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.
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.
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....
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Reform should include 512(f) boosts
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.
Re: Why Would Any Lawyers Stoop To Be Involved With A Client Like This?
Re: Hungry Lawyers
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.
Re: Re: Untimely amici
(untitled comment)
SLAPPY
Re: Not just any lawyer...
(untitled comment)
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.
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.
Nice article - slight correction
If you're interested in the key docs in the case, here they are.
http://bit.ly/1YUhnke
(untitled comment)
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)
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
:)
Details... details....
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.
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.
You receive no points, and may god have mercy upon your soul (as Marc Randazza)
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
(untitled comment)
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.
More comments from Marc John Randazza >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Marc John Randazza.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt