"If we were about to plunge into chaos and terrorists were about to use our own nuclear missiles to blow us to smithereens and the only to stop complete destruction of civilisation as we know it was to turn off part of the internet would you support it?"
39% of people said no... They can take my life and my liberty but they can never take my tweets!!
Yeah I tend to agree. Trademark is based on the idea of "passing off" which has an element of free speech attached to it.
To put simply. The power-tool could easily be seen to be endorsed by "The Hulk" himself, which would be a breach of "The Hulk's" freedom of speech.
There's a UK case involving Eddie Irvine where a radio show made a poster that made it look like Eddie was endorsing them. Another one in Australia where a shoe company did a parody of Crocodile Dundee, which was fine, except the court found they went a step too far and a "fair minded person" could honestly believe Paul Hogan was endorsing the show company.
Its a contentious issue for sure but I see the point. You've got freedom of speech (not being forced to endorse something). Passing-off. And, lets not forget, economic incentives (which really should only come into play for damages).
It makes no difference if Disney doesnt make power tools, economically "The Hulk" is devaluing their trademark if they should ever want to license it (endorse) a power tool. But like I said, that should only affect damages in my opinion.
Isnt one of the fundamentals of free speech not being forced to endorse something. Hardly free speech if my brand can be freely used to endorse something I dont agree with. I support fair use, but in the cartoon mash up with Mickey and Pluto that would fly pretty close to implying Disney supports the message being told... maybe not close enough... but surely thats a fair argument to limit fair use in some cases...
Similar questions come up in my neck of the woods with the 'Crown' (eg, State) enjoying certain protections and immunities. We have a whole bunch of 'State Owned Enterprises' and the legal question is whether or not those SOEs also enjoy the same protections.
The rule is that they dont. Ownership by the state does not make it part of the state. There are a whole list of criteria the entity must meet. The most relevant here would be whether or not the state controls the entity or not. If GM were state controlled, as opposed to state owned, then you could argue it should be included. However, if its simply ownership with an independent board (who are of course answerable to shareholders, but not controlled by them) then GM would fail the legal test here and not enjoy state immunity from patents.
Pretty much all car speedo's read slightly low, I have some data somewhere I could try to scan in and post. This is thanks in part to litigious countries like the USA where you could sue the car manufacturer if you got a ticket for speeding due to their faulty speedo.
The arbitrary limit is therefore not because of that, but more an acceptance that most people break the law by a small amount and its not worth the hassle enforcing.
The really interesting thing for me is that by having these 'tolerances' we effectively have handed the law making power to the police. The police are simply told "you can't give a ticket to anyone going slower than xx mph", but the actual 'limit' is set arbitrarily by a non-elected official (or worse, decided on the spot by a police officer). It raises all sorts of constitutional issues, such as separation of powers, rule of law, blah blah waffle waffle...
One thing I never see some out in any rhetoric (yours or the patent trolls) is just how much patents are used as an international economic protection.
What I mean is that through organisations such as the WTO and agreements like GATT & TRIPS smaller developing nations are essentially forced to recognise US patent laws.
The upshot of this is that a country that goes gang-busters on patenting every possible conception has a distinct advantage over another country whose only claim to fame is a cheap workforce.
Without that advantage, if the country could copy the 'innovation' freely then the patent hoarding country would be screwed. IP protection is seen as a barrier to entry into international markets. Its a protection on the investment in education against countries who simply 'free-load' and copy ideas.
Of course the whole argument is interestingly circular... but thats something for the academics to worry about :)
Is it just me or is it sort of ironic the guy got busted looking up prudence?
1. having good sense: having good sense in dealing with practical matters
2. carefully considering consequences: using good judgment to consider likely consequences and act accordingly
3. careful in managing resources: careful in managing resources so as to provide for the future
Ahhh... seems to me a bit of an anomaly in terminology there which is likely to lead to a misinformed debate.
Being more "open" with data does not mean putting it on the web. This can technically mean you are being more "exclusive" with data by ensuring that one group has more access than another.
Equal openness of data is a good thing full stop, as long as you are providing equal access to that data to all members who have cause to benefit from it.
Digitising data makes it more easily accessed and shared, but we need to make sure the equality of openness is maintained. This may often mean NOT putting it on the web and having to request the data from a desk jockey somewhere.
Lets not confuse the argument of ability of access to data with equality of access to data.
I once heard a great talk by a guy on competing with free.
He asked who had every bought strawberries before, everyone raised their hands. He then said that was proof price was not the determining factor in your ability to sell something.
Point is anyone of us could have gone out and acquired some seeds (need not to even have bought them, simply grow from clipping or get from friend) and gone and grown our own strawberries, essentially getting an unlimited supply for free.
But we didn't. Why not? Because the growers, the distributors and shop offered us something we wanted. Something we values more than the price we paid for the strawberries.
Seems to me the same generic argument applies here too.
Dont see anything wrong with what IV is doing... what is wrong is the whole Patent system. Getting rid of IV won't do anything. The US needs to overhaul its Patent system pronto and bring them out of the dark ages.
Not necessarily, I've done plenty of programs that need to handle 4 decimal on dollars amounts. When you're dealing with millions of customers (or millions of units charged) those fractions of a cent add up. You also often need them for rounding purposes (eg, 0.014 = 0.01, 0.016 = 0.02).
Having said that even if let my 5 year old loose on some code I'd expect him to either handle the rounding in the balance due test, or even better to but a filter in that if the balance due was less than my cost to process the payment then ignore it (ie, it will cost me money to post letter, receive payment, bank it, etc... no point collecting a 0.10c debt if it costs be $10.00 to process it)