Marc John Randazza (profile), 31 May 2016 @ 7:40pm
Re: Why Would Any Lawyers Stoop To Be Involved With A Client Like This?
After litigating against him for more than a year, I'll say he's a class act. He may be representing a client you find objectionable, but lawyers are not their clients. He's got a job to do, and he's doing it.
Marc John Randazza (profile), 9 May 2016 @ 10:31am
Re: majQa' Daj
Agreed.
Imagine if you wrote a poem in Nadsat or Newspeak -- but, you don't use any actual lines from A Clockwork Orange or 1984. You're then probably engaged in fair use.
But, I think the Klingon angle goes one degree beyond that -- not just fair use, but that the "language" once it becomes an actual functioning language, all copyright bounds are then erased.
Lets put it this way -- it is at lease *possible* that Klingon could become the lingua franca somewhere, no?
The fact is, you deserve to have copyright protection for your movie ... but if that movie spawns something with its own independent life, that life does not belong to you.
the Cohen brothers can't claim copyright protection in the Dudeist religion.
Marc John Randazza (profile), 11 Nov 2015 @ 2:37pm
SLAPPY
If you look at your first photo, Farenthold is the sponsor of the current federal Anti-SLAPP bill, and if you go to the fourth guy in that photo, that's Steve Cohen (D - TN) who was the first one to sponsor federal Anti-SLAPP legislation.
she is not an IP lawyer. she's a fucking idiot who managed to get hired as an IP "professor." Find me one IP case she has ever worked on. I'll wait....
Marc John Randazza (profile), 2 Nov 2015 @ 12:36pm
"A better candidate could have gone further."
That quote makes me respect Lessig a lot. I've alway thought highly of him since he published a piece criticizing himself for losing Eldred v. Ashcroft. (http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/March-April-2004/story_lessig_marapr04.msp)
I greatly respect his self-reflection and his humility in the face of a loss.
Marc John Randazza (profile), 10 Oct 2015 @ 8:35am
Trademarks
Another issue I didn't like in it -- trademark registrations need not be renewed for at least 10 years.
Under our current law, they expire if not renewed in 5 years. Since most businesses fail within 3 years, this gives a business ample time to get off the ground, time to fail, and time to sell off its assets, including its trademark -- or to succeed and renew.
Trademark trolling is not all that common, so it isn't on the level of horrifying (as some of the copyright and patent changes are). But still, it shows a theme of maximizing IP and not considering the practical implications of it.
Marc John Randazza (profile), 5 Oct 2015 @ 11:01pm
Nice article - slight correction
Just a slight tweak suggestion: Tobinick was not an "IP abusing" claim, as it wasn't trademark infringement that he claimed under the Lanham Act, but rather "false advertising."
There is some authority suggesting your view might be right. See Hinton v. Mainlands of Tamarac, 611 F.Supp. 494 (1985) (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3210050263880336874&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis= 1&oi=scholarr)
But, a later case seems to focus it more. Fermata v. Champions Golf Club, 712 F.Supp. 1257 (1989) (http://www.leagle.com/decision/19891969712FSupp1257_11784.xml/FERMATA%20INTERN.%20MELODIES%20v.%20C HAMPIONS%20GOLF%20CLUB)
The dispute between Twitter and Twitpic is at the TTAB. A TTAB proceeding is a limited proceeding over a trademark registration. Therefore, the issues are limited, making the costs also a bit more limited than full blown litigation.
Nevertheless, during TTAB disputes, the parties will sometimes also at least discuss or mediate other potential disputes. Think of the TTAB proceeding as a low-risk place to have a skirmish, but sometimes you let that skirmish inform your decisions about how you'll handle other possible disputes.
So, Twitpic may not be shutting down over the trademark issue - but the trademark fight is where the other issues got negotiated to this point.
Marc John Randazza (profile), 28 Mar 2014 @ 3:04pm
Re: Re:
No, no, no, no...
Losing the trademark registration does not mean that they lose the trademark. They can still enforce the mark, they simply lose some of the presumptions that come along with a registration.
You receive no points, and may god have mercy upon your soul
Tim, you wrote:
And if the NFL team's mark was removed, it wouldn't mean Snyder had to change the name of the team, it would just mean that anyone else, were they so inclined, would be able to use the term in football commerce at that point (although, not the logo, or other trademarked identifiers for the team).
Incorrect.
All it would mean is that Snyder would lose his registration, which would cost him some presumptions in litigation, and some international priority rights. But, he would still have a common law trademark.
Marc John Randazza (profile), 21 Mar 2014 @ 4:37pm
AC,
I suspect that not too many people are actually "afraid" and that they are just being dishonest, because they do not want to moderate. So, they put on the cheshire smile and say "oh, I would act responsibly, but if I did, I would lose my 230 protection."
I really can't see how anyone could have trouble understanding that very simple language in 230.
On the post: Why The DMCA's Notice & Takedown Already Has First Amendment Problems... And RIAA/MPAA Want To Make That Worse
Reform should include 512(f) boosts
On the post: Techdirt's First Amendment Fight For Its Life
Re: Re: Well now...
Someone call me?
By the way, the "Novella Trick" of using the Plaintiff's home state anti-SLAPP statute is only one way of doing it.
You can also use dépeçage to invoke the defendant's home state anti-SLAPP protections.
The courts in the 7th Circuit are very comfortable with that. The 1st has not yet applied it in the exact Novella / reverse Novella manner.
But ... you bet your ass, any defense here should be looking at that pretty French word ... dépeçage.
On the post: Publisher Threatens Writers Association With Defamation Suit After Being Kicked Out For Not Paying Royalties
Re: Why Would Any Lawyers Stoop To Be Involved With A Client Like This?
On the post: The Fight Over Copyrighting Klingon Heats Up, And Gets More Ridiculous
Re: Hungry Lawyers
On the post: The Fight Over Copyrighting Klingon Heats Up, And Gets More Ridiculous
Re: majQa' Daj
Imagine if you wrote a poem in Nadsat or Newspeak -- but, you don't use any actual lines from A Clockwork Orange or 1984. You're then probably engaged in fair use.
But, I think the Klingon angle goes one degree beyond that -- not just fair use, but that the "language" once it becomes an actual functioning language, all copyright bounds are then erased.
Lets put it this way -- it is at lease *possible* that Klingon could become the lingua franca somewhere, no?
The fact is, you deserve to have copyright protection for your movie ... but if that movie spawns something with its own independent life, that life does not belong to you.
the Cohen brothers can't claim copyright protection in the Dudeist religion.
On the post: The Fight Over Copyrighting Klingon Heats Up, And Gets More Ridiculous
Re: Re: Untimely amici
On the post: DailyDirt: Flying Faster Than The Speed Of Sound
On the post: House Judiciary Committee Hears Concerns From Silicon Valley About Copyright Law
SLAPPY
On the post: Law Professor Pens Ridiculous, Nearly Fact-Free, Misleading Attack On The Most Important Law On The Internet
Re: Not just any lawyer...
On the post: Democrats Screw Over Larry Lessig To Keep Him Out Of The Debates; Forces Lessig To Drop His Campaign
That quote makes me respect Lessig a lot. I've alway thought highly of him since he published a piece criticizing himself for losing Eldred v. Ashcroft. (http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/March-April-2004/story_lessig_marapr04.msp)
I greatly respect his self-reflection and his humility in the face of a loss.
On the post: Wikileaks Releases Final Intellectual Property Chapter Of TPP Before Official Release
Trademarks
Under our current law, they expire if not renewed in 5 years. Since most businesses fail within 3 years, this gives a business ample time to get off the ground, time to fail, and time to sell off its assets, including its trademark -- or to succeed and renew.
Trademark trolling is not all that common, so it isn't on the level of horrifying (as some of the copyright and patent changes are). But still, it shows a theme of maximizing IP and not considering the practical implications of it.
On the post: Court Hands Loss To Doctor Who Sued Over Blog Posts Criticizing His Questionable Alzheimer's Treatments
Nice article - slight correction
If you're interested in the key docs in the case, here they are.
http://bit.ly/1YUhnke
On the post: Music Licensing Groups Argue That A Homeowners Association Playing Music At The Pool Is A Public Performance
But, a later case seems to focus it more. Fermata v. Champions Golf Club, 712 F.Supp. 1257 (1989) (http://www.leagle.com/decision/19891969712FSupp1257_11784.xml/FERMATA%20INTERN.%20MELODIES%20v.%20C HAMPIONS%20GOLF%20CLUB)
On the post: Music Licensing Groups Argue That A Homeowners Association Playing Music At The Pool Is A Public Performance
Wrong
You're wrong. Legally speaking, it is a public performance. I actually dealt with this issue representing a homeowners' association.
https://randazza.files.wordpress.com/2007/01/copyright-and-the-clubhouse.pdf
On the post: Comic Artists Claim Copyright On Metallic Suits And The Three Point Landing
:)
On the post: 5,000 Domains Seized Based On Sealed Court Filing; Confused Domain Owners Have No Idea Why
Details... details....
On the post: Disappointing That Twitter Threatened Twitpic, But Story Doesn't Add Up
A possible explanation...
The dispute between Twitter and Twitpic is at the TTAB. A TTAB proceeding is a limited proceeding over a trademark registration. Therefore, the issues are limited, making the costs also a bit more limited than full blown litigation.
Nevertheless, during TTAB disputes, the parties will sometimes also at least discuss or mediate other potential disputes. Think of the TTAB proceeding as a low-risk place to have a skirmish, but sometimes you let that skirmish inform your decisions about how you'll handle other possible disputes.
So, Twitpic may not be shutting down over the trademark issue - but the trademark fight is where the other issues got negotiated to this point.
On the post: USPTO: Again, Redskin Can't Be Trademarked Because It's A Racist Term
Re: Re:
Losing the trademark registration does not mean that they lose the trademark. They can still enforce the mark, they simply lose some of the presumptions that come along with a registration.
On the post: USPTO: Again, Redskin Can't Be Trademarked Because It's A Racist Term
You receive no points, and may god have mercy upon your soul
And if the NFL team's mark was removed, it wouldn't mean Snyder had to change the name of the team, it would just mean that anyone else, were they so inclined, would be able to use the term in football commerce at that point (although, not the logo, or other trademarked identifiers for the team).
Incorrect.
All it would mean is that Snyder would lose his registration, which would cost him some presumptions in litigation, and some international priority rights. But, he would still have a common law trademark.
HTH
On the post: Why Moderating Comments Doesn't Remove Section 230 Protection, And Why More Lawyers Need To Understand This
I suspect that not too many people are actually "afraid" and that they are just being dishonest, because they do not want to moderate. So, they put on the cheshire smile and say "oh, I would act responsibly, but if I did, I would lose my 230 protection."
I really can't see how anyone could have trouble understanding that very simple language in 230.
Next >>