Re: Re: Another example of ignorance being beneficial
You're better off not looking, in one sense, not because a bad search result can't be dealt with, but because they're a pain to deal with (requiring putting in place formal opinions of non-infringement, for example). I generally discourage a search unless there is a compelling reason to have one done.
I don't think checking with a patent lawyer and nevertheless missing a patent is going to hurt you. That's not going to be a sufficient basis for willful infringement.
If a patent is found that might be a problem, but your counsel concludes that it is not a problem and also writes you a competent opinion that it is not a problem, you'll also be protected from willful infringement.
Purchased the deal and created an account on 1337 Institute of Technology. I received the email confirming my account creation, but I can't log into the site. Numerous attempts made. The site continues to show that I need to Sign Up or Login.
Maybe he has a problem with Google due to some of his other clientele:
"As part of his tech and media practice, Jonathan represents some of the world’s most notable industry participants, including: Microsoft, News Corp, Yelp, Getty Images, Roku, Spotify, Time Inc., AppNexus, and others. In addition, Jonathan advises companies regarding the use of technology and data in traditional industries including healthcare, energy, commodities, retail, and financial services."
This isn't really a role for the courts, who are supposed to be with "cases and controversies." Doesn't seem like there's even a basis for a Declaratory Judgment at this point. Why doesn't Murphy research (or have researched) the copyright registration and renewal data to get an idea of whether the underlying work is still protected. If that comes back favorably, then you take the risk of proceeding and having to deal with the trust.
The trademark suit is far-fetched, no doubt. This quote from the article misses the mark, though:
"Here's a fun thought experiment: precisely how many times would the average person have to hit themselves in the head with a hammer before they found themselves standing before a Land O Lakes spinner bait lure trying to decide if it was actually a stick of butter?"
They wouldn't have to think the lure was butter, they'd just have to be confused about whether the dairy products and the fishing tackle have the same source of origin (i.e. ultimately stem from the same company). That's also a stretch, and I doubt there are many dairy companies that dabble in fishing tackle or vice-versa. But it's the source of the products, not confusion about the identity of the products themselves, that is the issue. The court was right in its assessment of this.
Yeah, could be geographically dependent. I haven't heard it used a lot in the States as a generic term, even growing up with the books and RPGs, and then later with the popularity of the movies. It could be that elsewhere in the world it is used more commonly.
"This is nearly the definition of when a term either becomes generic in nature or too broad to deserve wide trademark protection. In naming their company, the Whittakers weren't thinking about Tolkien. Hobbit meant "short person" to them, not "race of people from the The Lord of the Rings universe."
To the extent you're saying that their subjective view of what the word means is what's important with respect to genericism, that's wrong (I don't think that's what you're saying, but maybe that's what this other guy is talking about). If a person's subjective understanding of a term, or their intention in using it, was the key with respect to genericism, that would be problematic. The question is whether the term has actually become generic in common usage. I think it would be pretty hard to make the case that "hobbit" is so widely used as a name for short people that it has become a word that is generic for "short people."
This sort of design patent should be ineligible under 35 USC 171. You can't get a design patent on an image, for example (a print, or a painting, or something like that, in and of itself). But as soon as computer UI elements are claimed along with the computer, they become allowable. It's bad policy.
The slider is functional in and of itself, but the design patent only covers the look of it. You could get a design patent on the handle of a hammer, for example. You aren't patenting a hammer, but the look of your particular hammer.
Patent attorneys have to have a technical background. They're usually engineers, but are also chemists, biologists, physicists, etc. They know what integers are. This sounds like a legal argument that was thought up well after the fact to try to distinguish the language in the patent, and not a very good argument.
As noted in the post, you can define your own terms in a patent application. But you have to be explicit about what you're doing, and that you're not using the term in its ordinary sense. Also, you have to be explicit at the time you FILE the patent application, because the patent specification has to have a clear statement that you're redefining a term. You can't even do it a couple of months later when the patent is already pending.
Yep. He could even run into some trouble at the trademark office, because for a 1(b) (intent to use) filing, you have to affirm that you have a bona fide intent to use the mark in commerce. His public statements appear to demonstrate that he never did.
He should set up an account on one of those online sites where you can sell shirts, hats and stuff with custom wording or logos on them. Just keep the store active so that anyone who wants can order shirts from him with the registered names.
I suspect that even if he is only able to stop other people from selling shirts with just those names on them, the school won't be happy about it :)
The school will still probably have the name of the actual institution in its use (maybe dominant, maybe not), so an infringement case still might be hard to sustain, but if the school knows that it also can't stop him selling shirts and other apparel with the name on it, doesn't that reduce the value to the school?
I wouldn't call it a cop-out. It's just a statement of the law. The Constitution is a document intended to define the boundaries of government power. In general, some kind of "state action" is required if you want to bring a Constitutional claim.
But just because something isn't in the Constitution doesn't mean it can't be addressed. We have federal law for that (that's why we have the Civil Rights Act, for example; if you discriminate in your business on the basis of race you aren't violating the Constitution, but you are violating Federal law).
I agree we shouldn't tolerate it, but the fact that it isn't a Constitutional issue doesn't mean we have to tolerate it. We need Federal legislation in place that addresses these matters.