An identifying Mark is very specific. Changes in such factors as the colors used is enough to be a different mark. Now they are similar, and a court might agree that they are close enough to retain the mark, but by a strict legal reading, the radical changes in coloration combined witht he fact that no 2 color schemes are the same from what i can tell, suggests that this is not an identifying mark.
In my opinion, there is a distinct difference. When you see a Netflix show, you know Netflix paid for it. Youtube Red? You know they paid for it. (have they paid for exclusive content that didn't go under the Youtube Red banner?
With Facebook Live, the choice of streaming venue is assumed to be natural. If someone streams live over youtube Gaming or twitch, you dont assume they are getting paid to use that specific platform. Same with Facebook Live. I never knew that the reason I was suddenly turning off all these Live notifications was potentially because they were getting paid for it. Each one that used it drew attention to that platform. And if they did not naturally choose that specific platform, then my decisions as to which streaming platform I might consider using are influenced. It advertises the platform, because in streaming you don't assume the content is paid for by the platform.
I'm confused. what rights does the IOC claim Mexico violated? Its not copyright, because the person who filmed the video has that. Do they claim like the NFL that despite no contract existing between an attendee of the games and the authoritative body that the authoritative body owns all footage of the event? Im lost.
Could you provide a source on the gun control language? Because my searches online only turn up someone saying "I don’t know that it’s there. I’m just assuming that a guy that’s done everything he can heretofore with his pen, as he said he would do, will do it again when he’s given a blank check", which while provocative, does not cite TPP text leaks, and, despite a lot of rhetoric the only thing I can remember that Obama did 'with his pen', is the AFT clarifying that all gun sales are subject to background checks.
Yes, Mr. Trump. Lets Magically cut off the internet for any terrorists, while keeping the internet up for everyone else. Ive got just the button its just that no one's asked me to use the "no terroists" Button before. Of course, we'll be preventing our intellegence agencies from gathering all that terrorist chatter that is the supposed reason for all that mass data collection, so we'll probably want to shut that down, unless we have some sort of ulterior motive for the collect it all mentality?
Mainly because it is too early for that motion. First there is the injunction as part of the initial filing, then the motion to dismiss, THEN the motion for attorney's fees. And that's assuming the obvious dismissal occurs. You cant file for attorney's fees before the case is over.
I predict it will go to the supreme Court. They will accept the case then punt on the issue of civil forfeiture by ruling with the descent in the appeals case, and ruling they cant issue an advisory opinion/
"I know Masnick is going to censor my comment for 24 hours because he can't stand it when the police are allowed to do their jobs." based on timestamps you were censored for more than an hour, because people could view and respond.
I was paying $12 a month for access to CW shows. The DCTU was worth it to me. Im off subscription because it is summer, and so the only thing I was watching was The Daily Show which I could get free. But its not enough to get me to resubscribe, and if they lost CW, i'm gone. but I dont like netflix exclusivity, because it means waiting until fall 2017 at the earliest before seeing any of the upcoming seasons. Hulu and Netflix had for me different purposes, and both got my money. To see them trying to compete against each other when they aren't in the same market is infuriating.
Lets just ignore the fact that for months leading up to Obama issuing his Executive orders on Immigration, Republicans had constantly rejected any type of Immigration reform, and then demanded obama solve immigration reform. So he did.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Look, on the screen! It's a commentor, it's a visitor, it's...
you call me out for a strawman for pointing out that you are attacking articles which seem to support the positions you support, and then say i am telling you to shut up, when i never said you should stop talking?
You say you support anti-monopolistic regulations, but you are bashing Techdirt for supporting it. Why are you so instant that techdirt can't support regulations that you yourself support?
No, jury nullification is a by product of our justice system, not an intentionally designed part of it.
my point was that even if he sticks to his guns instead of accepting a plea deal (unlikely) and the DA takes the case (unlikely) and the judge doesn't throw it out (unlikely), Jury nullification still wont save him from the thousands in medical bills he earned from that beating, and wont bring the cops to justice. so how is jury nullification a solid answer to this case?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Look, on the screen! It's a commentor, it's a visitor, it's...
Except as those articles shows its not. legislation designed to prevent abuse of monopolistic positions is viewed positively, but by your own admission you like that kind of regulation. On the other hand, the majority of articles about 'regulation' are against them. In a non-regulated, high captial investment market like Broadband, you will eventually get monopoloistic practices. You need to legislate anti-monopolistic regulations. You admit this. Thats the only time Techdirt has ever supported legislation. But its regulation so you are attacking techdirt for it.