Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

1.  

   

   ac, Mar 12th, 2009 @ 4:32pm

   
   

   sigh...

   The list I keep of companies to never patronize is getting longer and longer.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

2.  

   

   Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Mar 12th, 2009 @ 4:40pm

   
   

   Not The First

   Somewhere around 1993 or so, I remember a product for building GUIs on top of Apple’s AppleScript language. It was called “Frontmost”. Then later I found the name had been changed to “FaceSpan”, because the previous name was considered too similar to Userland’s “Frontier” scripting product. I was incredulous at the time.
   
   I used to subscribe to Wired magazine. I stopped when they cheerfully admitted in one issue to shutting down the domain for a women’s group called WIRE, because the name was too similar to their own.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

3.  

   

   Anonymous Coward, Mar 12th, 2009 @ 5:01pm

   
   

   Techdirt should be careful.
   
   If you remove the vertical line from the 'd', remove the 'i', remove the horizontal line in the 't' and extend the curl, finally adding an "nch". It is infringing on techcrunch.
   
   Better watch out for a lawsuit.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

4.  

   

   jmzrbnsn (profile), Mar 12th, 2009 @ 5:02pm

   
   

   Re: Not The First

   Shouldn't the band Wire sue Wired in retrospect as they were there first?

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

5.  

   

   counter, Mar 12th, 2009 @ 5:15pm

   
   

   The counter lawsuit should be nice for Rehava. This is a waste of court time and honestly if a judge does anything other than laugh, they should be disbarred from any type of legal work.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

6.  

   

   DontAsk, Mar 12th, 2009 @ 5:29pm

   
   

   LA/WYERS

   Give the lawyers a loaded gun(then run). They may experiment with the trigger.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

7.  

   

   MoronInAHurry, Mar 12th, 2009 @ 5:38pm

   
   

   Can't pass it up

   Seems like there a drug problem at some law office.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

8.  

   

   crispybacon, Mar 12th, 2009 @ 6:17pm

   
   

   Trying to justify their employment

   At least the moron-in-a-hurry seems to be smarter than the morons-with-law-degrees...

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

9.  

   

   D Crockett, Mar 12th, 2009 @ 6:20pm

   
   

   Ban Guns or Lawyers?

   The moonbat President wants to erase the second amendment - that's the right to bear arms. For you in California that means own guns.
   
   The ownership of guns is protected by the Constitution, but lawyes are not and they cause far more damage. Let's ban them.
   
   Are you listening Barry Hussein Obama?

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

10.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Mar 12th, 2009 @ 7:43pm

    
    

    Re: Ban Guns or Lawyers?

    Paranoid Much?

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

11.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Mar 12th, 2009 @ 7:44pm

    
    

    Re:

    But are Masnick and Arrington the same Mike? They never seem to be at the same place together...

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

12.  

    

    Nick, Mar 12th, 2009 @ 7:45pm

    
    

    Re: Ban Guns or Lawyers?

    Actually, the "right to bear arms" does not refer to private citizens owning guns. It has to do with the right of the states to have a standing militia.
    
    http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am2

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

13.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Mar 12th, 2009 @ 8:03pm

    
    

    Hi...
    
    I'm from Portugal and a few years back Philip Morris sued a Portuguese tobacco company because of the similarities between Marlboro and Marbelo (picture links included), both in name and design and that people would get confused. Thankfully a judge through the lawsuit out the window.
    
    A lot of people where not very happy with the decision, mostly the press and large companies going on a "crusade" arguing that copyright would get abused, and other companies would start commercializing "Relax" watches, etc. etc.
    
    Bottom line, nobody got confused and no "other copyright issues"...

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

14.  

    

    Slackr, Mar 12th, 2009 @ 8:11pm

    
    

    Honestly, how do lawyers live with themselves trying to make this type of case actually work? I think someone was right when they said there was a drug problem at that law office! Either that or they've got seriously bad eyesight.
    
    Re/Max if your branding is so crappy that you are threatened by this company (that looks nothing like you) - one pointless lawsuit isn't going to help you.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

15.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Mar 12th, 2009 @ 8:18pm

    
    

    why do read these things?

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

16.  

    

    Kevin, Mar 12th, 2009 @ 8:18pm

    
    

    Since remax can't sell a house to save their lives (I know first-hand), they have to make money somewhere.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

17.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Mar 12th, 2009 @ 9:38pm

    
    

    Realtors are scam artists as it is, so this doesn't surprise me.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

18.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Mar 12th, 2009 @ 10:45pm

    
    

    Re: Re: Ban Guns or Lawyers?

    Actually, the "right to bear arms" does not refer to private citizens owning guns. It has to do with the right of the states to have a standing militia.
    
    Actually it does. Militias were typically composed of private citizens who banded together using their own private arms. The term "standing militia" is an oxymoron. A militia is NOT a standing military and is many times not even government sanctioned.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

19.  

    

    Tom, Mar 13th, 2009 @ 3:25am

    
    

    ReMax vs. Rehava

    Yesterday, after tons of negative PR, ReMax officially withdrew their complaint against rehava.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

20.  

    

    first time caller, Mar 13th, 2009 @ 4:46am

    
    

    From a John Wesley Harding song: "And if the 90's are the 60's turned upside down. Then the 80's were the 60's the right way up. Only with half the top cut off? If you think about it! "

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

21.  

    

    first time caller, Mar 13th, 2009 @ 4:46am

    
    

    From a John Wesley Harding song: "And if the 90's are the 60's turned upside down. Then the 80's were the 60's the right way up. Only with half the top cut off? If you think about it! "

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

22.  

    

    first time caller, Mar 13th, 2009 @ 4:46am

    
    

    From a John Wesley Harding song: "And if the 90's are the 60's turned upside down. Then the 80's were the 60's the right way up. Only with half the top cut off? If you think about it! "

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

23.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Mar 13th, 2009 @ 5:23am

    
    

    Please read people, and do a little investigating...

    To all those people writing about trials and suing and countersuits, please re-read the post. Remax has filed an opposition in the USPTO to a trademark application for Rehava. An opposition is merely a letter to the USPTO explaining why the applicant should not be entitled to a trademark. Such opposition is beneficial to limit potential confusion. For example, if someone wanted to trademark "techdirty," which would be used for a web site promoting the numerous benefits of intellectual property, Mike Masnick could file an opposition because of potential confusion over his site.
    
    As for Mike's comment regarding "plenty of time and money" to fight the opposition, that depends on your definition of "plenty." Yes, it might cost several thousand dollars. On the other hand, it might cost several hundred dollars. Unless Mike is prepared to give a definition to "plenty" or a source that indicates that "plenty" was significantly more than the cost of applying for the trademark, "plenty" seems like exaggeration and possibly hyperbole.
    
    From the "time" viewpoint, responding to an opposition may take several hours, or it may take very little time and may be a relatively simple response.
    
    In any case, the definition of "plenty" in this case is not defined at all, and thus is a relative term. Plenty of time as compared to baking chocolate chip cookies? Probably. Plenty of time as compared to overhauling your car engine? Probably not.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

24.  

    

    Dave, Mar 13th, 2009 @ 6:42am

    
    

    Funny

    I thought it said "morMons in a hurry"

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

25.  

    

    long time listener, Mar 13th, 2009 @ 7:45am

    
    

    Re: Funny

    Is there a difference?

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

26.  

    

    Gimme a break, Mar 13th, 2009 @ 7:57am

    
    

    Re: Please read people, and do a little investigating...

    How is
    (techdirty - techdirt)
    even remotely similar to
    (Rehava - ReMax)
    
    For your argument to work, wouldn't it have to be
    (ReMaxy - ReMax)
    
    or is hava == max in some foriegn language?

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

27.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Mar 13th, 2009 @ 7:58am

    
    

    Re: Re: Please read people, and do a little investigating...

    No. My example was related to the opposition process, not with respect to the similarity of the names Remax and Rehava.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

28.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Mar 13th, 2009 @ 8:58am

    
    

    OMG when did my 8 year old nephew get a job as a lawyer and Remax.. I need to call my brother

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

29.  

    

    Gimme a break, Mar 13th, 2009 @ 9:35am

    
    

    Re: Re: Re: Please read people, and do a little investigating...

    opposition process?

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

30.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Mar 13th, 2009 @ 10:08am

    
    

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Please read people, and do a little investigating...

    The process in the USPTO that Remax engaged in with respect to the Rehava application. It is what we have been discussing.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

31.  

    

    Jeremy, Mar 13th, 2009 @ 10:26am

    
    

    Re: Re: Ban Guns or Lawyers?

    Not according to a recent Supreme Court decision

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

32.  

    

    Gimme a break, Mar 13th, 2009 @ 10:38am

    
    

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Please read people, and do a little investigating...

    "For example, if someone wanted to trademark "techdirty," which would be used for a web site promoting the numerous benefits of intellectual property, Mike Masnick could file an opposition because of potential confusion over his site."
    
    - Again, your selection of an an analogous situation is in error.
    
    "example was related to the opposition process, not with respect to the similarity of the names Remax and Rehava"
    
    - So, it is the process that is important and not the analogy. Gee, it all makes much more sense now.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

33.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Mar 13th, 2009 @ 11:10am

    
    

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Please read people, and do a little investigating...

    Do you have a point?
    
    The opposition process in the USPTO is for stakeholders to set forth an argument as to why an applicant for a trademark should not receive that trademark.
    
    For example, if someone applied for a trademark on "techdirty," which might be used as a web site to promote intellectual property, then Mike Masnick could oppose the filing of that trademark on the grounds that the proposed trademark would cause confusion in the minds of users of techdirt.
    
    At what point in this chain of thought did you become confused?

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

34.  

    

    MIami Beach condos, Mar 18th, 2009 @ 7:30am

    
    

    Interesting

    This article is hilarious. I can't believe Remax would be so fickle with this company.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

35.  

    

    Bill, Mar 31st, 2009 @ 12:05pm

    
    

    Rehava

    Steve DeGuzman is a two time felon. How is it that he can be a broker in the first place?

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

36.  

    

    kristy, Jul 21st, 2009 @ 11:19am

    
    

    I don’t know Mr. Deguzman’s history, nor do I know yours, “Bill”, but there are many, many “felons” amongst us, who are in fact great, moral, honest people. One can be convicted of a felony for MANY different reasons….some reasons are strictly technical within the law, even, arguably, trivial; and, of course, some convictions are for unimaginable crimes…and repetitive criminal activity. You would be surprised. I, for one, happened to be with the wrong person at the wrong time when I was 21 years old, and I, who had never been arrested, not even a traffic ticket, am now considered a “felon”. Be careful who you, WITH sin, decide to judge…”Bill”.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment