While trademarks have a bit of merit in a sane legislation, the injured party here is the customer: he is the one who might be duped by the name. Someone who buys a Louis Vuitton knockoff knows that he's buying a knockoff and is fine with it; it is insane to allow LV to prevent that transaction on the grounds that it helps the customer. Same thing here: if someone buys a "The Oatmeal" greeting card while wrongly believing he bought a "Oatmeal Studios" one can show actual harm, instead of the alleged potential harm this suit is trying to prevent.
I love how pro-copyright morons train people to ignore the thing. Nobody is going to pay any attention to the threat of paying 5 years in federal prison for copying a book; it's just not a credible threat.
I don't know about England, but I know for a fact that in Romania it is legal to download movies and music (and illegal to upload). I know that because I've been hit with a $7K fine by the BSA, for illegal software... but the police specifically told me they can't do anything about the movies and music I had on CDs (that I wrote myself), because they can't prove I had given them to anyone else.
Because, even assuming you're right, we would make ourselves poorer to do it. Since the future generations are by definitions going to be richer than us anyway (they have all the capital we had, plus what we and they produce), you're asking the poor to make the rich even richer. Which is dumb.
1) he invented this not because he was going to get a patent, but because he found the idea interesting. (I'm not saying that he wasn't hoping to get a patent - maybe he was - but getting a patent was not a requirement for invention, it was at most a nice-to-have bonus.)
2) Even after discovering that he can't patent the invention, he still advertises it. He didn't hide it or tried to patent it in some other country.
All this basically means that those who claims patents are necessary or we won't have new inventions anymore are full of it.
... is that you can easily prove that a program calculating the average of two numbers, a and b, by doing
result = (a + b) / 2
is correct. And then you run the program and it works, until a year later someone sets a and b to very large values, and the program crashes (or returns a negative value). That's why I prefer testing to proofs, even though I agree that proofs are theoretically better.
I was about to say the same thing. I suspect he is trying to build a case for invalidating EULAs. However, I had previously assumed that EULAs are not allowed to add more restrictions to those indicated by the law, only to lift them, so ridiculous demands in them are already invalid. (This is the case in my country, I thought it's the same in the US.) Eg, an EULA can say "you are allowed to make up to five copies and distribute them to friends"; it cannot say "you are not allowed to play this game if a friend or family is watching without paying an additional license".