Mozilla's legal counsel says Mozilla wants to bring "more value" to the user instead of being just a window to the internet?
First, the "value" is only the value of ad revenue that Mozilla will receive. Second, that's all the web browser is, a window to the internet. To pretend it's anything but that is just deluding yourself.
Second, I plan to ditch Firefox the first chance I get. Time to start looking for a different web browser. Guess it's back to Internet Explorer or even Opera.
I just don't see the FCC approving this merger. The thing is, the government is all too much aware of any one company gaining a significant advantage over the rest of the industry. Take a look at what happened to Microsoft simply because if their "bundled IE" software.
Matter of fact, it's more evident that with Comcast interested in purchasing Time Warner, they could open themselves up to Antitrust investigations by the Justice Department because Comcast would, quite literally, become the bully on the block.
And with all of the negativity focused on "too big too fail", Comcast is going to have a tough time trying to get this approved, especially after they acquired NBC/Universal and the fallout they continue to have over that.
Federal Grand Juries only serve to determine if there is enough evidence to go to trial. They don't determine guilt or innocence of the accused but only if there is enough evidence.
The thing is, prosecutors only get one bite at the apple with grand juries. If a grand jury doesn't return with an indictment, I don't know what the procedure is, but any judge can refuse to allow a prosecutor to resubmit to the grand jury if they feel there is nothing changed in the prosecutor's desire to go back to the grand jury.
I have to agree that the prosecutor in carter's case misrepresented the comments that Carter had made. While, technically, he did make the comments, what the prosecutor presented to the grand jury was misleading as it didn't give the grand jury the full comment and the context in which it was said.
Where this prosecutor is concerned, while I don't know the full context of law, he created what can be explained as reversible error and made the grand jury complicit in the mad dash to get an indictment.
This is how innocent people get convicted because over-zealous prosecutors play games with grand juries in order to get their indictments. If the grand jury had been given the full context of the comment, as the prosecutor in this case was well aware, the grand jury would never have indicted.
Anonymous Coward, that's called a watermark and that is entirely different than what Pokellector is doing, which is placing its own logo on the face of the digital representation of the card in app.
Many websites often place the logo of their website over the image because they took the time to scan it in, and to prevent other websites from "lifting" the images that they scan. They're not claiming ownership or control over the image but rather staking their claim that the image is exclusive to their site.
Pokellector simply takes the image and claims it as their own. Many websites use "watermarking" to claim ownership over producing the image or having the exclusivity of presenting that image first on their website.
That's different than claiming ownership over the content that appears in the image.
While I abhor companies using their trademarks or patents to swat people down like it was Thor's mighty hammer from the gods in Asgard, in this case, I have to side with Nintendo, who owns the Pokemon franchise, last I checked.
Pokellector obviously tries to use the Pokemon brand name to sell its product and rather than actually license the rights from Nintendo. If this were merely parody, I would see a claim for fair rights under parody law, but this is not what it is. It would be as if someone made an app using characters that resembled the X-Men and simply renamed them as "Ex-Men" or "Men of X". It sounds ridiculous but I just don't see how the makers of the Pokellector app have any kind of leg to stand on. They appropriated the Pokemon franchise and tried to make money off it.
Timothy, the name of the company is Nintendo, NOT Pokemon. Pokemon is merely the name of the franchise. lols
Timothy suggests that maybe Nintendo should find this as an opportunity. Why should they? If someone misappropriated my car, robbed a bank, got injured, and then tried to sue me for damages, let's just say that I wouldn't have any sympathy for that person and would fight against it until every avenue was exhausted.
BTW, I seem to recall that the producers for the new Godzilla film did something similar. Producers Roy Lee, Dan Lin and Doug Davison obtained the rights for the Godzilla franchise, brought it to Legendary but then after Legendary decided it didn't need the help of the producers who acquired the rights, tried to preempt the producers by filing a counterclaim, demanding arbitration? While it's not the same thing, there seems to be a whole of misappropriating going on by individual people and by large companies.
Plus, Pokemon was the original "card game turned anime" series which inspired a lot of clones and pretenders to the throne. I just think that Nintendo is going to be the one winning in the end.
But that's the point his articles makes. He makes it sound like the USTR is trying to be transparent when they never have been and probably never will.
Government loves its secrets and it loves to keep the taxpayers in the dark, claiming it's for "our" benefit. It's funny how "our" benefit always resorts to our government, taking our money, to fund their programs by which we aren't allowed to be informed about.
I think Mike Masnick was mislead by the very article he was writing. The final sentence in his article reads "The only way they're going to defuse such criticism is to actually be transparent instead of secretive."
Uh, the headline of the article he wrote, "cleared" lobbyists is just another description of "secrecy" and "closed-door" discussions.
Maybe these various countries are trying to outdo each other to see who can pass the more restrictive laws ever. So much for basic human and civil rights. If someone talks about human rights, censor them; if someone talks about civil or constitutional rights, lock them up in jail. The United States is already there and it appears other countries are now following suit.
Soon, this entire planet won't be made up of communities, each country will be a statewide or countrywide prison system.
"they’re less likely to get into a dangerous altercation"
Forgive me for this but I laughed at the absurdity of that comment in the article quoting an ex-cop. Seriously? If police officers don't want to get into a dangerous altercation then THEY NEED TO FIND A DIFFERENT JOB.
Everything about being a cop is dangerous. That's what they get paid to do. To say that police officers shouldn't get involved in dangerous altercations and to pass laws to that effect is akin to turning police officers into Girl Scouts with guns.
I can't help but laugh at the sheer stupidity of congress. They were all behind the NSA when they were voting on this bill and passing it in the past. But, a funny thing happened. Congress supported the bill/law until they discovered that the NSA, the very agency that was using the very law passed by congress, was turning around and actually spying on the very members of congress who drafted the bill, sponsored the bill, voted for the bill and ultimately passed the bill.
Now that there is widespread criticism against the very law that congress passed, now even congress is against the very law they passed.
Here's a hint to the NSA: don't bite the hand that feeds you, because they're gonna slap you down the first chance they get.
I have to say that I have never had a problem with someone stealing my domain name. While I had a problem with getting a previous webhost provider unlocking my domain so I could transfer it, I was able to convince the registrar of my domain name to unlock it so I could transfer my domain name.
Most webhost companies provide domain name "lock" to prevent anyone from hijacking your domain name. In the event that such a thing did happen, my registrar would be able to regain control of my domain name and transfer it back to me.
Domain name hijacks usually occur when someone hasn't 'locked' their domain name from such actions.
When Google is targeting EU citizens, it should then be governed by the laws in the EU. It's as simple as that. Just what did Google think it was doing? Violating the privacy rights of EU citizens and then hiding behind the protection of US laws?