"This is the same technology the armed forces use to help soldiers kill the enemy. All we're saying is, 'Don't sell it to kids,'" he told The San Jose Mercury News in 2008. So it turns out he knew what he was talking about after all!
At first I thought it was just because I look like Dave Grohl that everyone was coming up to me, but the questions were all about where to find 8TPI 3" lag bolts, gluten-free Portland cement, interior latex matte polka-dot paint, and not a single autograph request. Then I realised I'd worn an orange T-shirt when I went to Home Depot.
How about you give up all the crappy Google translations and ask the people here (among whom sufficient language skills exist to cover most foreign stories covered here) to translate properly? There's an opportunity for you to personally demonstrate CwF/RtB, perhaps even shelling out a few bucks (or Amazon list fulfillment) for the more prolific?
Bonus to you for asking for some legal summaries and why decisions make sense in the local, non-US context (Germany's privacy laws come to mind).
Oh noes! You called me a troll! So you probably don't realise that Mike's posted stories I've submitted.
You're totally cool with Mike sacrificing his integrity for page views. I don't really give a shit about his SEO and constant self-referential links. That's the game. But what does bother me is the bullshit sensationalism he resorts to and his utter unwillingness to accept that the EU has different laws, just like US states have different laws.
Feel free to be a boot-licking sycophant. It does me no harm. But know that if you dare make a claim about me I will respond. You toady.
The only thing this C&D shows is that the lawyer has read Techdirt or Groklaw. There is no legal case, not even a "trade dress" claim. Not only was no trademark infringed upon, the basic design is a part of popular culture, something the letter admits.
But the sheep here, just like at reddit and /. and everywhere else, are lining up to say how great the company sending out baseless C&Ds is, not understanding the law nor even that "Jack Daniel Distillery, Lem Motlow Prop, Inc." is the company name because Lem was playing games when he registered the company but that it's actually owned by one of the largest US booze consortiums. They also don't realise that JD today is nothing like JD of decades past, the recipe having been changed drastically twice, once to knock the alcohol down to the standard 43% and a second time in the '90s to "tune" the flavour to give it more mass appeal.
The "superpriemium" Single Barrel version tasted almost the same as the stuff in the 1950-something bottle of JD I once had.
1) This is yet another sensationalist item designed to attract views.
2) European countries are not the US and have different legal systems, something Mike loves when it's in line with his opinions and something he doesn't understand when not.
He can bitch and moan about the WSJ all he wants. At the end of the day he's no better.
> and you think that if the guy wins the case... the US entertainment industries wont be on that EU ruling like flies on shit, do you?
Europe. Is. Not. The. US. Get it through your noggin. We don't give a flying fuck what the US entertainment industry thinks or wants. That's how we keep blocking and repealing most of the Hollywood-written legislation they manage to occasionally get through.
> grow up!!
Such a convinciong, perhaps even bulletproof argument from someone whose writing style shows himself to be not yet half my age. Truly I have been schooled.
Why do you insist on describing EU and other non-US legal systems and actions in US terms? There are different precedents, concepts, federal-like limitations and legal codifications over here.
Neij and the lawyers are working within the Swedish and EU systems, using existing laws and definitions to handle a case over here what a District Court in the US might be hearing in which a lower court overstepped its boundaries &/or failed to take into account overriding legal concerns & conditions.
Obama more than once mentioned his cred as a professor of Constitutional law. And now he has a job which not only should test this knowledge but also allows him to tailgate on the (unconstitutional) idea of executive orders, none of which he'll actually issue to fix shit? Can someone please fill in the the blank spots for me?