people from this fact for a long time.
Maybe a silver lining in Ajit Pai's chairmanship of the FCC is that the focus will return to the states, which is where the real problem was in the first place.
On the post: Techdirt Survival Fund: I Support Journalism
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Strategy?
I didn't realize that this was still in the pretrial stage where the truth of the allegations are not yet in play. (Shows I didn't do my homework; I hope that's forgivable in a blog comment.)
Perhaps I'm biased from my own brush with the court system*, but despite my very recent schooling, my impression remains that in "slam-dunk" cases courts make an effort to return a just verdict.
That is, the necessity of a vigorous defense is proportional to the weakness of one's case.
Each party to any lawsuit will naturally take different viewpoints re how strong each side's case is, but cases are nonetheless objectively weak or strong.
It shouldn't - and I still think doesn't - take much to defend against a weak case.
Such as Ayyadurai v. Floor64, Inc. et al.
----
* I pled nolo contendere pro se, which I think granted the judge both latitude and an obligation to look after the hapless pro se defendant.
On the post: Techdirt Survival Fund: I Support Journalism
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Strategy?
Once many decades ago I defended myself pro se on a felony charge (driving a motorcycle without insurance - yes, that was a felony, at least then).
The whole thing was settled in an hour (I paid a $50 fine, and not a penny in legal fees).
I'm not snarking here - I'd truly appreciate it if you could explain what exactly is wrong with my understanding here.
On the post: Techdirt Survival Fund: I Support Journalism
Re: Re: Re: Re: Strategy?
Care to elaborate for those of us without your understanding of the American legal system, the concept of "procedural posture", or how appeals work?
Surely I can't be the only one.
On the post: Techdirt Survival Fund: I Support Journalism
Re: Re: Strategy?
Do you think courts care nothing for justice or the law?
On the post: Techdirt Survival Fund: I Support Journalism
Strategy?
Mike, I'm sorry to hear this has been so distracting to you and the other TD staffers.
I wonder if you're handling it right.
I know it's easy to be cool and relaxed when it's not my own business and investment at stake, but I think it's a mistake, on multiple levels, to respond with lots of time, attention, and legal expense.
The point is that Ayyadurai has no case. He clearly didn't invent email; that's trivial to prove in court. He's clearly attacking you solely for pointing out that the emperor is naked.
There are other legal arguments, but given these facts I think they're irrelevant.
I hear lots of TD commenters claiming that people have no choice but to fold in the face of baseless legal intimidation, because of the cost of defense.
By making a huge deal out of this, raising lots of money (I bought 2 shirts and a mug), and admitting to your own distraction, you are reinforcing that meme.
Which I think is plain wrong. Our court system isn't that bad. It does care for simple justice and the plain letter of the law.
Instead of responding with all-hands-on-deck, red alert, and a 30 page filing, how about having your lawyer spend 4 hours drafting a 2 page reply:
Then shut up. Let the courts do their work.
Even if you lose (unlikely), you can always appeal.
You are now 2 cents richer. Good luck. :-)
On the post: Chinese Trademarks And The Emoluments Clause: Do They Intersect In The Trump Presidency?
Gifts are not allowed, owning property (even IP), is
If the trademark is his (intellectual) property by right under Chinese law (in this case because he was first-to-file), then it's allowed.
Which of the two cases apply may be difficult to say, which is one of the (many) reasons why Presidents have mostly divested themselves of personal business while in office.
Given Mr. Trump's very personal feelings about his business (after all, most of it seems to involve pasting giant letters T R U M P on every possible surface), this was always going to be a problem. But we knew that going in.
On the post: Italy Proposes Astonishingly Sensible Rules To Regulate Government Hacking Using Trojans
Re: enforcement ?
This is a good start - reasonable rules. They should be praised and encouraged.
Now they have to be enforced. That's the next step.
The only way to make progress is to work at it.
On the post: Who The Hell Is Actually In Charge Of The US Patent And Trademark Office?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Guess the highest bidder hasn't stepped forth yet.
On the post: Some New Techdirt T-Shirts (And Hoodies, And More...)
I can't stand people who claim credit for the work of others
Just ordered 2 shirts and the coffee mug.
There is a special place in hell for people like Shiva Ayyadurai who claim credit for the work of others.
I personally used email before he claims to have invented it. (Yeah, I'm not "old" mugwump for nothing.)
On the post: Who The Hell Is Actually In Charge Of The US Patent And Trademark Office?
Re: Re: Re: So...stop doing that
Thank you, Wendy, for once again showing that civil discourse is possible between people of differing viewpoints.
Actually I agree with everything you say here - Mike's post is entirely reasonable, and what is going on with the USPTO (and many other things) is indeed worrying.
My original comment was directed at the AC who snarked that the answer is "Guess the highest bidder hasn't stepped forth yet." (Certainly not at Mike, for whom I have great respect.)
My position is pretty clear from my other comments in this thread. I'm no fan or supporter of Mr. Trump.
It pains me greatly to find myself in the position of defending him against unreasonable accusations. There are plenty of reasonable accusations to attack him with - not least his positions on IP law, civil forfeiture, trade, immigration, civil rights, and authoritarianism in general.
Allowing our "collective heads to explode" is not a strategy. And we need strategy.
On the post: Who The Hell Is Actually In Charge Of The US Patent And Trademark Office?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So...stop doing that
Actually, Roger, my "civil war" comment was in reply to the AC who enjoys watching "leftist heads exploding" (that post is now flagged, rightly so).
So if I was accusing anybody of trying to start a civil war, I was accusing Trump's defenders.
Please read the thread with a bit more care before making accusations.
Of course, it takes two to tango, so in that sense my comment does apply to both sides.
And, yes, I've got other things going on in my life beside politics and don't watch every news video. I spend way too much time posting here as it is.
Just in this thread you've talked about my "head exploding", accused me of demanding "unspoiled unconditional love for Trump", of equating "criticizing Trump with trying to start a civil war", and of spouting "imbecilic Trump wingnuttery".
Yet, also in this thread, I made clear I oppose Trump, oppose civil forfeiture, and fear "discrediting all opposition to Trump".
Elsewhere on TD (and you and I have both been here for a while) I've said I oppose Trump on immigration, trade, IP policy, and more, and that I prefered Hillary Clinton (who I despise) to Trump.
And I haven't called you any names, or insulted you.
So it seems to me that it's you who are demanding unspoiled unconditional hate for Trump, and smearing and insulting those who take an even slightly less extreme position. [See, I do know how to use markdown.]
We are all going to have to live together in this country under President Trump (ugh; pains me to say that title) for the next four, and maybe eight, years. Half the electorate voted for him (not including me).
If everyone who expresses anything other than unspoiled unconditional hate for the POTUS is an "imbecilic wingnut" then so are fully half of your fellow citizens.
I think it would be better for all of us if passions cooled a bit and we stopped calling each other names. Your opponents may indeed be wrong, but that does not make them monsters.
With that, I'll move on to other threads and topics. Have a good day, Roger.
On the post: Who The Hell Is Actually In Charge Of The US Patent And Trademark Office?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Guess the highest bidder hasn't stepped forth yet.
If it wasn't someone at TD, then it was someone not at TD, and you should probably look into changing admin passwords (or some such).
Because it wasn't me. I know about markdown (and I didn't click the box that time), and I didn't put *stars* around it either.
Somebody, somewhere, is playing sneaky games.
Next >>