Yeah, I stopped listening when you start listing your evil straw men and lumping them all together. Not exactly the sign of someone I can trust to have done a rigorous, skeptical analysis...of anything really.
Also, your last comment is just bullshit. There are lots of people who accept the measured increase in global temperatures, but who are justifiably dubious of predictive models that somehow always have to be adjusted to fit reality, but only after their hysterical overestimations have been blindly accepted and loudly proclaimed. There are lots of people who would just like to point out that the "solution" to warming might be found in human adaptability, rather than greater government control of people's lives. There are people who would like to point out that the climate has always changed, and that a perfect harmonious equilibrium that we are charged with maintaining is a (religious>) myth.
But all these reasonable views are shouted down with ad hominem attacks, lies, threats, and insults. Which, in my experience, are not the rhetorical tactics of people confident they are defending "truth". So, props on being mindless "repeater of the goodthink", but I'm not impressed.
"Even if Mr. Seidman can prove he has been the victim of theft, that may not be enough. Trademarks are meant not to prevent companies from stealing others’ ideas, but to protect consumers from mixing up brands. Mr. Seidman will need to demonstrate that people might be inclined to confuse a yogurt manufacturer with a company that provides consulting services, or mistakenly believe that the two companies were otherwise connected in some way."
But go for it Mr. Seidman. Show us the virtue of "money-grubbing".
People could have used the word "how" regarding the provision of any service. Trademark or service mark, it still depends on confusion (deliberate or accidental) to make the case for violation.
He doesn't own the word "how", and, as was noted above, it wasn't even used in his magically 'transformative', innovative sense as a noun. It's an adverb. Too confusing? Maybe THAT'S why it shouldn't have been granted in the first place, or at least why the scope of protection offered him should be very, very narrow. And it is. Suing his own representation for failing to squeeze every penny out of every situation? Par for the course. Go for it.
If it's people like this giving corporations advice on "virtue"...well, that explains a lot. All your hair-splitting could have been avoided had he sought the services of an advisor on "Not appearing to be a total wanker". Hard to put that genie back in the bottle using the fine points of trademark law...
Sorry, I've just got a patent on "The process of publically diagramming sentences", which you are in violation of-without paying fees per the accompanying 344 page manual/payment schedule. I've made an exception for educational use, out of the goodness of my heart and to declare on my taxes as a 'charitable contribution'.
This latter based on the fact that any theoretical money not captured, that might have been captured, is "lost", "stolen" or "contributed willingly".
Given the 'quality' of some public art and its popularity with the public, that would be acceptable. Elitist art Nazis in positions of authority seem to have an almost vindictive attitude towards actual "popular" art and the benighted yahoos who like it (never mind these are the people who, you know, make up the "public").
And best of all the grant-granting department gets paid to assess proposals, the contract for preparing the public space for the artwork gets handed out to someone on a particular political campaigns' donors list, same with the contracts for moving and warehousing the newly 'protected' art. All working as designed, and everybody gets paid except the artists.
Interesting. It's gotten to be a HUGE world economy out there. There's a LOT of money and it would appear that there's a fuckton of money in herding and hiding services with an emphasis on "No questions" expertise. And MF didn't exactly have a monopoly. No, when MF dropped the sanctioned companies' accounts (Often when, after years of loyal association and service, someone applied the aggressive hacker technique known as "a Google Search" on them, for like, totally no reason.) that money just went somewhere else. Tips, icebergs...
Lot of info on that site, lotta malfeasance, but I found myself particularly unmoved by the plight of the ex-wives trying to get their "fair share" of some ill-gotten billions for no more puttin' out than any trailerpark babymomma. Somehow:
"Offshore law firm jokes in emails as they help husband “protect” assets against “unpleasant” divorce."
...doesn't really generate much outrage with me. On the one side, funds gained or used in all kinds of vile ways, on the other, a mindless system that makes mind-boggling transfers of wealth sans wisdom or even sometimes, much regard for reality...not really a happy-making read, at all.
Not very "punk" at all. More "managed to get rights to the name of a dead band, now how can we milk a few $$$ from the corpse?"-ish.
It's caveat emptor all the way down for bands you loved 30-50 years ago. Starting with the fact that even if the bands have the same personnel and have spent the intervening decades perfecting their craft...you still won't be 19 again. Dammit.
It's easy to be cynical. It's a laborious task to be as widely and darkly cynical as is necessary to accurately model the real world.
TechDirt readership gets top marks for not being surprised that this is going on with the progressive "good guys". Not one single comment on the lines of "This is what I'd expect from the Rethuglicans!" Good. Cynical and informed enough to realize that there are no good guys in that game.
(But that's the value to politicians of emotional-but-irrelevant "wedge issues". To make people feel strong identification with one as opposed to another of two politicians, when both would, if in power, prefer rule and self-interest over "leadership" or "public service".)
Conceded: Windows was, mostly has been (Win2K, 98 eventually and WinXP almost from the get-go, were okay), and currently is, a piece of awful, insecure bloatware; acquired by dubious means and promulgated through pure evil business practices.
Contested: That said, it was OPEN (both bug (security) and feature (user access!)), and, by whatever evile means 'twas done, established a standard OS which accelerated the march of home computing. This was a good thing, even if it was only ever a side-effect of making them filthy rich.
So yeah, the definition of "success" is even more complex than a simple "great product"/"got rich" dichotomy.
More than creating a clever piece of software at an early age, I will credit him with having a mountain of cynical brass. Also, of course, with a paltry character.
But I thought those things when I first heard of him. The latter aspect (lack of a human soul) is only now reinforced though, with this ugly, racist, disrespecting of a dead man.
Self-aggrandizement, seeking undeserved credit, those are not that uncommon, here or in India. Nor is doubling down on a lie when caught out. Cynically playing the race card for personal gain and attacking the recently deceased? Nah, that's reserved for the lowest of the low.
And if I were one of his Indian compatriots, I'd be backpedaling away from this guy top speed and claiming "He must've absorbed the decadent values of the West." (but then, the BJP is somewhere to the right of Marie Le Pen and racist as the KKK)
In fairness to the decision-makers at the DEA, how likely and how dire are they to expect consequences to be when the IRS basically used the "Dog ate our homework." defense and the DOJ and Congress just went "Darn that dog!'
Kind of Levyesque? "Do what thou with shall be the whole of the law."