Aaaaaand once again I wish TD had collapsible treads to get rid of stuff like this when reading comments. This is some serious trolling (at least I assume so... nobody's that thick as to believe what this guy is spouting, right? /troll)
Yet, it appears that the convenience factor has made it worthwhile to an awful lot of people, who are willing to pay the money rather than figure out how to get the PDF onto their kindle. As we've pointed out for years, things like convenience and ease-of-use are real selling points
While I totally agree with the sentiment, this doesn't strike me as the finest example. It sounds like people are paying for it because of the inconvenient, locked-up nature of the Kindle itself. Amazon's (and, judging by other stories around here, the publishers') insistence on a single, locked-down, DRM-ridden platform is what makes the "convenience" of buying it attractive.
In a truly level playing field, an e-reader that would take any e-book format you care to name, (it's basically text for heaven's sake!) and using any one of 5 dozen suddenly-popular e-book management programmes, would have long-since supplanted the Kindle and others like it. When you can use an easy bit of software that you use for everything else book-related to drop the free PDF straight onto your device, paying for this particular book wouldn't look quite so attractive.
No, the link you provided does NOT suggest that anyone making the toothpicks shown is likely going to get sued, because the toothpicks shown have GROOVES, not two colored stripes.
Really? The three links seem to show that a faintly similar shape of design, a faintly similar font or a vaguely similar (obvious and logical) positioning of a different logo is more than enough excuse to sue.
I make no claims to be a lawyer, nor am I suggesting that such a case would be won, but observable reality suggests that patent or trademark + "from a distance they look sort of the same" is ample reason to cost someone a fortune trying.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: General corruption?
The cop said [snip] that he could smell weed
The article says he could smell something, not necessarily weed and the cop claims to have been looking for heroin. And even assuming it were true that he could smell weed it still leaves 2 problems:
First, for what reason did he pull Mr Zullo over in the first place? Could he smell weed from his car while driving? Or are the police just allowed to pull over people committing no motoring or other offence when they feel like it?
Second, it's still thin as a reason since, absent any other evidence, it seems "smelling weed" is not a very good reason to suspect a criminal offence is occurring, personal possession being legal and all...
and, of course, wave away blame. It's not the poor studios with their outdated business models based on realities that no longer exist. it's the fault of all those countries making our lives difficult!
Also note the glossing over of the fact that any "regional" laws that do restrict these things are a direct result of industry bri... uh, lobbying
Time and time again, I hear outside observers believe that the startup world is very insular and only focused on their own goals.
I have to wonder if this is because people don't see startups, they see large corporations that have grown out of or fed off startups and selfishness at some point becomes a defining feature of almost every corporation.
The real, and I'd say only important question then is, how many of those (rightly) objecting will refuse to buy the game(s) because of it?
Meh.. haven't bought an Ubisoft title (shelf full of previous ones) since they started the "always on internet" crap. Don't really care whether they've stopped that now, they've already lost me as a customer. Stuff like this just confirms it.