There is clearly a connection between the name and the product purpose, as opposed to a brand name or a model (such as your example of Magic and car names).
Not saying this is the be all and end all, but is a relevant consideration (misleading and deceptive conduct?)
My point is, prima facie, it appears that Apple sold a product on the basis that it would last...and it didn't.
1. They will last for a long time (hence the name, Time Capsule); and
2. That they are a secure backup for when you encounter problems on your Mac.
You cannot then deny any responsibility with an argument that "all technology fails". That may be true, but when you sell an item based on a promise, you cannot resort to that defence.
This is in contrast to, say, an iPhone, which may fail at some point, but is not sold on the premise that it will have longevity.
Although I completely agree with the idea behind this (infringement is not theft), this is not a very transferable comparison.
Money obtains its value by the way in which it is accepted by society i.e. it can be exchanged for goods and services, and has value. There is no value in a copy (especially a digital copy), as it cannot enjoy the same use as the original.
There is, however, some value in a digital copy of a song or movie. I'm not specifically talking about dollar value, but in the use of the original vs the use of the copy. People are able to enjoy the same content and use as the original.
Not a very good comparison in my opinion, and I think this weakens the argument against the ridiculous claims which are made by the MPAA & RIAA.
If the request to hand over the domain was made within the cliam filed in Court, then the Court has every right to dimsiss such a request on the basis that no such remedy is available to Righthaven under law.
HOWEVER...if Righthaven demand the domain in by letter or some other demand on the Defendant, that is an issue between the parties. Parties can negotiate and request anything they like, unless it is not criminally unlawful.
Negotitations and settlements can take place on whatever terms the parties agree, and the Defendant can choose whether or not to accept the 'offer' (term used loosely).
Being a lawyer myself, I think this is just a legal trick as opposed to a stupid concept.
If the term expires in 20 years, it provides an avenue to review the terms of the settlement, and amend the same. basically, it allows for the terms to be reviewed in 20 years time. Something that I would think is necessary.
Although I don't know why that wouldn't just be put in there explicitly. Hmm maybe I am wrong...
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Hooter McBus.
Re: Re: One of the few times I disagree with you, Mike
Little bit different.
There is clearly a connection between the name and the product purpose, as opposed to a brand name or a model (such as your example of Magic and car names).
Not saying this is the be all and end all, but is a relevant consideration (misleading and deceptive conduct?)
My point is, prima facie, it appears that Apple sold a product on the basis that it would last...and it didn't.
One of the few times I disagree with you, Mike
One of the few times I disagree with you, Mike.
The selling point of these devices is that:
1. They will last for a long time (hence the name, Time Capsule); and
2. That they are a secure backup for when you encounter problems on your Mac.
You cannot then deny any responsibility with an argument that "all technology fails". That may be true, but when you sell an item based on a promise, you cannot resort to that defence.
This is in contrast to, say, an iPhone, which may fail at some point, but is not sold on the premise that it will have longevity.
(untitled comment) (as James Foster)
Although I completely agree with the idea behind this (infringement is not theft), this is not a very transferable comparison.
Money obtains its value by the way in which it is accepted by society i.e. it can be exchanged for goods and services, and has value. There is no value in a copy (especially a digital copy), as it cannot enjoy the same use as the original.
There is, however, some value in a digital copy of a song or movie. I'm not specifically talking about dollar value, but in the use of the original vs the use of the copy. People are able to enjoy the same content and use as the original.
Not a very good comparison in my opinion, and I think this weakens the argument against the ridiculous claims which are made by the MPAA & RIAA.
Misquote
And it was an intentional deletion (note the ellipsis).
Not hatin', just curious.
Misquote (as jrfoster01)
Mike, just curious as to why you would take the effort to remove one word from the quote? And one which completely changes the context.
"Buy it if you like..." and "Buy it if you like it" have very different meanings.
(untitled comment)
You just had to sneak a mention of Steve Jobs in here somewhere, didn't you Mike? Always going for the page hits. Tsk tsk.
Jks! (as James)
"FBI Surveillance Van", and other similar variations are common joke wifi names.
I live in Australia, and I have a few around me called "AFP Surveillance Van" and "Virus Downloading" etc etc
Wouldn't read much into this.
(untitled comment) (as jrfoster01)
Something very similar, a friend of mine got to play drums for Evermore at their show in Adelaide, South Australia.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfqWklEtRsI&feature=player_embedded
Template? (as James)
Wondering if anyone...Mike? :)...can provide some kind of template/base for one of these submissions?
Like it was said earlier, the questions can be quite difficult to decipher, and I would like to get a submission in by the due date.
(untitled comment)
Oops sorry double post...
(untitled comment)
If the request to hand over the domain was made within the cliam filed in Court, then the Court has every right to dimsiss such a request on the basis that no such remedy is available to Righthaven under law.
HOWEVER...if Righthaven demand the domain in by letter or some other demand on the Defendant, that is an issue between the parties. Parties can negotiate and request anything they like, unless it is not criminally unlawful.
Negotitations and settlements can take place on whatever terms the parties agree, and the Defendant can choose whether or not to accept the 'offer' (term used loosely).
(untitled comment)
I'll save alot of people some effort with my concise version...
Marburger: During your tenure in the computer department at the Recorder's office, has the Recorder's office had photocopying machines?
Patterson: Yes.
Legal? (as James)
Being a lawyer myself, I think this is just a legal trick as opposed to a stupid concept.
If the term expires in 20 years, it provides an avenue to review the terms of the settlement, and amend the same. basically, it allows for the terms to be reviewed in 20 years time. Something that I would think is necessary.
Although I don't know why that wouldn't just be put in there explicitly. Hmm maybe I am wrong...