While it does appear excessive, just searching for "weaken trademark name by not suing" will clarify to anyone that they have no real choice.
We've discussed this many times. While you do have to enforce your trademark to keep it, that DOES NOT MEAN you have to sue. (1) It only matters in cases where there's a real likelihood of confusion and (2) you can absolutely just hand out a free license as well.
In it, we also apologize for a key error in this post (and we've noted a correction to the post above as well) in claiming that the courts rely on the annotations. That is not true, and we take full responsibility for not accurately reporting this initially.
The new analysis at the link above, however, does explain why the lawsuit is still highly questionable. Multiple parts of the Georgia government still do point to the annotated law as "the law" and the Copyright Office has made it clear that official edicts of state governments are not subject to copyright. And everyone agrees that the annotated code is the "official" annotated code of the government. There is much more at the link above, but we still apologize for the initial error in this post.
I love how in this context you feel comfortable saying there should be no copyright, while you're too ashamed to just admit you feel that way generally.
Weird. I say that there should be no copyright for laws/regulations because that's what I believe.
I don't say it generally because I don't believe it generally, and it's downright weird that you keep insisting I must believe that even when this has been explained to you multiple times.
I have told you how I really feel: copyright is broken and is vastly over protective. It should be scaled back massively. To what level is something that deserves more study and *I DON'T KNOW* the exact right level so I don't take a definite position on what the *exact proper level* is.
I've told you this before and you insist I'm lying because my accurate and honest response to you doesn't match with the made up "Mike" that apparently haunts your dreams. You should maybe stop listening to the strawman Mike in your head and start joining us here in reality.
The issue here is not the code itself, it's the annotations. An annotated code presents a code section (the law), followed by annotations, then the next section, then its annotations, and so forth.
This is clearly stated in the post, so not sure why you're calling it out in the comments as if we did not.
As an example, a section of the Georgia code makes it illegal to drive while under the influence of alcohol or drugs. In the annotated version, that section will be followed by notes from cases discussing things like how it applies to driving in a parking lot, challenges to the use of the breathalyzer, admissibility of field sobriety tests, etc. These notes will each be a couple of sentences at most, and are (at least usually) prepared by privately-employed editors.
Yes, and if you want people to understand the law, then it's rather important to include that kind of information.
Annotations are not the law. They are not part of the law.
Many people disagree with you. Considering that these are the official annotations, released by the state itself as part of its official code of Georgia, then, yes, they are a part of the law.
If you go to the State Government of Georgia's website and try to find the law, what does it point you to? That's right... the ANNOTATED copy of the law.
So, Mike, if you are so enthusiastic about public access, why do you use such a restrictive method as Document Cloud to make this complaint available, which doesn't even allow for downloading or printing?
1. I linked directly to the filing itself in the story above. It's here:
That was the original link where it says "suing Malamud."
2. Document Cloud does make it available for printing and download, contrary to your claims. The UI could be better, but in the lower lefthand corner there's a square with arrows pointing to the corners. If you click that it opens up a "full screen view" with a variety of options, including downloading the original PDF.
Wait, so what happened to that whole "works produced by the government cannot be copyrighted" thing? Did the State of Georgia just... completely forget the most relevant fact in this entire case?
1. That only officially applies to the federal government, rather than state governments -- though there are reasonable arguments that it *should* also apply to state and local governments.
2. It also does not apply to works created by outside contractors and then assigned to the government. And here, that's what Georgia is claiming. The works were created by LexisNexis and then assigned to the state of Georgia.
LOL. Kim Schmitz made a living dealing in theft and copyright infringement and now we're supposed to break out the pity party for him? F*ck that thief.
No pity party. As the article clearly notes (did you even bother to read it or were you too blinded by your dislike of the guy?), even if you believe he's guilty, and he may be guilty, shouldn't a trial happen first? Are you really against due process? If he's that guilty, what are you afraid of in letting due process take place?
Um, if you want to talk about reality (and I doubt you do), the Supreme Court has held that civil forfeiture DOES NOT violate the Due Process Clause. This is so even if the defendant hasn't been found guilty. THAT'S how due process really works in the real world. Any reason why you don't admit this undeniable fact?
1. This particular case is more about the fugitive disentitlement question, which you ignore.
2. Do you automatically think that everything the Supreme Court says is just and right?
3. Do you think *this* situation was really "due process"?
"scarce hardware" is in the difference between "scarcity" (i.e., limited resources) which hardware definitely is. No one said it wasn't commodity parts, but those are still scarce items.
The "betting against Apple" line was part of an explanation for why I thought Apple *wouldn't* succeed in the long term, not why it would as your comment implied. I was explaining that, yes, Apple has gotten a lot right in the last few years, but that doesn't mean it will continue, which I thought was clear if you listened to the overall podcast.
The reason the medallion system exists is to limit the amount of cars in Manhattan during business hours.
That's the official reason given. But studies for years have shown that it's bullshit and that you could increase the number of cabs in the city, which would decrease costs and increase the ability to get around and the city never budged. It became clear that the medallion system was about keeping competition limited.
The city cannot handle the traffic a bunch of Uber drivers cruising for fares will generate.
And yet... it has. After years of no increase in medallions, with current medallion owners claiming any increase would kill traffic flow in NYC, Uber showed up, added thousands of cars... and there was no serious issue.
Don't see how this will help when your Uber driver is stuck in traffic for an hour trying to pick you up when the UN General Assembly is in town.
One of our biggest critics once won most insightful, though I'm having trouble finding the exact post where it happened... I forget the exact context as well, but I believe people basically asked him for a legitimate critique, rather than his usual trolling and he provided one and people voted for it. And then he went back to trolling.