There is no indication that people were somehow confusing hobbyist-level multimeters like Sparkfun's with Fluke's high-end versions, nor any indication that anyone was using the cheap multimeters in a manner that put people at risk.
This seems to be the crux of the problem in trademark enforcement - a perception of infringement by the application (or the misapplication) of the 'moron in a hurry' test.
That being said, I applaud Fluke's solution to this potential PR nightmare.
Ah yes, The Case Of The Funky Collages. In reviewing it, I'm shocked the copyright holders of other elements incorporated into the collages didn't dogpile on top of Prince as soon as that magic word - **!!MILLIONS!!** - was uttered.
"...the technology industry is driving the development of new internet standards with the goal of having all web activity encrypted, which will make the challenges of traditional telecommunications interception for necessary national security purposes far more complex."
What's driving the current push towards increased encryption is the knowledge that certain governments are more than willing to compromise their citizen's expectations of privacy and trust, NOT the tech sector. And as for making your job more complex than tapping cables and listening to unencrypted conversations? Too. Fucking. Bad.
The panel claimed that its pre-mandate removal order was the only way to “prevent a rush to copy and proliferate the film before Google can comply” with the injunction. That claim is unpersuasive. Google Response, p.12
So, saying 'your claim is unpersuasive' is the polite, lawyerly way to say "You're one crazy motherfucker, and everything that comes out of your crazy piehole is crazy." Who knew?
To the NSA: Your claim of 'because terrorism' is unpersuasive.
To my dog: Your claim of 'the cat made me poop on the rug' is unpersuasive.
To my ex-girlfriend: your claim of 'I'm leaving you because you say the dog talks to you' is unpersuasive.
I'm not making my point well today, but it's a point that should be stressed.
The NSA and other spy agencies deliberately perverted the collaborative nature of connected computing by short-circuiting the trusts built into the systems - trusts which are a reflection of the attitudes within the minds of the programmers.
Are these attitudes naive? Only in the very narrow sense of thinking that an ideal engineering solution is the one that's straight ahead ('charmingly naive' is how a front-office guy once characterized a young programmer I knew, who asked the perfectly logical question, "This is an integration problem with Company X's software. Why don't we call up the guys over at Company X and just ask them how they're working on it?").
Once trust is gone - trust in one's own government, trust in other programmers - what will replace it? I see the unfolding events around Snowden's revelations as a watershed moment, a moment when some of the collaborative spirit that made the internet possible has been killed off, leaving the world a darker place.
Agreed. I wonder, will historians look back at computer science before 2010 and marvel at the 'charming naivete' of engineers, and will this period be known as the start of the weaponization of one the most collaborative disciplines?
Technology needs content, and content needs technology.
Chris Dodd's worldview is distorted by the cynical company he keeps, where technology is seen only as a vehicle for pushing content to "consumers". Technology does not need content; tech is quite capable of generating content on its own. Does content need tech? It depends on the content, of course - a capella singing obviously doesn't need it, but enabling that moment to persist does.