It's really amazing that you were able to write so much and say nothing at all. I can't even begin to find the point (if there even is one) in all that babbling, but to address your first remark that TNF's lawyer's questions were designed to establish the lack of character and integrity of the "kid," what difference does that make as far as a trademark dispute is concerned?
If you are implying that someone who smokes pot has questionable character, then I guess you probably weren't in favor of any of the past three US Presidents, as they've all either admitted to, or tacitly acknowledged they've smoked pot at some point. Does that mean none of them has integrity or character? I'm not saying they do or don't, just that whether or not they do has nothing to do with marijuana.
Your other arguments are equally irrelevent, or just plain incorrect, to the basis of this trademark case, but I don't have time to waste on launching into more exposition.
Every profession has people who are good at their job, and people who aren't. Just because you call yourself an analyst doesn't mean you know what you're talking about. I should think your career would be brief though if you're spouting demonstrably false analysis.
Or produce the content, just don't expect people to buy. Quite a few "content creators" are artists who produce because they have a need to express themselves, regardless of the market.
There is a poll on the last link's site asking, "Are you happy that Michael Atkinson will no longer be South Australia's Attorney-General?" More than 95% say "Yes" as of this posting. I guess not enough people who voted in that poll vote in the only poll that effects how he got his job in the first place.
If I could get new albums by big name artists for $5-$6 I'd start buying a whole lot more music. I like having the physical disk and liner notes, but not for $12-$15 a pop. Even ten dollars will only get me to buy a few of my favorite artist's discs.
Viacom was aiming at Google, but managed to shoot themselves in the foot. That's why large corporations shouldn't sue other large corporations. The lawyers on the other side are just as good, if not better than their own. Better to only sue small companies and individuals. Less chance you'll get pwned in court.
You're assuming that I think all of Harvard's profs are incompetent, which isn't the case. I'm just pointing out that Harvard, like state schools, has it's share of academic frauds. So I'm not sure how you can take that comment to be hypocritical if I don't paint Lessig with the same brush. Care to share how you reached that conclusion?
On the post: Sony Deletes Feature On PS3's; You Don't Own What You Thought You Bought
Re: They came first..
On the post: Is Buying A Google Ad On Your Competitors' Name A Privacy Violation?
I love the smell of litigation in the morning!
On the post: Sony Deletes Feature On PS3's; You Don't Own What You Thought You Bought
They came first..
and I didn't speak up because I didn't play PS2 games.
THEN THEY CAME for the SCAD player,
and I didn't speak up because I didn't use the SCAD player.
THEN THEY CAME for the memory card readers,
and I didn't speak up because I didn't use memory cards.
THEN THEY CAME for the other OS feature,
and I didn’t speak up because I didn't use Linux.
THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.
On the post: Sony Deletes Feature On PS3's; You Don't Own What You Thought You Bought
Re: Re: Lawsuit...
On the post: North Face Lawyers Try To Drag South Butt Family Through The Mud
Re:
If you are implying that someone who smokes pot has questionable character, then I guess you probably weren't in favor of any of the past three US Presidents, as they've all either admitted to, or tacitly acknowledged they've smoked pot at some point. Does that mean none of them has integrity or character? I'm not saying they do or don't, just that whether or not they do has nothing to do with marijuana.
Your other arguments are equally irrelevent, or just plain incorrect, to the basis of this trademark case, but I don't have time to waste on launching into more exposition.
On the post: Solicitor General Tells Supreme Court That First Sale Shouldn't Apply To Foreign-Made Goods
Re:
On the post: EU Keeps Pushing Canada To Make Massive Changes To IP Law, With No Concern For User Rights
On the post: North Face Lawyers Try To Drag South Butt Family Through The Mud
Re: Re:
/$.02
On the post: North Face Lawyers Try To Drag South Butt Family Through The Mud
Not how I'd like to be known
On the post: Google Fined For Not Blocking Dirty Jokes
Brazil's new slogan
That should draw in the tech companies.
On the post: Frost & Sullivan Analyst Apparently Has Never Heard Of Network TV: Says Video Can't Be Free To Consumers
Analyst are just like any other job
On the post: Frost & Sullivan Analyst Apparently Has Never Heard Of Network TV: Says Video Can't Be Free To Consumers
Re: Free-Market Corollary
On the post: Video Game-Hating, Anonymous Commenter-Hating South Australian Attorney General Steps Down
Confidence fail
On the post: Are Anonymous Comments Evil?
The Anti-Mike
On the post: Too Little Too Late: Universal Music Finally Realizes That Maybe CDs Were Too Expensive
Almost there
On the post: California Court Says Online Bullying Is Not Protected Free Speech
Mr. Popularity
On the post: Will YouTube Case Lead To FTC Investigation Of Viacom's Questionable Marketing Practices?
Nice shot
On the post: Verizon Figures If It's Already Involved In A Patent Lawsuit With TiVo, Why Not Sue Cablevision For Its DVR Too
Welcome to the Thunder Dome
On the post: Disgruntled Ex-Auto Dealer Employee Hacks Computer System To Disable Over 100 Cars
Re: Re: Hack? What hack?
On the post: Harvard Law Prof's Poor Economic Analysis Used As Cover For Unnecessary Fashion Copyright
Re: Re: Ivy League is over rated
Next >>