"Yesterday, Reuters "broke" the story that Electronic Arts was taking steps to distance itself from real-world gun makers, cancelling licensing deals while still maintaining the right to use images of those real-world weapons in its first-person shooters. "The action games we will release this year will not include licensed images of weapons," EA spokesperson Jeff Brown said matter-of-factly in the story.
What that story failed to make clear was that EA has never paid or been paid to feature specific guns in its games. This year's titles will be no different."
Don't be so quick to find evil everywhere - Apple does enough scummy things for real without having to reach to find them
And the same thing would have happened if they had switched from a propietary connector to a USB connector - would that have been considered OK because they were now using open standards even though it made consumer's 3rd party devices incompatible?
I still don't see the big deal - if you don't like it, don't buy it. Most of the people who are gleefully leaping to condemn Apple on this would never buy an Apple product anyways.
Techcrunch verified this by talking to manufacturers... Who have been wrong before.
Apple is most probably going with the smaller connector, but this story is still only speculation at this point.
I also don't see it as a big deal - people will only be affected if they buy the device with the new connector - it's not going to magically retrofit your old iPods and iPhones to a smaller connector (that if the picture in the tech crunch article is correct looks much more friendly than the 30pin connector)
1) The "merchandise" that he was selling (for which he now owes 17K) were his OWN ORIGINAL ART of the character. Convention sketches, etc. -- a common practice (every comics convention has an "artists alley"). As the comics press has said, this is Marvel putting "a bullet in the head of artists' alley."
How exactly was this his own original art when he was the writer, not the graphic artist?
Well the court has somehow ruled that confiscating things like cars and cash from people suspected of crimes such as drug trafficking is perfectly legitimate even if the person is never charged or convicted of committing a crime, so they may have an uphill battle here.
A bit more context to the quote regarding Righthaven's standing to sue
From the article - puts the lawyer's assertion that no question should remain in better context:
"Righthaven and Stephens Media have altered their licensing arrangement in a bid to obtain legal standing, Gibson said. The agreement has always granted each side a 50 percent stake in settlements and verdicts.
The altered arrangement, however, has not been tested in court. Hunt, however, labeled the licensing changes “cosmetic,” but declined to rule if the new agreement gives Righthaven the right to sue.: