Apart from the fact that that will turn off most of your apps, you can still be tracked by your cell signal. You need to turn off your phone and start living in the 1980's.
It was always unreasonable to say that if anyone finds out, it's a free-for-all, you have no more privacy.
But in today's world, we have no control over much of our information and cannot function without trusting some information to some organizations. It is more than unreasonable, it is an injustice to say that if you participate in the modern world, you give up nearly all your 4th Amendment rights. That outside your front door (and sometimes inside too), the 4th Amendment has been effectively repealed.
I have a question about the "prove you destroyed it" requirement--does the German government have a list of every person who possesses this doll? If so, then what else are they keeping lists on?
There's not enough recognition of the fundamental difference between Trademark and the other forms of intellectual property--whereas copyrights and patents grant protection to creations, new things that didn't exist before, trademark takes things that already exist out of the public domain and hands them over to private entities.
So even if the public ultimately benefits from some trademarks, it is initially made poorer. That should support different balancing tests.
Which leads us to another problem--strong protection. Trademarks are supposed to distinguish between competitors. So if you're buying a Pepsi cola, you should be getting a cola made by the Pepsi Company--it should be the only soda bearing that name. But if you made shoes, you're not in competition with Pepsi, you should be able to use that name.
But you can't because Pepsi has strong protection--it can stop anyone from using that name no matter what they make. In today's environment, that makes some sense--trademark law being what it is, I would expect anything branded "Pepsi" to be a product of the Pepsi Company. But that expectation was created by the judges who gave Pepsi too much protection in the first place. Take away that protection and you take away the expectation that is used to justify the protection.
It was annoying when the banner ad on my browser announced to the office that I put a new toilet in my bathroom, but I'd already bought it. What's the likelihood I'd be buying another?
And it was embarrassing when the banner ad on my browser made it look like I'd joined the Michigan Militia because I'd bought a tactical pen and a monocular for camping. Does that really indicate I might need an armored sleeve for knife fights?
As clumsy as it might be right now, the system knows plenty about me even if advertisers do not. And that information is accessible to parties unknown to me.
is the lowest level, not the highest. I don't see the court identified on the decision you post so I can't tell where the mistake lies, but if this is a Supreme Court decision, then the next stop is the court of appeals.
The key, as you point out early on, is truth in advertising laws. All of these fees are fraudulent unless they are optional. If the consumer cannot purchase the product for the advertised price, then the advertised price is consumer fraud. It's not even a close quesiotn.
"The whole idea that someone's feelings getting hurt is defamation is completely antithetical to any reasonable support of a regime of freedom of expression."
It's more than that, it's antithetical to the definition of defamation.
Defamation is not concerned with someone's feelings being hurt--their feelings about themselves--it's concerned with other people's feelings--reputation. If people think or even might think less of you for this statement, then you have been defamed. If you think less of yourself, you've been harmed, I suppose, but it's not defamation.
I was thinking the same thing--this isn't a case of a professor photocopying some excerpts to hand out to the class to save students from having to buy a book that will be 99.5% unused. Especially given the outrageous pricing of textbooks. No, this is a business that copies textbooks and then sells the copies (according to the excerpt).
Ideally, there would be a compulsory license like in music so that professors could build their own textbooks affordably. This decision appears to have some significant risk built into it.
Re:
Apart from the fact that that will turn off most of your apps, you can still be tracked by your cell signal. You need to turn off your phone and start living in the 1980's.
Re: Re:
The third party doctrine was always crap
But in today's world, we have no control over much of our information and cannot function without trusting some information to some organizations. It is more than unreasonable, it is an injustice to say that if you participate in the modern world, you give up nearly all your 4th Amendment rights. That outside your front door (and sometimes inside too), the 4th Amendment has been effectively repealed.
(untitled comment)
Re: Re:
(untitled comment)
So even if the public ultimately benefits from some trademarks, it is initially made poorer. That should support different balancing tests.
Which leads us to another problem--strong protection. Trademarks are supposed to distinguish between competitors. So if you're buying a Pepsi cola, you should be getting a cola made by the Pepsi Company--it should be the only soda bearing that name. But if you made shoes, you're not in competition with Pepsi, you should be able to use that name.
But you can't because Pepsi has strong protection--it can stop anyone from using that name no matter what they make. In today's environment, that makes some sense--trademark law being what it is, I would expect anything branded "Pepsi" to be a product of the Pepsi Company. But that expectation was created by the judges who gave Pepsi too much protection in the first place. Take away that protection and you take away the expectation that is used to justify the protection.
Sure, they're limited now
And it was embarrassing when the banner ad on my browser made it look like I'd joined the Michigan Militia because I'd bought a tactical pen and a monocular for camping. Does that really indicate I might need an armored sleeve for knife fights?
As clumsy as it might be right now, the system knows plenty about me even if advertisers do not. And that information is accessible to parties unknown to me.
In New York, the Supreme Court
(untitled comment)
You can change your password, but good luck changing your fingerprints, your iris, your face.
Re: Caveat lector
Re: FakeNews == BigLie
Re:
(untitled comment)
Re:
"Granted, taking credit for jobs and investment he had nothing to do with has sort of become Trump's MO in his first few months in office."
Oh well.
(untitled comment)
Right, Trump. Not politics as usual. Because Trump.
Re: Re: Re: So it was a lottery ticket…
(untitled comment)
And yet...
(untitled comment)
(untitled comment)
It's more than that, it's antithetical to the definition of defamation.
Defamation is not concerned with someone's feelings being hurt--their feelings about themselves--it's concerned with other people's feelings--reputation. If people think or even might think less of you for this statement, then you have been defamed. If you think less of yourself, you've been harmed, I suppose, but it's not defamation.
Re:
Ideally, there would be a compulsory license like in music so that professors could build their own textbooks affordably. This decision appears to have some significant risk built into it.
More comments from timmaguire42 >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by timmaguire42.
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