Never made sense to me to suddenly change your target consumer just because your media/format was different. Just because you're a newspaper going online, now your readers need to pay? Doesn't make sense.
Especially considering with online advertising, the advertiser can get a ridiculously clear and accurate picture of their return. 'Stead of the same ol' 50% wasted. Seems to me such targeted & known space is much, much more valuable.
Ahh the irony. Nice use of the USPTO seal. While I'm well aware that it likely doesn't have any sort of IP protection, seeing as it's a government insignia and all, posting it right at the top of a page of semi-coherent rants regarding IP "theft"... classic.
Am I the only one who thinks it's implied that the presence of the seal indicates a USPTO endorsement of the site? Isn't that a no-no in Imaginary Property-land?
I've always wondered why ad-based TV doesn't just charge it back to the advertisers (their real customers; consider it analogous to retail shrinkage surcharges). Places like JTV even publicly publish viewer totals. If the networks/producers can't count (or estimate i.e. Nielsen) then tough sh*t. You're lazy.
Yup. It's why judges must recuse themselves when there's the *potential* for appearance of conflict of interest and/or impropriety. Unfortunately similar standards don't apply to our legislators. In fact, they tend to flaunt it.
...the rest got caught by the HTML filter. Trying again...
A monopoly is greater than 98% market share and less than or equal to five suppliers in the market. Or something like that. Point being that in a free market, to be a monopoly by pure dominance requires a tremendous share. Otherwise you're just a really good market leader.
To be a monoply without meeting that criteria, a firm would have to at least a) engage in anticompetitive behavior (ssuch as with vendor ccontracts), b) create artificial barriers to entry (regulations), and c) actively work to exclude rivals (overly broad patents). It's the abuse of market dominance, not the dominance itself, which is detrimental and monopolistic.