Or we could start really challenging what is enforceable in TOS/EULAs in court. They are non-negotiable "contracts", and particularly in cases when there is no other option, people are going to use the product or service because they need to do so.
What is there to show when the dispute is over the word "virgin"? If you're interested, it looks like a square and some olive leaves, but is entirely irrelevant. http://vassevirgin.com.au/
There isn't a lot of information regarding the specifics of the dispute, so there is not much to provide or on which to comment.
Vasse Virgin has denied it has any plans to go into the airline, or, space travel business.
"We have lodged the application in 2 service classes that Virgin are saying is their core business," said Mr Scherini.
"It was meant to cover tours throughout the olive grove and workshops that we have in our factory where 7 people at a time learn to make skin care products."
He said Vasse Virgin offered to drop this in its initial negotiations "along with not using specific colours, putting our logo on racing cars or airplanes etc."
Virgin said talks are continuing between the two parties "to resolve these issues".
Vasse Virgin said it is now putting together a submission to IP Australia that is due on 10th June 2015.
Or another source:
"Vasse Virgin agreed to a number of demands, apart from one that we felt may have the capacity to cause serious damage to our business in the future," she said.
Mrs Scherini said Vasse Virgin later received a letter from the company "stating that unless we agreed to their demands, they saw no point in participating".
Meanwhile, the specifics are again pretty irrelevant. There would never be any confusion. Regardless of the use case. Even if there were a Vasse Virgin Records, you'd have to be beyond a moron in a hurry to be confused. Virgin is simply being ridiculous.
It only implies something is not there if you begin with the definition that "property" refers only to tangible, rivalrous things.
Since that didn't happen, I think you need to critique, if possible, what was said.
The granted monopoly right is not tangible, but it is the only part, correctly observed in the article, that is rivalrous. One owns a monopoly (theoretically time-limited) on their expression of some idea. The fact that the courts and bureaucracies let people get away with extremely vague expressions, or sue over vague similarities and obvious and cultural ideas does not make such ideas property themselves.
Of course, many like that idea. But it's funny how the (poor) metaphor of their monopoly lapsing as some sort of theft or government redistribution of thoughts never seems to be a major argument for extension as do things like "moral rights" or e.g., changing things just enough to refile for a copyright or patent that locks out very different expressions or implementations that provide a similar function.
In other words, Stingray is ,i>only good for improper use, since charges against actual dangerous criminals get dropped when the data collection method must be revealed. All that money and time for negative outcomes. What will they think of next? How else can we let violent criminals and thieves walk while preserving the privilege to maim and kill random citizens for contempt-of-cop?
Huh, why 2020? Why not just claim there is too much invested, too much infrastructure, and too many programs to make it go away now? The "too big to fail/kill/ignore" meme seems to work every other time. Or would too many people be irritated still so it would make Congress uncomfortable if they just up and said "this is forever now"? Little bits, little bits. When big bites just might be a little too blatant.
Seems more like the judge told the FBI they were bullshitting and allowed the suit to stand. (Even though the other suits were dismissed, and whether incompetence or bad faith caused the delays, the EO and DOJ had eventually complied by the time the filings for summary judgement were made.)
Of course, all he can hope to do is to invalidate the search, which is just one more tick mark against the LEOs involved and won't change anything on their end. It doesn't make the man innocent, who apparently had sale-amounts of coke in his possession (valid searches or no). The law doesn't just run roughshod over the innocent, but the clearly guilty as well.
This is about the gov screwing around with FOIA requests, not guilt or innocence. Coss can only have conviction overturned on a technicality, unless he can also prove that the evidence recovered from 3 locations was also planted. IOW, he's innocent like OJ.
What kills me is that as these things become apparent, I don't see any calls to patching software, fixing hardware, or or fixing standards and protocols to mitigate this type of activity. And while we get patches for some things, they certainly don't even cover the (much cheaper if the governments are interested) criminal markets for similar wares (and a lot of other innovative, if ghastly, stuff). And I don't believe for a second that major vendors couldn't get (or haven't gotten) their hands on these things or enough info to mitigate.
Of course a lot of entry is via other tactics, social engineering, and complicity. But it's like they don't try at all.
That is neither evidence, nor a claim, it's another hypothesis.
And if you want to get picky with words, we are, in fact, alone. No observable neighbors in any other sense means "alone", regardless as to how many other people live on the planet.
The likelihood that there are species with intelligence and tech like ours, making themselves obvious, is very, very slim.
OTOH, we can, especially as techniques and technology improve, identify life elsewhere, simply by finding free oxygen and spectral evidence of things like chlorophylls, for values of life similar to ours.
I'll assume there is life elsewhere, probably a lot of it, but in any meaningful sense, yeah we're alone. But you can go on operating on belief while talking about evidence all you want. It's a free country.
The only way it doesn't matter is inside the legal system. Or rather, it does matter: He can't be imprisoned as guilty since he has not been to trial and found guilty. It does, however, matter in all other respects everywhere else what anyone thinks. It also matters what people think when the system delivers wrong guilty or not guilty verdicts, or for the wrong purported crime, or punishments too weak or too heavy-handed. I have no idea how anyone can claim otherwise, but the claim does certainly show up an awful lot when sexual harassment and assaults are the accusation.