Corporations can own copyrights, however (IANAL) I don't believe a corporation can create a copyright. Most of the terminology being used around the creation of this copyright seems IMO to be able to be summed up as "only a natural person can create a copyright."
A corporation is not a "natural person", it's just "a person". (there's an interesting Wikipedia article on where this whole "a person" vs "a natural person" came from.)
Usually in employment contracts with corporations, there are contractual terms that pass on the copyright of any work created while employed by the corporation to the corporation. Therefore a natural person created the copyrights (i.e. did the creative work over which there are copyrights), with the ownership, via contractual agreement, being transferred to the corporation. Therefore the corporation itself is not an actor, therefore it did not create the copyright.
Therefore creating a corporation would still not solve the issue of which actor created the copyright in the first place. The actor would still be the monkey, which not being a person (let alone a natural person) can not imbue its works with copyright status, therefore there would be no copyright to transfer to the company.
...you have to use the mark in commerce to get a trademark at all...
1) Make a screen-printing mask for the trademarked term; 2) Open up an ecommerce website that sells t-shirts with the screen-printed trademark on it for $1000.00 each; 3) If anyone is stupid enough to order a shirt, you have the mask to make one of the t-shirts, thank you $1000.
You are now using the term in commerce.
However, one thing I have noticed, if this is the case, why/how do companies get trademarks for unreleased/unannounced products? They aren't currently using the term in commerce as the product/service is unreleased, sometimes even secret/unknown. This is often how new products/strategies get leaked when observant people notice a whole slew of similar trademark applications are lodged by a company for no known (but sometimes rumoured) product.
but don't pretend that 180 hours is a "sample request"
Hmm, let's see.
There are 168 hours in a week, so 5 weeks is 168x5 = 840 hours.
The NYPD has about 35k cops. I don't know what % of the cops (assuming it's not every cop) who wears body cams. But let's take a really lowball guesstimate. Say that on average at any 1 time there are 100 cops wearing body-cams.
180 hours of 84,000 is 0.21% of the total footage.
0.21% of total recorded footage fits my definition of "a sampling".
While I agree with and believe that 25Mbps is a better definition of broadband than the old 6Mbps, I can see why the ISPs would be "miffed" with this reclassification.
When the government comes out with a standard, ANY standard, then business will conform with that standard (leaving out the typical cost-cutting, dodging, and out-right fraud elements that is...).
If the building code says you have to have build to a specific standard, buildings will be built to that standard, not beyond that standard. They won't build a typical house or building to take a magnitude 9 earthquake, because the standard doesn't require them to build to withstand a magnitude 9 quake.
If a road-construction contractor is contracted to build a 4-lane highway that can take 5000 cars/hour, support trucks of up to 60feet long and weighing 50tonnes, they are NOT going to build a 6-lane highway that can handle 10000 cars/hour and can support 100foot-long 120tonne trucks.
If the FCC says you have to build out the broadband network, and they define broadband as 6Mbps...well they are going to invest in ADSL1-equivalent technologies and build their communications networks to handle ADSL1 loads. They are not going invest in/buy ADSL2+, DOCSIS3, FTTN, FTTP etc. Why? Because they built to the standard as laid down.
Changing the standard then running around saying "you don't comply to the standard" is a tad unfair.
They should have incrementally changed the standard over a number of years - 10Mbps, 3 years later 15Mbps, 3 years later 20Mbps... and so on, and let the ISP/Telco's know that was their plan and timetable.
Of course, if there was actual and real competition in the market this would not be an issue...
There are 2 types of BES servers, 'public', which are owned and operated by BlackBerry, and private, which are purchased from BlackBerry and owned and operated by private organisations. BlackBerry can access and decrypt communications that use the public BES servers, as BlackBerry manages those and holds the keys. However, BlackBerry cannot decrypt communications that use the private BES servers, unless the administrators of those servers do it or provide the master keys of those servers.
It is these public BES servers that BlackBerry has agree to decrypt for the Indian government, not the privately owned and operated BES servers.
Large organisations (large enterprises, government agencies and so on) that use BlackBerries install their own Blackberry Enterprise Server (BES).
Blackberry the company doesn't have access to these BES servers. It is these servers that control and funnel the encryption between the users of blackberry devices connected to the same BES server. Each 'owner' of the BES server sets it up and initiates the encryption, keys, and so on. But the administrators of these BES servers CAN decrypt the communications between 'their' blackberry handsets, as they hold the master keys. That way, a 3rd-party (defined as someone outside the organization who owns the BES, including BlackBerry itself) cannot decrypt communications (without hacking the BES server etc). But the organization itself who owns the local BES can decrypt it's employees communications.
There are 'public' BES servers, these are owned and operated by BlackBerry. These public servers are what are used if someone just goes and buys a blackberry off the shelf and uses it on the 'public' mobile network. It is THESE that BlackBerry can decrypt, since they are the owners and operators of the public BES servers and hence hold the keys. However BlackBerry cannot decrypt the communications of those who purchase, install, operate and use their own BES servers, as they don't have the keys for those.
Of course, this assumes the operators of the BES servers don't leave the default keys/passwords in place and actually take the time to properly set up and secure the BES server and the master keys ;)
I don't find it appealing in that or any other department. I don't know why I would buy or use the nOb for anything in the programs I use. This one is too pretentious,
So, because you have no use for this it is pretentious?
I can see where, if this was much, much cheaper, it could be useful. Just within windows control/configuration there are often many sliders, e.g. in colour adjustments (saturation, brightness, contrast and so on) there are often sliders with tiny increments that can be hard to get the correct value by clicking or clicking-and-dragging. Sometimes games have similar adjustments that require fine control. This would make it easy to use, if it was much cheaper.
However, that being said, I could see using just their software with standard scroll-wheel mouses. So, rather than hovering over a control, then reaching over for the nOb (having to take hands off the mouse if using the same hand and reaching over to the nOb), just mouse over the control, and the scroll-wheel then becomes the adjustment for the control. Could be a simple keyboard shortcut (e.g. hold down ctrl while using the mousewheel) or similar. Don't really need a separate device. All the functionality of the nOb itself could be replaced by using the mouse scroll-wheel.
DMCA is also a US process, not an internationally recognized process. Therefore using the DMCA process is invoking US law to pull the material down, therefore US law applies, therefore fair use applies.
A DMCA notice requires the signer to swear under penalty of perjury that the allegedly offending material is breaching some copyright.
I find it hard to believe that an intellectual property lawyer could argue ignorance of the statutes such that: 1) they do not know the difference between copyright and trademark; 2) that they do not know that DMCA notices apply to copyrights only (and hence not trademarks); 3) that the allegedly infringing material is a copyright and not a trademark.
I think committing perjury is exactly the sort of thing that the Bar Grieve process was put in place for.
Ignorant of the concepts of freedom, free speech, free society. One does not live up to those ideals by denying those ideals to others. By limiting of deciding that one group can have free speech but another can't. By declaring those who I like can have these rights, and those who I don't like can't. One lives up to those ideals by extending those ideals to others irrespective of their beliefs and culture.
Thoughts, beliefs, ideas, words, knowledge, information are not evil or good. Disseminating such is not good or evil. They just are. It is ACTS that are good or evil.
If we are to use Google as a comparison, this would be more like Google, at the Chinese request, creating a custom portal for the Chinese government that was specifically designed to search down specific classes of dissidents. Not China being able to use the generic search engine with some clever search terms, but Google actively creating a custom portal that was easy to use, that optimized any searches entered into it to search for Falun Gong 'markers' and so-on without the user having to explicitly create the search themselves.
It's not just about Cisco providing bog-standard, stock, generic network equipment with bog-standard firmware and O/S that the Chinese were then free to use/configure at will.
Apparently, Cisco did more than just sell some products to the Chinese. The suits are alleging that Cisco took an active role in configuring, tuning, and customizing the devices specifically for tracking and hunting down Falun Gong members. It is being alleged that Cisco KNEW the customizations they were creating for the Chinese were for hunting down dissidents. That Cisco went beyond being a mere supplier of kit.