Hi there, champ. I wrote the article. I'd be more than interested in hearing where I factually got something wrong with respect to trademark law. While I do write about trademark law roughly all the damn time, it wouldn't surprise me if I had made some error. What DID surprise me is that you thought that leaving this vague and specifics-free comment was in any way helpful, interesting, or useful.
"Although truth be said, the D probable candidate is just marginally better."
This line of false equivalency needs to end. I absolutely HATE Clinton, but comparing the candidates makes the choice between them clear.
1. Hillary: a liberal democrat demagogue with an insane amount of experience, even though she's a proven liar.
2. Trump: a liberal republican demagogue with zero experience, even though he's a proven liar.
So, the only way choosing Trump over Clinton makes sense is if you value the word "republican", which is meaningless in terms of actual policy, more than you value experience on the political stage, or if you actually think that having experience as a politician is a huge negative.
This isn't political; it's essentially a math equation where only one answer makes any fucking sense. I may disagree with those that support other candidates, such as Bernie, Cruz or Rubio. Hell, I may disagree with Clinton supporters depending on whom she's running against. But I will never understand how a liberal New Yorker with zero moral standing, zero experience, and a policy platform that has historically been liberal is somehow convincing republican voters to vote for him. There is simply no rational explanation for it.
"The problem of print at home tickets is that it's very easy to set your printer to make more than 1 copy at a time. You could give those copies to friends (or sell them) and each of the tickets would appear valid on it's face. Home printing quality can vary as well, so it's not easy to judge the validity of the ticket by it's printing, paper, or other special marks (such as say a hologram on an official ticket)."
Um, have you ever been to a sporting event using a printed at home ticket? There's a bar code on it scanned at the gate that's only good once. Peeling off twenty copies of a ticket and scalping them off would indeed be a problem.....THAT THE CORPORATE SECONDARY MARKET FIXES BY GUARANTEEING THE TICKETS. The value of a Stub Hub is that it acts as a filter for the shady folks outside the stadium and handles the transfer. Hell, some secondary marketplaces GUARANTEE the tickets are legit.
What the Yankees are doing here is creating MORE fraudulent scalping, not less....
I know I'm biased as a Techdirt writer, but this is one of the best pieces I've read on this site or elsewhere. It's difficult to weave humor into a piece that ought to make one angry, but this is brilliant....
"And your arrogance is evident in the fact that you call them Navajo in the title whilst quoting them as wishing to identify as Diné in your article. This alone proves you don't, and probably can't, understand the dynamics of bi/multi cultualism."
Hi there, friend. Quick question: are you a stupid person? Because calling me arrogant for referring to The Navajo Nation, a group created by the Diné, so-named by the Diné in official government papers (such as what this entire fucking post was a bout), and whose OWN GOVERNMENT EMBLAZONS ON THEIR OWN GOD DAMNED POLICE VEHICLES is about as fucking stupid a comment as I can think of.
"The Judge clearly states that this isn't a free speech ruling. It's a ruling on releasing confidential information.... that CMP willingly signed agreed to and is bound to the terms of."
First, the judge says nothing of the sort, and even acknowledges that this has implications for CMP's right to speech. 2nd, we discussed the validity of holding CMP to the confidentiality agreement they signed elsewhere, and it still doesn't change my opinion that this constitutes prior restraint, when the proper outcome would be CMP releasing the videos and then getting their asses handed to them for defamation and/or breach of confidentiality, should that be proven.
"Boom drop the Microphone.... 95 posts arguing back and forth and few including the OP could be bothered by reading the judges ruling."
It appears YOU didn't read it, actually, since you've completely mis-characterized what the judge said and then didn't even bother to address my central point: that prior restraint of journalism, even bad journalism, isn't a preferable outcome compared with allowing CMP to release the videos and then deal w/the consequences after words.
So pick your microphone back up and hit yourself over the head with it until you can come up with a cogent thought....
Heh, you have it exactly backwards. The blackouts now happening are regional, where you can't stream the games online when you're IN the city in which they're played, or the surrounding area. The theory is that those people should be watching the TV broadcast, or going to the game, and streaming would take away that revenue. As you say, it's outdated....
"It wasn't CMP who said they were breaking the law. They were just saying it's a hideous and immoral act."
So, two things. First, it isn't true that CMP didn't claim PP was breaking the law. In fact, they were in court in Texas arguing that very thing: that this all amounted to the sale of body parts and constituted a violation of the law. Turns out they were indicted for the solicitation of body parts themselves instead, as they attempted to get PP to sell to them (which they didn't, because they only transact in fetal tissue with well-regulated groups, as the law allows). What the law allows is for PP to collect a fee for the tissue to cover processing and shipping. Processing of tissue is quite expensive, because it needs to be handled as biohazard material, it is typically isolated for specific cells, etc.
Second, I'm not certain where exactly the immorality in this transaction is? What PP does is take aborted fetuses and, with the permission of the abortion patient, give them to research groups for the afore mentioned fee. Were they to NOT do this, then the tissue would go to no use and be discarded instead. If we assume that the abortion is going to happen because it is legal, WHY IS DISCARDING THE TISSUE A PREFERENTIAL OUTCOME COMPARED WITH CONDUCTING RESEARCH USING IT?
If your point is the abortion never should have been allowed in the first place, that's a valid stance to take. But, with abortion currently being legal, I'm struggling to see exactly where the immorality is in getting the tissue in the hands of researchers?